I know that among fans, soaps and especially daytime dramas, are often thought of as long running series-- vehicles of entertainment that span generations.

In reading posts from very knowledgeable connoisseurs like many that participate on this message board, as well as perusing blogs like We Love Soaps, I often see a slew of daytime serials that lasted briefly, spanning a couple of years, rather than decades.

This made me wonder whether so many daytime dramas going off the air in less than five years, could this (at all) contributed to the perception somehow that the soaps were not as valuable as other entertainment? That it is somehow disposable?

On this board, I know we've discussed the fact that in the early days, pioneers like Irna Phillips and other pivotal writers, performers in the medium were women and that the audience had been predominantly women and as a result the genre could easily be dismissed and disparaged by the male TV executives of the day. And I know sexism must have contributed to the notion among industry that soaps were somehow light entertainment that babysat bored housewives.

But I wonder if so many daytime soaps, coming and going in short spans of time, may have contributed to the notion that this genre was not as valuable as others? Or is the very nature of Television disposable to begin with?

I know primetime series go off the air all the time, some in record time (e.g. Lucky 7) but when you look at the level of esteem that a long running series like M*A*S*H got vs. Guiding Light when each went off the air, there is a definite difference in perceived societal value.

This is more an 'Inside Baseball' question as I wonder about the mindset of the people closest to the entertainment industry (media executives, TV critics, etc) and how they look at things.

Perhaps this question can't truly be answered at all, now that I think about it.

Still, I know there are so many knowledge people (historians, more like) who have read a lot of biographies and articles over the years that may offer insight, so I wonder what you all think?

Sorry if I rambled on. I have yet to master the art of creating concise posts.

I think it's always been more disposable to the suits than viewers may have realized. There were a select number of shows that were popular enough to last a long time. Or other shows lasted because the network knew nothing else more popular would take their place.

Only a handful of company and network bigwigs have ever seen the potential of soaps and respected them on their own merits.

Edited October 5, 201312 yr by DRW50

I think it is disposable. They are good and I love seeing the old stuff on YT but when you come down to it they churn out the same stories year after year. If you didn't see anyone trying to steal Sonny Conrinthos' territory in 2003 by blowing up shipments and having personal relationships with Carly--perhaps because you were too young---don't worry because in 2013 the role of Lorenzo Alcazar will now be played by Julian Jerome.

And it isn't just GH. I remember watching AMC and Nina left the show. Palmer is seriously hurt by having no Nina around, so the show reintroduces Nina only they call her Dixie. Now Palmer has someone to play the same types of stories with all over again. Soaps are sort of like potato chips in that you like them while eating them but 20 years from now that bag of Wise chips you buy will be and taste exactly like the bag you bought 10 years ago.

It's ultimately about money. Soaps used to be cash cows. During the 1980's, ABC Daytime advertising profits paid not only for the shows, but funded primetime. So the profits used to be huge. They were respected when they made money for the network.

Ive read before that GH, during the Luke&Laura heyday, and then again during the end of Monty's first run as EP (Anna, Frisco,etc) was responsible for 1/4 of the advertising revenue the network got.

When the soaps started to loose viewers, but still remained expensive to produce, they lost the network support. And some of those network folks were all too happy to take advantage of eliminating those shows than try to turn things around.

I think it is disposable. They are good and I love seeing the old stuff on YT but when you come down to it they churn out the same stories year after year. If you didn't see anyone trying to steal Sonny Conrinthos' territory in 2003 by blowing up shipments and having personal relationships with Carly--perhaps because you were too young---don't worry because in 2013 the role of Lorenzo Alcazar will now be played by Julian Jerome.

And it isn't just GH. I remember watching AMC and Nina left the show. Palmer is seriously hurt by having no Nina around, so the show reintroduces Nina only they call her Dixie. Now Palmer has someone to play the same types of stories with all over again. Soaps are sort of like potato chips in that you like them while eating them but 20 years from now that bag of Wise chips you buy will be and taste exactly like the bag you bought 10 years ago.

