What are some of your unpopular soap opinions?

 

Some of mine (I’ll start with the soaps currently on air):

 

B&B:

I was never a huge fan of the Ridge/Taylor pairing.

 

I prefer Liam to Wyatt.

 

DAYS:

EJ was only viable and likable with Nicole.

 

Victor and Maggie haven’t been relevant or needed in decades.

 

Mike and Carrie were so much better than Austin and Carrie.

 

GH:

Elizabeth hasn’t been a likable character since Lucky died in the fire.

 

I never liked the Dante/Lulu pairing and thought he would have been so much better with Sam.

 

Sarah Brown is still the best Carly and her version was the only time I liked the character.

 

Y&R:

Lily and Cane need to break up, she would be better paired with Nick or Billy.

 

Phyllis was only ever somewhat likable during the first round of Jack/Phyllis.

 

Those are some of mine, let me know if you don’t think any of them are all that unpopular. These are what I think seem to be unpopular. What are some of yours?

On 6/1/2018 at 1:48 PM, ajsp35801 said:

 

JM has never been asked to carry a show, though. I don't recall a time where the show was ever centered on him alone. When he got so much feature, it was always next to SC or MS or both. 

 

JM has been asked to carry Y&R though.

 

That was a HUGE part of the reason behind Heather Tom's departure.

 

Nick has essentially been the male lead of Y&R since she left.

2 hours ago, DeeeDee said:

 

JM has been asked to carry Y&R though.

 

That was a HUGE part of the reason behind Heather Tom's departure.

 

Nick has essentially been the male lead of Y&R since she left.

I was told by one of Heather Tom's friends and scene buddies at Y&R that she left because Sony wanted to cut her guarantee so much that she would wind up getting a big pay cut and that's why she quit. 

1 hour ago, mikelyons said:

I was told by one of Heather Tom's friends and scene buddies at Y&R that she left because Sony wanted to cut her guarantee so much that she would wind up getting a big pay cut and that's why she quit. 

 

Every credible account has confirmed what you are saying. Many longtime soap actors have been asked to accept significant cuts to their guarantees since daytime's budgets started plummeting, and many have balked at the idea. Long gone are the days when TPTB would willingly guarantee stars like George Reinholt three appearances a week.

31 minutes ago, vetsoapfan said:

 

Every credible account has confirmed what you are saying. Many longtime soap actors have been asked to accept significant cuts to their guarantees since daytime's budgets started plummeting, and many have balked at the idea. Long gone are the days when TPTB would willingly guarantee stars like George Reinholt three appearances a week.

The friend and scene partner of Heather Tom had their contract up for renewal after and when she quit to the shock of Y&R and Sony, this actor got everything they wanted in negotiations because they didn’t want to lose two high profile actors in succession. 

Most soap actors (especially newbies) have a one or two episode guarantee. The new contracts are horrific based on what the job entails. If they were all half hours, I don’t think most actors would mind because you’d have much more free time. 

Edited June 3, 20187 yr by mikelyons

1 hour ago, mikelyons said:

I was told by one of Heather Tom's friends and scene buddies at Y&R that she left because Sony wanted to cut her guarantee so much that she would wind up getting a big pay cut and that's why she quit. 

She left because they cut her pay and by extension her airtime. Her departure happened right as Y&R (and every other soap) was experiencing huge budget cuts. That's why Nick (and Sharon) was/were elevated to Y&R's primary leads in the aftermath.

39 minutes ago, mikelyons said:

The friend and scene partner of Heather Tom had their contract up for renewal after and when she quit to the shock of Y&R and Sony, this actor got everything they wanted in negotiations because they didn’t want to lose two high profile actors in succession. 

Most soap actors (especially newbies) have a one or two episode guarantee. The new contracts are horrific based on what the job entails. If they were all half hours, I don’t think most actors would mind because you’d have much more free time. 

 

Yes, the networks will keep the guarantees to an absolute minimum because it benefits themselves. Their troubles arise when enormously popular actors with at least perceived drawing power refuse cuts to their number of guaranteed appearances. Sometimes, the actors win and continue with high guarantees, sometimes they end up leaving the shows.

 

Way back in 1966, Joan Bennett had a three-appearance-a-week guarantee at $333.33 per episode for Dark Shadows. Imagine a $52,000.00 yearly from the 1960s adjusted to 2018 dollars. Inflation indexes say it would be $403,121.01. I could live on that!

