Things Soaps Use To Do, That You Think They Should Bring Back ?

[All My Shadows]

Yesssss. I tell my friends all the time that I could watch two characters sit at a kitchen table and talk for a full hour and never get bored if the writing and acting are good. I savor that in every classic soap I ever watch.

I love old soap episodes that begin not with the resolution of a cliffhanger but with just some mundane event that works its way through some character-building stuff to whatever story might be relevant. A good example is the November 1979 of AMC were Tom confronts Erica over the pills. IIRC, it starts with a relatively lengthy exterior shot of Langley driving up to the Wallingford Mansion before going into he and Phoebe snobbing around before the story turns to Langley's connection to Myrtle. I guess what I want is just that fun, character-based stuff that isn't solely tied to plotplotplotplotplot. It gives the characters a chance to breathe and really humanizes them, even if they're written in a very over-the-top way.

[juppiter]

Soaps need to attract a younger audience to stay alive. Having an announcer is too old school for younger viewers. Better sets is just not realistic with the lower budgets of today and I give soaps (especially DAYS) a pass on this just so long as they don't resort to Peapack. Classic openings were great but the network demands more time for commercials now than they did 20 years ago.

[SFK]

Exactly, exactly... I love how Nixon and Lemay didn't shy away from these delightful bits of character behavior that had nothing to do with driving story so much as giving the audience glimpses of vivid human beings who tickle us just by being who they are while doing the simplest things. (Run-on sentence.)

[ReddFoxx]

Good dialogue. If you look at old episodes of soaps, the dialogue was more polished and extensive, and it actually drove character development and showcasing. There was a scene where Viki, Dorian and Tina found letters from Victor, and it's a good example of the kind of dialogue I'm refering to.

[All My Shadows]

Because we are cousins, I know that you're thinking of Ada dancing with the mop on AW, and I totally agree.

[amybrickwallace]

This applies to primetime shows as well, but I miss actual closing credit crawls and hate the fact that they are smushed so small that not only can you not read the names, but they flash by so fast that there's practically no point in trying to read them. I think the folks who work so hard both in front of and behind the cameras deserve better.

Not only that, we don't get to hear an announcer say, "Watch (soap name) each afternoon on your local (name of network) station" anymore. At least, not last I checked.

[Paul Raven]

I agree with Matt re longer scenes, but only when necessary as often in 'the olden days' scenes would be stretched out for no reason because of live to tape. A mixture of short and long scenes would be a good compromise.

Also, storytelling that offers various viewpoints to a situeation. One of the pleasures of ols soaps was that you saw a lot of different character reactions to an event. Nowadays its either ignored or mentioned in passing.

Using more vet characters-not necessarily front burner but an integral part of the action.

As for those establishing shots,on the one hand they add some realism, but at the same time they bug me in that often the exteriors don't much the interiors and also we see this grand mansion but then have to ook at the same room year after year.

Would like to see more middle class and working class characters rather than uber wealthy

[Khan]

Yep. You know things are rotten when Patrick Mulcahey has to dumb down his scripts.

I, too, miss the days of the extreme close-up. So much drama would turn just from the look on an actor's face. And you would think that with high definition, these people would be all about the close-up, even more so than before. But, high definition is a bitch, and so are Botox and cosmetic surgery.

I also agree about the need again for longer scenes. Unfortunately, that would take time and careful direction, neither of which these cost-conscious soaps can afford anymore. Plus, I question whether most of what passes these days for actors could even hold up under all the intensity or pressure. It's bad enough to watch someone with absolutely no acting experience but a great "rack" or "six pack" struggle through a scene that's under two minutes. Watching them cope with anything longer just might do some of us in, lol.

[ellabelle]

I think it's a question of appropriate balance. I've seen some great long scenes on soaps, and I've seen that lasted way too long for no apparent reason. The same thing goes for close-ups - some is good, too much is bad. In re-watching some early 90s AMC episodes, they really over-used the extreme close up to the point that I really wished the camera could zoom out a little bit - and I was watching on my laptop and not a huge TV. I think those extreme close ups would be even weirder on some of the giant TVs people own now.

