I think Y&R would do well live. It was live to tape in the 70's like a stage play and if there was a minor flub they left it in. If there was a major mistake, they had to wait several hours to get the feed again to retape and that meant everyone had to reshoot the entire show.

If you watch the 1974 Y&R episode posted here you can see a couple of live taping flubs that they ignored or covered for. There is a scene where Jill is on the phone and she slips and says Mrs. Foster before correcting herself and saying Mrs. Chancellor. Later in the episode with Jill in Katherine's house for the first time the background music they are playing stops and you hear a click and another theme starts playing.

And that is why I love classic soap!!!

In real life people have a tendency of calling a teacher Mom or Dad by mistake or we call someone a different name because are mind was drifting somewhere else. Having the shows Live or Live-Tape brings in that realness.

I think that you can connect faster if there are minor imperfections as stated above because people are imperfect. I also think big Hollywood productions seem intimidating because they seem flawless. The problem is that Escapism/perfection sells faster than identification/imperfection.

That said, it is hard to make something like a sound mix-up forgivable because that is a sign of low production qualities. In this day in age everything is so advanced that I don't think those things would happen as much.

Is it really THAT necessary for soaps to be taped? I mean could they be live if they wanted to?? I think it would be interesting for there to be a new show that aired live for the aesthetic value. It really adds a layer of caution and alertness that gives the performance a certain thrill factor.

yes they need to be taped. As technically bad as they can be now, they would be a whole lot worse if live. GH for example would be a hot mess. I also don't think the talent is there to produce quality live shows on a daily basis. Not to mention it would be expensive as hell and none of the shows have the budget to adjust to that.

And that is why I love classic soap!!!

In real life people have a tendency of calling a teacher Mom or Dad by mistake or we call someone a different name because are mind was drifting somewhere else. Having the shows Live or Live-Tape brings in that realness.

I think that you can connect faster if there are minor imperfections as stated above because people are imperfect. I also think big Hollywood productions seem intimidating because they seem flawless. The problem is that Escapism/perfection sells faster than identification/imperfection.

you act like we don't get that now with the shows taped. There are still flubs in dialogue that they just let through as they can't reshoot everything. The only thing live would do is magnify and make this more of a regular occurrence which IMO doesn't need to happen to make the shows feel more authentic. If anything all these errors take me out of the scene more, especially if it's a big flub and the actor stays in character without correcting themselves. For example on AMC this past fall Angie said something about 5 year old Lucy getting a job and moving to Seattle by herself. If this was real life she would have instantly corrected herself or Jesse would have but they played the mistake straight and acted like nothing was wrong even though it was glaring.

Edited December 5, 201312 yr by Cheap21

Few shows in general even tape live. Not even all music shows, award shows or parades tape live anymore. So much is pretaped. I know this past summer TVLAND did a live episode of Hot in Cleveland. I can't remember if it did well or not.

I disagree about those flubs bringing realness. It takes me out of a scenes when one of those flubs islet through where an actor's name is said instead of the character's name.

To be perfectly candid, although I can't speak about Days of Our Lives since I've never been a viewer, but of the other 3 soaps on air that I've watched, I don't think any can pull off a good compelling live show.

There are certain actors who could probably pull it off, but as a whole there are a lot more who I believe could never pull this off.

I think I may be very picky but the standard for daytime dramas now, is below what I consider to be truly very good.

Edited December 6, 201312 yr by DramatistDreamer

Was Gary Tomlin in charge when oltl went live?

The OLTL live stunt was so well received, I'm shocked nobody tried to copy that. In the UK their soaps in recent years have LOVED doing live episodes. I think it could be a huge event, especially as a special primetime episode or something.

Was Gary Tomlin in charge when oltl went live?

Yes he was EP at the time

DAYS could go live. Although it's taped, it's taped in single takes for the most part, so the actors all do their scenes with that kind of pressure. All things considered, the actors on DAYS do a hell of a job.

The greatest aspect of a live soap is the fact the stories are character driven. Plot driven stories of car accidents, explosions, ect.. are not logistically possible on a live show. The storylines of a live soap let emotions drive the story, not elaborate sets built for events to drive a storyline that happen far too often on taped shows.

If a soap were to go back to live episodes, it would work best for a 1/2 hour soap, an hour show is too much to do live everyday.

I see your point CCCapwell. You bring up a very interesting aspect.

I see this when I watch clips on YT of classic soap episodes. There seemed to be revelation through a lot more personal methods. I think conflicts and confrontation could definitely still happen within these parameters but it would be more 'mano a mano' where the 'explosion' would be personal instead of relying on outside pyrotechnics like car crashes and explosions. Most soaps these days lack the budget to do a proper car accident/explosion anyway.

Going live would be too expensive if the shows have to be shot in sequence. Block taping scenes is way cheaper and faster.

I think you've misunderstood, SouthofSoap. I don't think anyone is suggesting that the remaining 4 soaps switch to a live format--they can barely afford their costs in their present state. This is speculation as to which soaps (past & present) would thrive or at least present good entertainment in the live format.

At least on my part, I wasn't suggesting a switch of format.

I think you've misunderstood, SouthofSoap. I don't think anyone is suggesting that the remaining 4 soaps switch to a live format--they can barely afford their costs in their present state. This is speculation as to which soaps (past & present) would thrive or at least present good entertainment in the live format.

At least on my part, I wasn't suggesting a switch of format.

Sorry, I forgot to quote this post:

Is it really THAT necessary for soaps to be taped? I mean could they be live if they wanted to?? I think it would be interesting for there to be a new show that aired live for the aesthetic value. It really adds a layer of caution and alertness that gives the performance a certain thrill factor.