 

In 1975, superstars George Reinholt and Jacquie Courtney had three-appearances-a-week guarantees which netted them $70,000.00 a year from AW. That's $332,498.65 in today's dollars. I could live on that too.  

 

Knowing that Kim Zimmer, Martha Byrne, and other high-profile actresses had been asked to take guarantee cuts, I wonder what the most popular actors of today are guaranteed. Probably more than untested newbies, but I doubt all the stars are getting three-appearance-a-week contracts.

Edited June 3, 20187 yr by vetsoapfan

4 hours ago, vetsoapfan said:

 

Every credible account has confirmed what you are saying. Many longtime soap actors have been asked to accept significant cuts to their guarantees since daytime's budgets started plummeting, and many have balked at the idea. Long gone are the days when TPTB would willingly guarantee stars like George Reinholt three appearances a week.

Except back then the show was still signing people to good deals.  They, like many PTB at all the shows at that time were almost all devaluing the importance of the women on their shows and letting the men get better deals, better story, and input.

 

GH was one of the worst, but they were almost all doing it.  I think this more than almost anything is what caused the precipitous decline in the genre over the four or five years in the early 2000’s that resulted in ATWT, GL, OLTL and AMC being cancelled.  The lack of focus on stories that women relate to and characters they like to see drove those numbers down.

 

I can think of popular women on each show that quit because of being undervalued.  Even if I didn’t particularly like the performers, plenty of people did.

 

 

4 minutes ago, titan1978 said:

Except back then the show was still signing people to good deals.  They, like many PTB at all the shows at that time were almost all devaluing the importance of the women on their shows and letting the men get better deals, better story, and input.

 

GH was one of the worst, but they were almost all doing it.  I think this more than almost anything is what caused the precipitous decline in the genre over the four or five years in the early 2000’s that resulted in ATWT, GL, OLTL and AMC being cancelled.  The lack of focus on stories that women relate to and characters they like to see drove those numbers down.

 

I can think of popular women on each show that quit because of being undervalued.  Even if I didn’t particularly like the performers, plenty of people did.

 

 

 

 Actually, good point. When costs are being slashed and guarantees being cut, it's often the top-ranked males who fare the best. That's the way so many businesses tend to work: the powerful men get the perks and everybody else in the corporation bears the burden. Actresses like Martha Byrne and Kim Zimmer get hardballed in negotiations. To be fair, it's not ONLY women. Eric Braedon and Tony Geary have spoken openly about being asked to cap their salary expectations. TGL axed Jerry ver Dorn (!!!) even though he was the show's de facto cornerstone, and GH axed Brad Maule and Stuart Damon. But I'll bet the pet men like Mo Bernard and Steve Burton have pretty sweet deals. The men seem to fare better, overall, than even the most popular actresses. Look at the most recent, egregious example: poor Genie Francis, who is more valuable to that show than any of the men, IMHO, but who just got the shaft.

 

it AMAZES me that for decades, the soaps have refused (or at least failed) to give the audiences the kind of stories and characters  they want to see; the kind of material that made soaps popular to begin with and kept them so beloved for decades. I want to watch the shows, I really do, but they are not offering me anything substantial to lure me back in. When was the last time GH was truly memorable, quality television: 1996, under Claire Labine? Y&R: 2006, under Kay Alden? Days: 1982, under Pat Falken Smith? Soap fans are loyal and tenacious...but only for so long. If the PTB do not recognize the importance of keeping our most beloved actresses and characters on screen, and if they let them slip away over cost issues, there will go viewers' last real reason to tune in.

What's the threshold for cancellation these days, anyway? Under a million average viewers? I think NBC and ABC would be happy just running spinoffs of their morning shows throughout the day.

12 minutes ago, Franko said:

What's the threshold for cancellation these days, anyway? Under a million average viewers? I think NBC and ABC would be happy just running spinoffs of their morning shows throughout the day.

 

 I'd love to know that too. Back in the day, shows I once loved like Love is a Many Splendored Thing and Return to Peyton Place had ratings of 7.0. The bar is really set low now. 

Y&R

I love Nick and Sharon

I like the new Kyle.

On 6/2/2018 at 12:11 PM, j swift said:

The creators of most soaps currently on air did not intend for them to last this long and I think the audiance's perceived rigid adherence to history is a contributor to killing the genre.

