2 hours ago, SteelCity said:

Who would be open to novela style soaps? 13 weeks, mostly closed ended, but maybe with a few regular characters. Or set in the same soap universe.

Port Charles ended up becoming that. They went from a traditional style to doing 13-week "books." The cast & crew worked half the year. At the same time, they got away from the hospital stories and went for supernatural, gothic themes...time travel...vampires...etc. Even though it was never a big ratings grabber, it did seem to do better, although not everyone was crazy for the supernatural element. But I don't know if it was the shortened format that became the appeal so much as the content and characters. It introduced Michael Easton and Kelly Monaco to ABC through Caleb & Livvie, Frank had a poignant story with "Time In A Bottle", Rafe & Alison became popular. I mean, they pretty much did everything they could to entice the younger crowd...especially the whole sexy vampire, beautiful love interest thing. But they also played fast and free with relationships, turning them on a dime, Kevin was somewhat villainized to prop up Ian, Lucy was a vampire slayer...basically, characters were altered to fit the stories. Ultimately, PC seemed like a dying patient who rallies at the end but still doesn't make it. 
 

10 minutes ago, Nothin'ButAttitude said:

I do think that teens will watch dramas during the summer if they are compelling. Look at Degrassi. However, I feel like it'll need to be a digital platform to entice young teens. Young teens are more drawn to streaming services than they are actual TV. 

 

Again, I don't think SORASing is a problem when done correctly. People will overlook it if it is done right. That's why I a firm believer that kids in soaps (well most of them) should only be brought out during holidays and sent to the "soap closet" the remainder of the time. Just out sight and out of mind, which'll make it easier to age them. Only time I don't think kids should be aged on soaps is if you have a breakout child star on your hands like Rachel Miner and Bryan Buffington were on GL. Or Kim McCullough was on GH. Or even as currently, Brooklyn Silzer is on GH. Let them age in real time. 

IMO, teens will watch a show that appeals to them regardless of what season it is. Streaming services have rendered the whole "summer is for teenagers" thing outdated. "13 Reasons Why" was released in March, and I never stopped hearing about it for weeks from my students. But I do agree with you that regular TV is not the way to go. Teens and twentysomethings just do not watch a show at a set time anymore. Of course there are some big exceptions, but so many people just wait for a season to show up on Netflix or Hulu or whatever. It just makes all the sense in the world to skip the middleman and go straight for streaming if you're trying to target a younger audience.

As far as SORAS...I'll never get it. You can not complain about older characters who are still viable being on the backburner while also viewing SORAS as necessary. Having children on a soap doesn't mean they need to be in the viewers' faces two or three episodes out of a week. They should be seen when it's appropriate, and their roles should be appropriate. What's the point in having a character become a parent if we never actually see them parent their children or how being a parent changes them? It's the epitome of contrived, plot-based writing, IMO. "Let's do a baby storyline with Character A" in one year, and then five years later, "Uh, let's do a hot teen love story with Character A's daughter for the summer!" and then the next year, "What if Character A's daughter sleeps with Character A's husband!?" It's not about developing characters at all, it's about just throwing them into whatever cliche story they feel like playing with at that time.

19 minutes ago, applcin said:

I mean, they pretty much did everything they could to entice the younger crowd...

By then, it was too late, and everything ABC did for the rest of the decade in the name of trying to get younger viewers was embarrassing failure after embarrassing failure.

How about airing British soaps in the U.S. as a way that might lead to American soaps being produced and written like the UK? Maybe debuting a new American soap that is written/produced similarly. 

Edited July 6, 20178 yr by MichaelGL

We had AMC and OLTL come back online and look how it was treated by the soap fans and press. 

9 minutes ago, MichaelGL said:

How about airing British soaps in the U.S. as a way that might lead to American soaps being produced and written like the UK? Maybe debuting a new American soap that is written/produced similarly. 

That would be awesome 

This topic has given me a great idea for a spin off thread this weekend 

38 minutes ago, cassadine1991 said:

We had AMC and OLTL come back online and look how it was treated by the soap fans and press. 

That was doomed to failure from the start. It was a valiant effort and a nice thing to do for fans but it was like trying to get grandmas to go online (what's "Hula??") while simultaneously trying to convince the kiddos that grandma's show is hip. They were never going to grow an audience. The younger demo wasn't going to suddenly care about a show they didn't watch when it was on tv and the fans who did follow it online were disappointed that their favorites (Erica, Kendall, Tad, etc.) weren't there,plus the gratuitous cursing, newbie faces...it wasn't their soap. I used to hook up the cord from my computer to the tv so my mother could watch AMC but it wasn't the same. And, while I hadn't been a regular viewer for a very long time (of what was actually the first soap I ever watched), I think my favorite thing about the reboot was that we got to see Matthew Cowles reprise Billy Clyde one last time before he died and he seemed to get a kick out of it.

This just made me remember that Alicia Minshew has that online soap "Tainted Dreams." Is it still making episodes? Is anybody watching it? I don't really follow any web-only series at all but I see promos and mentions for "House Of Cards". Most people probably don't even know TD exists....lesser star power and press attention.

I would say that a majority of the online AMC fan community approved of the online show. It wasn't perfect, but it was good for what it was.

Question: how much of the blame for the stagnation of the genre lies on CBS/NBC/ABC?  How much of the blame is on Networks and how much on the Production Companies?