I think the format itself can go on forever, it's just what you do with it. Soaps in the past used to know how to retire or freshen characters. If character behaviors repeated themselves, there was a reason for it. I thought it made sense that Palmer would meddle in Dixie's life as he did in Nina's. He couldn't help himself. I thought it was the character.

In Sonny's case, the writing is so empty and Maurice Benard is often so checked out, it feels much more repetitive.

Edited October 5, 201312 yr by DRW50

The thing is daytime soaps haven't evolved at all, I thought PP's reboots of AMC and OLTL were going to do just that, they did in a way, but they crumbled under pressure in terms of content, especially the language, because of the audience STILL not wanting to accept evolution

Edited October 7, 201312 yr by cassadine1991

50s and 60s soaps were a hell of a lot better, and more focused, than most of daytime now.

The soaps are trying to appeal to an audience that hates women, minorities, has no attention span, and has no time for anyone over 40.

Edited October 5, 201312 yr by DRW50

50s and 60s soaps were a hell of a lot better, and more focused, than most of daytime now.

The soaps are trying to appeal to an audience that hates women, minorities, has no attention span, and has no time for anyone over 40.

of course the writing was so much better..

I know that audience they include the bible-thumpers

I know that among fans, soaps and especially daytime dramas, are often thought of as long running series-- vehicles of entertainment that span generations.

In reading posts from very knowledgeable connoisseurs like many that participate on this message board, as well as perusing blogs like We Love Soaps, I often see a slew of daytime serials that lasted briefly, spanning a couple of years, rather than decades.

This made me wonder whether so many daytime dramas going off the air in less than five years, could this (at all) contributed to the perception somehow that the soaps were not as valuable as other entertainment? That it is somehow disposable?

On this board, I know we've discussed the fact that in the early days, pioneers like Irna Phillips and other pivotal writers, performers in the medium were women and that the audience had been predominantly women and as a result the genre could easily be dismissed and disparaged by the male TV executives of the day. And I know sexism must have contributed to the notion among industry that soaps were somehow light entertainment that babysat bored housewives.

But I wonder if so many daytime soaps, coming and going in short spans of time, may have contributed to the notion that this genre was not as valuable as others? Or is the very nature of Television disposable to begin with?

I know primetime series go off the air all the time, some in record time (e.g. Lucky 7) but when you look at the level of esteem that a long running series like M*A*S*H got vs. Guiding Light when each went off the air, there is a definite difference in perceived societal value.

This is more an 'Inside Baseball' question as I wonder about the mindset of the people closest to the entertainment industry (media executives, TV critics, etc) and how they look at things.

Perhaps this question can't truly be answered at all, now that I think about it.

Still, I know there are so many knowledge people (historians, more like) who have read a lot of biographies and articles over the years that may offer insight, so I wonder what you all think?

Sorry if I rambled on. I have yet to master the art of creating concise posts.

Essentially, All soaps begin with a feeling of serenity or tolerance among the cast of characters but with an understanding that there is a deep conflict of some kind within the characters but overall there is an "calmness". Something huge happens that causes chaos out of calmness then every character tries there best to recreate order out of the disorder. Unfortunately, every character like every human has a different view-point on what order is so more conflicts erupt.

Basically, soaps strive to showcase the conman bond in all of humanity: The desire to create order out of disorder.

Anyway, some soaps were better at this and some soaps are worse. I don't think soaps across the board are disposable because the "Meat" of every soap is different. Some focus on social issues, some on family drama, and others on medical drama. The issue is that TPTB either look at what the soaps are on the outside (as I mentioned above) and say "well, there are too many shows that try to prove this point lets dump some of them. The audience can find another soap that can show this" or TPTB don't understand what soaps are about and only look at the stereotype and say, "Well, there are too many shows that have back from the dead's, evil twins, and rehashed plot lines. so lets dump some of them. The audience can find another soap that can show this".