 

The idea of soap anniversaries and multi-generational storylines was really a creation of 1980's soap producers.  While it is an incredible feat to keep a show on air for more than 30 years, we have all seen repeated plots, characters who lack development, and tired old sets.  We are nostalgic for the golden age of soaps and maybe we keep watching with the hope that those times will return.

 

In the 1970's producers were more creative with developing new soap operas.  There were interesting experiments, spin-offs, and many flops, but it maintained a freshness that seems to be lacking in today's shows.  Every network tried a new soap so there were a variety of entry points for new fans. 

 

I often think that if Chuck Pratt got to create a new soap about mobsters we would have appreciated it more than trying to make GH into The Sopranos.  Similarly, if Linda Gottlieb had an opportunity to create a contemporary soap from scratch with Michael Malone's writing it may have been amazing.  I also think it would be less jarring for the audience if soaps ended and new ones began every few years.

 

Instead we get ingenues in their 40's, on their 18th marriage, with an audience who demands that writers, who weren't born when the characters were introduced, maintain their personalities and recall every detail of their history.

Yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes. I did a lot of pondering on this a few years ago when GL, ATWT, AMC, and OLTL drew to a close. We were mourning shows that had been on the air 40+ years, which was a huge a loss, but they had been on the air 40+ years. Did we expect them to last forever and ever, amen? TV shows with low ratings get cancelled. A TV show that started hot and fizzled after two seasons goes down in history mostly as a flop; a TV show that began on radio and was broadcast for 72 years meeting its end on television is not a flop by any definition of the term at all.
 

12 hours ago, vetsoapfan said:

By the time ANY of today's remaining four soap operas premiered, the  genre had been thriving for more than 30 years. When William J. Bell created B&B in 1987, TGL had been marching along for a whopping five decades. So I would contest the notion that  creators of modern soaps did not intend for their creations to last this long. If ANY genre can be expected to have a long, long life, it's a successful soap. Nixon, Phillips, Bell and their ilk would have known this better than anyone.

 

Thirty years maybe, but 40 years...50? No soap that has reached its 50th anniversary reached it in "good" condition, and that includes Coronation Street. Every single one of them were shells of their former selves upon their golden anniversaries, and even if we include GL's radio run and look at 1987, it was certainly not the show that Irna had created anymore by then (but then again, it stopped following its original premise after 10 years on radio). None of these soaps have benefited from having lifespans longer than many people's.

 

Quote

I can't agree that anniversaries and multi-generational storytelling were introduced in the 1980s, either. AW celebrated its 10th anniversary in 1974, with a special 60-minute episode. And from the very beginning, soaps featured multiple generations of families, intertwined. Viewers loved to see the wise, elderly matriarchs and patriarchs like Papa Bauer and Grandpa Hughes dishing out loving advice to the younger generations. Indeed, when the soaps started to hack away at the "old folks" in the 1980s, viewers were LIVID.

 

If Papa Bauer or Grandpa Hughes doling out guidance to their families is what people were asking for, then that would be awesome, and I'd be right there with them, because that element was sorely missed in the waning years of soaps (it's easier for me to talk about the genre as if its wholly gone because really what's the point?), but I'm not sure that's the "multi-generational storytelling" that many people are pining for, though. Today, there are people who would wonder why 75-year-old Papa doesn't have a love interest or has a storyline all his own. I've read with my own eyes on this very forum pleas for characters like ATWT's Bob, Lisa, and KIm to have their own stories when they were in their 70s. OBVIOUSLY, those characters, especially Lisa, deserved wayyyyy more than what they received as that show neared its end, but Irna Phillips NEVER centered a whole storyline around septuagenarians, and neither did Agnes or Bill.

What was AW's 10th anniversary episode like? I can only assume it wasn't the big huge clip/return fest that anniversary shows became starting in 1986 (and I LOVE those shows as much as anyone else!). I'm truly feeling j swift's point, though, in that the 1970s were the last decade in which writers could just write and not be held accountable for satisfying all of the sentimental demands of the audience that have only risen with time. The sentimental demands simply were not as high then because, in 1976, the average soap had been on the air for only 13 years.