 

It's odd that CBS aggressively promotes being "#1 in Daytime for 30 years" but the quality of their lineup while being lightyears ahead of ABC and NBC Daytime, has seen MUCH better days (no pun intended). One would think that they'd care to keep their daytime lineup in decent shape quality wise. Then again it's prob another case of "if we're #1 that's all we care about"

Edited July 7, 20178 yr by Brick Flair

2 hours ago, All My Shadows said:

As far as SORAS...I'll never get it. You can not complain about older characters who are still viable being on the backburner while also viewing SORAS as necessary. Having children on a soap doesn't mean they need to be in the viewers' faces two or three episodes out of a week. They should be seen when it's appropriate, and their roles should be appropriate. What's the point in having a character become a parent if we never actually see them parent their children or how being a parent changes them? It's the epitome of contrived, plot-based writing, IMO. "Let's do a baby storyline with Character A" in one year, and then five years later, "Uh, let's do a hot teen love story with Character A's daughter for the summer!" and then the next year, "What if Character A's daughter sleeps with Character A's husband!?" It's not about developing characters at all, it's about just throwing them into whatever cliche story they feel like playing with at that time.

 

I don't mind kids on the show, but I personally feel that they only need to be ushered out every blue moon. You can drop a line in here or there about the kids to show that they are raising them. I only feel that kids truly serve a point in soaps when they are ensure to have constant story like the kids I listed in my previous post. Having a child pop up every now and then is pointless. Might as well leave them offscreen for the most part and SORAS them after so many years. 

On 7/4/2017 at 1:54 PM, Nothin'ButAttitude said:

What soaps need to change (and I say this all the time) is coming on 5 days a week. That's where the genre is hurting. Most people don't even watch the full week of episodes nowadays. Most watch 2-3 at the most b/c some days are filled with filler mess. Soaps need to come on Mon, Wed, and Fri. That way the stories will be tighter and encourage the writers to be half-assed. Soaps here also need to take hiatuses or have finales like Aussie soaps do. From late Dec to mid Jan, soaps need to be off the air. That'll give everyone on the show time to rejuvenate. 

 

B&B is the only soap I still watch bc regardless of if its bad, its easy to fit into the schedule bc its only a 20 minute commitment each day. Im over the hour long soaps 5 days a week. No one got time for that especially when they all suck

 

3 hours ago, applcin said:

Port Charles ended up becoming that. They went from a traditional style to doing 13-week "books." The cast & crew worked half the year. At the same time, they got away from the hospital stories and went for supernatural, gothic themes...time travel...vampires...etc. Even though it was never a big ratings grabber, it did seem to do better, although not everyone was crazy for the supernatural element. But I don't know if it was the shortened format that became the appeal so much as the content and characters. It introduced Michael Easton and Kelly Monaco to ABC through Caleb & Livvie, Frank had a poignant story with "Time In A Bottle", Rafe & Alison became popular. I mean, they pretty much did everything they could to entice the younger crowd...especially the whole sexy vampire, beautiful love interest thing. But they also played fast and free with relationships, turning them on a dime, Kevin was somewhat villainized to prop up Ian, Lucy was a vampire slayer...basically, characters were altered to fit the stories. Ultimately, PC seemed like a dying patient who rallies at the end but still doesn't make it. 
 

Kelly Monaco as Livvie pre-dated the arc format on PC

Edited July 7, 20178 yr by Cheap21

14 minutes ago, Cheap21 said:

B&B is the only soap I still watch bc regardless of if its bad, its easy to fit into the schedule bc its only a 20 minute commitment each day. Im over the hour long soaps 5 days a week. No one got time for that especially when they all suck

 

And you don't have to watch B&B 5 days a week since they repeat the same dialogue on every single episode.

1 hour ago, Brick Flair said:

It's odd that CBS aggressively promotes being "#1 in Daytime for 30 years" but the quality of their lineup while being lightyears ahead of ABC and NBC Daytime, has seen MUCH better days (no pun intended). One would think that they'd care to keep their daytime lineup in decent shape quality wise. Then again it's prob another case of "if we're #1 that's all we care about"

 

It is absolutely a case of "We're #1 and that's all that matters," and I don't blame them one bit. No matter what anyone says, quality is subjective, but ratings are not. They don't care if people are only "hate-watching." It's like, "Bruh, is you watching the show? Okay then, byeeee." None of your complaints matter at all if you're still watching.

 

1 hour ago, Nothin'ButAttitude said:

I don't mind kids on the show, but I personally feel that they only need to be ushered out every blue moon. You can drop a line in here or there about the kids to show that they are raising them. I only feel that kids truly serve a point in soaps when they are ensure to have constant story like the kids I listed in my previous post. Having a child pop up every now and then is pointless. Might as well leave them offscreen for the most part and SORAS them after so many years. 

It's just one of those things that I've learned to agree to disagree with people on. 

57 minutes ago, Soapsuds said:

And you don't have to watch B&B 5 days a week since they repeat the same dialogue on every single episode.

That's my problem with B&B. Every time I've tried to watch I ended up tuning out only to tune in months later to watch an episode with almost the same exact dialogue and storyline going on. I swear Katie had the same storyline 3 summers in a row!

2 minutes ago, frequentsoapfan said:

That's my problem with B&B. Every time I've tried to watch I ended up tuning out only to tune in months later to watch an episode with almost the same exact dialogue and storyline going on. I swear Katie had the same storyline 3 summers in a row!

They had her go nuts for no apparent reason. It was never explained why except for the interview by Bradley Bell saying Katie was having a bad day thus pulling out that gun and then he laughs after saying that.....how tacky. Proves what a lousy head writer he is.

1 hour ago, Cheap21 said:

B&B is the only soap I still watch bc regardless of if its bad, its easy to fit into the schedule bc its only a 20 minute commitment each day. Im over the hour long soaps 5 days a week. No one got time for that especially when they all suck

 

I don't mind 1 hour soaps if they were 3 days a week if they were written concise and to the point. If you have an hour show, nothing should be filler.