I think the "Reality show VS Soap" debate among the networks or the "Legitimate entertainment VS Soaps (not saying Soaps are illegitimate)" debate among the critics are irrelevant. What the real war is in between the pure analytical mindset VS the Artistic Mindset. That may sound weird and this may sound weird as well but those two mindsets have been at war since the first wise-old caveman decided to tell the first story around the campfire to the present day storytellers who tell there stories in books, movies, and television.

Soaps, like any program, must be profitable to make it. However, networks and local affiliates alike I hope see the brand loyalty to soaps. I firmly believe that soap viewers are much more likely to watch broadcast primetime shows, as well as local news, network morning shows/late night shows, etc.. not to mention that soap viewers are much more dedicated to their show than your average TV show fan. A fan of an average TV show will probably be a fan for two, three, maybe four years... (example.. Glee, Sons of Anarchy, Justified, Grey's Anatomy) Sure, there are exceptions - I'm sure there are many Grey's Anatomy fans who have watched since episode 1 and have stayed watching since and will watch until the show bows out.. but for the most part, viewers come in and out due to storyline, how "hot" the show is in pop culture, etc.. soap fans do this to some degree, but due to the level of dedication and loyalty, soap fans are much more likely to watch for 10 years, 20 years, a lifetime... through good storyline and bad storyline, because they feel such loyalty to their "shows." I think this fact can not and should not be overlooked by network executives End of rant.

Soaps, like any program, must be profitable to make it. However, networks and local affiliates alike I hope see the brand loyalty to soaps. I firmly believe that soap viewers are much more likely to watch broadcast primetime shows, as well as local news, network morning shows/late night shows, etc.. not to mention that soap viewers are much more dedicated to their show than your average TV show fan. A fan of an average TV show will probably be a fan for two, three, maybe four years... (example.. Glee, Sons of Anarchy, Justified, Grey's Anatomy) Sure, there are exceptions - I'm sure there are many Grey's Anatomy fans who have watched since episode 1 and have stayed watching since and will watch until the show bows out.. but for the most part, viewers come in and out due to storyline, how "hot" the show is in pop culture, etc.. soap fans do this to some degree, but due to the level of dedication and loyalty, soap fans are much more likely to watch for 10 years, 20 years, a lifetime... through good storyline and bad storyline, because they feel such loyalty to their "shows." I think this fact can not and should not be overlooked by network executives End of rant.

I agree. Also, soap fans will say they will stop watching for good because of the quality of the show or whatever but it is rare for them to stop watching for over a week. They usually stop because they have to.

Soaps are the TV medium's pulp fiction. They were never created to be long lasting--but just like other forms of pulp fiction, like mainstream comic books, that does not mean some of the better material doesn't float to the top.

The PP soaps didn't crumble because of the audience, they're MIA because they simply don't have the funds at the moment.

Soaps always paid for the more high-profile entertainment. They are the original serialized broadcast drama, the workhorse of generations. Their models and archetypes are constantly exploited to power primetime dramas, yet they're rarely recognized. One way or another they will always be around. The only question is will they get another fair shot at existing on their own terms. That could happen now if the PP soaps pull off a survival, or it could happen in five, ten, fifteen years. One way or another, soap will always be with us.

Edited October 7, 201312 yr by Vee

what I meant was in terms of the dialogue and content like the language

50s and 60s soaps were a hell of a lot better, and more focused, than most of daytime now.

The soaps are trying to appeal to an audience that hates women, minorities, has no attention span, and has no time for anyone over 40.

The Irony is that I have an attention span taht is just as short as any other ADD/ADHD/Aspergers kid yet soaps do hold my attention. Actually, they hold my attention better than anything!!

The thing is daytime soaps haven't evolved at all, I thought PP's reboots of AMC and OLTL were going to do just that, they did in a way, but they crumbled under pressure in terms of content, especially the language, because of the audience STILL not wanting to accept evolution

I know what you mean. In soaps, whenever a man cheats on his wife, the wife usually tries to stay with the man or makes things better. What I mean is, is that in real life, 9 times out of 10, the women will ultimately slam the guy down with divorce papers.