 

Quote

 

As for the adherence to history that many fans demand, I think it's important. Viewers want this stability more and more as TIIC decimate the shows more and more. Each soap opera is an institution unto itself, and if new producers and writers take over, it's their responsibility to study the history and keep the characters recognizable. One thing I always appreciated about Claire Labine, Agnes Nixon, Pat Falken Smith, Douglas Marland and Harding Lemay: when they assumed the reigns of new soaps, they thoroughly studied up on everything, and would effectively weave the past into their current storylines. Viewers responded very favorably. Compare that to the likes of Charles Pratt, whose disinterest in being true to a show's legacy was obvious.

I have to reiterate my last point here, though. Agnes never joined the writing staff of a soap that was over 10 years old unless she'd created it herself. I know she started at GL in 1958, but you can hardly consider the pre-Bauer years to be the same show at all. She joined AW when it was a year old. It probably took her one afternoon to become acquainted with every character and storyline that had taken place. Harding Lemay's best work was at AW, which hadn't hit 10 years old when he took over. The list goes on and on. None of them were ever expected to incorporate 30-year-old storylines into their writing. Even Marland's heralded use of history on ATWT went back maybe 15-20 years tops.

I think we'd be less likely to want these shows to go on and on if we truly believed in a proper life after death for them. As it stands, there is none besides YouTube posts derived from VHS recordings. If we could log onto a Netflix or Amazon Prime and suddenly have every episode of the very best years of these shows available to us in pristine condition, then we'd have no use for them in their weakened, damaged state. Let's be real, the only reason why we want them to continue is in hopes of them being as good as what they once were. If we could still regularly watch what they once were, we wouldn't need them anymore.

Edited June 4, 20187 yr by All My Shadows

1 hour ago, vetsoapfan said:

 

 I'd love to know that too. Back in the day, shows I once loved like Love is a Many Splendored Thing and Return to Peyton Place had ratings of 7.0. The bar is really set low now. 

Exactly! Today's successful ratings would have gotten a show cancelled back in the day. Granted, that's an across-the-board statement.

35 minutes ago, All My Shadows said:

 

"Thirty years maybe, but 40 years...50? No soap that has reached its 50th anniversary reached it in "good" condition, and that includes Coronation Street. Every single one of them were shells of their former selves upon their golden anniversaries, and even if we include GL's radio run and look at 1987, it was certainly not the show that Irna had created anymore by then (but then again, it stopped following its original premise after 10 years on radio). None of these soaps have benefited from having lifespans longer than many people's."

 

I was responding to the original contention that writers never expected their shows to last this long. There's no reason to believe that the scribes would NOT expect to see their soaps, if successful, surviving for decades...because soaps do so now, and did so back when the writers created the four soaps still on the air. I agree that virtually all of the ones that have lived beyond a certain number of decades have stumbled, but that is the fault of recycled hacks being rotated from show to show, and the inability/disinterest of TPTB in producing good product. TGL's breathtaking resurgence in quality and in audience approval in the early 1990s, proves that even when an old warhorse looks likes it should be put out to pasture, even past 50 years old, it can be revived and gallop to the head of the pack.

 

Incompetence, cheapness on the part of P&G, and general disinterest on the part of the suits killed TGL, not its age.

 

"If Papa Bauer or Grandpa Hughes doling out guidance to their families is what people were asking for, then that would be awesome, and I'd be right there with them, because that element was sorely missed in the waning years of soaps (it's easier for me to talk about the genre as if its wholly gone because really what's the point?), but I'm not sure that's the "multi-generational storytelling" that many people are pining for, though. Today, there are people who would wonder why 75-year-old Papa doesn't have a love interest or has a storyline all his own. I've read with my own eyes on this very forum pleas for characters like ATWT's Bob, Lisa, and KIm to have their own stories when they were in their 70s. OBVIOUSLY, those characters, especially Lisa, deserved wayyyyy more than what they received as that show neared its end, but Irna Phillips NEVER centered a whole storyline around septuagenarians, and neither did Agnes or Bill."

 

Who says advising/caring for their families and living lives of their own are mutually exclusive for the old folks, though? Matriarchs and patriarchs can do both. The audience pees themselves in glee when the oldtimers find romance, LOL. Douglas Marland spoke of the immense, positive feedback ATWT received when widowed Nancy Hughes found love again and married Dan McCloskey. But waaaaay before that the audience had adored the story of elderly Grandpa Hughes falling in love with his Irma Kopecke shortly before he died. And Harding Lemay wrote in his book how over the moon AW viewers were when matriarch Ada Downs married Gil McGowen and had (an improbable) late-in-life pregnancy. Days' Alice Horton never once stopped giving advice and handing out doughnuts, but even as a great-grandmother she got into the swing of things with Bo and Hope, and shared their adventures. Y&R's Katherine Chancellor continued to be involved in major stories until her 80s.