[DramatistDreamer]

This goes along with the posters who've called for longer scenes but letting a storyline play out ON CAMERA. So much of what happens nowadays seems to happen Off Camera, as if it's some unimportant throwaway tidbit but often times these are details that people actually would like to see play out On Camera, and soaps used to do this.

Speaking of stories playing out...

Soaps need to get back to the basics of plotting out the backstory of a character and stop making up sh*t as they go along. Have the audience get to know a character before you stick them underneath someone-- I don't need to be preoccupied with who they're going to get with but that's all that seems to be discussed with any new character these days. That's why viewers often don't care and even resent new characters because you just know they're going to be shoved under (or over) another character and eating show time with some ridiculously concocted storyline. There's nothing wrong with holding back until viewers get a sense of who the new guy/gal is before putting them into a major storyline. Or have them in a supporting the supporters role. Let the person's character unfold, if I'm making any sense.

Soaps used to remain true to their characters' personalities unless they had a good reason. Don't just completely change a character's basic personality on a whim or a ratings grab. If you do make a drastic change, it better damn well be justified as well as pay dividends in the storyline and surrounding cast of characters.

Some soaps (I'm looking at you, ATWT in the last decade) brought characters back with a totally new personality, mindset and demeanour. No, that is a totally new effing character! What's worse, the benefit is short term (one storyline) and they have to keep concocting ever more ridiculous stories to try to keep the one that was never worth it to begin with.

Unless the character has developed a complete personality disorder (and it has to be illustrated), a lobotomy, is in the beginning stages of dementia, etc...how can such a drastic change occur? Even if it's a more standard shift (a 'good' girl gone 'bad') there must be a solid justification for this and it needs to play out onscreen.

[ellabelle]

Along with this, not every new character has to be someone's long-lost child, parent, sibling, etc. It works sometimes, but when you use the long-lost relative tie-in too often it loses its effectiveness, and it results in an overly incestuous cast. Sometimes new people need to just be new people. They can be someone's ex-boyfriend (like David Hayward was), or someone's business rival or even someone who is just in the right place to rescue someone (like Dimitri Marick).

Also, not every existing character needs to be related to everyone else. Retconning to make long-term characters suddenly parent and child or siblings, etc., often comes off as contrived. There was no reason for Jack to be Greenlee's father on AMC. It made no sense. Those characters were perfectly acceptable on their own without being turned into father/daughter.

[SoapDope]

I agree. Like that crap on Y&R making Steve Burton a legacy character by having Nikki & Paul be his parents. SB wasn't clicking with the audience and they contrived that mess to shove him down viewers throats.

[RomeAt50]

I could not agree more. Not every scene has to be long but there are conversations and moments that really call for longer scenes.

[Markjeh]

This one definitely! Longer scenes can make a soap so much more intense.

And I know it sounds silly but I really liked it when in an episode nothing was really happening. Nowadays the climax needs to be reached so soon. There's nothing wrong with building things up a few episodes.

Like, for instance, I was watching old ATWT episodes from 2002 when Rose was saved and ready to go home. They filled almost an entire episode with Paul/Craig/Lily/Lucinda and the pilot discussing things about Rose's return before the plane took off. Rose didn't actually walk onto the plane halfway through the second episode.

[All My Shadows]

Yes! Most people will call these "filler" episodes, but I love them. I think it's sort of a reward for regular viewers because we derive so much out of these "nothing is happening" episodes even if a channel surfer who may or may not become a regular viewer decides they're not into the show. I'm reminded of so many episodes of AMC centered around various interactions at the Valley Inn, the plucky little piano tunes playing in the background, characters swirling their alcohol and the tension slowly building. I miss that.

I also miss large sets where several sets of characters can be located and several different stories can play out. The Valley Inn was great for that -- you had the bar, the dining room, one of the guestrooms (usually the one with the red and white striped furniture). That community feeling was alive and well.