 

If Nancy Hughes' romance with Dan was not centered around her and Dan, whose "whole story" was it? Katherine Chancellor was past 70 when Y&R revisited the Katherine/Marge drama and launched her romance with Murphy. Wasn't that a whole story devoted to senior citizens?

 

Even the young'uns in the audience are protective of the old folks of Oakdale, Salem, GH, etc., and want to see them on-screen. The reaction the young audience members have when seniors are featured is indicative of this.

 

"I have to reiterate my last point here, though. Agnes never joined the writing staff of a soap that was over 10 years old unless she'd created it herself. I know she started at GL in 1958, but you can hardly consider the pre-Bauer years to be the same show at all. She joined AW when it was a year old. It probably took her one afternoon to become acquainted with every character and storyline that had taken place. Harding Lemay's best work was at AW, which hadn't hit 10 years old when he took over. The list goes on and on. None of them were ever expected to incorporate 30-year-old storylines into their writing. Even Marland's heralded use of history on ATWT went back maybe 15-20 years tops."

 

When Claire Labine took over TGL in 2000, the show was over 60 years old, yet she referenced characters and situations from the show's earliest radio days. When she assumed the reigns of GH it was 30 years old, yet again, Labine knew the history.  Harding Lemay proved knowledgeable of SFT's canon when he took over that 30 year-old program. Writers of today who take over the reigns of enduring franchises are expected to adhere to the roots, and understand the characters and important past events. Just ask Star Wars, Star Trek, and Dr. Who viewers how they would react if newbie writers screwed up the canon. The excuse of, "Well, I wasn't born when Star Trek premiered in the 1960s! How am I supposed to know what a tribble is?" would go over like a lead balloon. Dr. Who saying that he had never had children or grandchildren would bring an avalanche of protests from viewers who had studied the show more carefully than the new scribes who had written such a line. If writers cannot, or will not, learn the facts, they should look for other work, because writing for soaps and other enduring franchises is not an easy  task. Not everyone can do.

 

"What was AW's 10th anniversary episode like? I can only assume it wasn't the big huge clip/return fest that anniversary shows became starting in 1986 (and I LOVE those shows as much as anyone else!). I'm truly feeling j swift's point, though, in that the 1970s were the last decade in which writers could just write and not be held accountable for satisfying all of the sentimental demands of the audience that have only risen with time. The sentimental demands simply were not as high then because, in 1976, the average soap had been on the air for only 13 years."

 

No, in 1976, we had many soaps that had been on television for more than 20-25 years, like: TGL (39 years old), SFT and LoL (25 years old), ATWT and TEON (20 years old), TSS (22 years old).

 

The sentimental demands  were not as vocal and persistent at that time because...THEY WERE BEING MET AND SATISFIED by the creative teams of the day. Criticism of modern soaps is so strong because viewers' expectations for quality storytelling and true characterizations are NOT being met.

1 hour ago, vetsoapfan said:

I was responding to the original contention that writers never expected their shows to last this long. There's no reason to believe that the scribes would NOT expect to see their soaps, if successful, surviving for decades...because soaps do so now, and did so back when the writers created the four soaps still on the air. I agree that virtually all of the ones that have lived beyond a certain number of decades have stumbled, but that is the fault of recycled hacks being rotated from show to show, and the inability/disinterest of TPTB in producing good product. TGL's breathtaking resurgence in quality and in audience approval in the early 1990s, proves that even when an old warhorse looks likes it should be put out to pasture, even past 50 years old, it can be revived and gallop to the head of the pack.

 

Incompetence, cheapness on the part of P&G, and general disinterest on the part of the suits killed TGL, not its age.

 

Let me rephrase. I can't know whether or not the creators intended for their series to last decades, but I think the reality of the situation is that aging into those decades have done more harm than good for the shows that have made it that far. There used to be hope that they could get better, but that was before the television industry as a whole went through dramatic shifts that took us further and further away from what soaps traditionally were in their glory days.

 

1 hour ago, vetsoapfan said:

Who says advising/caring for their families and living lives of their own are mutually exclusive for the old folks, though? Matriarchs and patriarchs can do both. The audience pees themselves in glee when the oldtimers find romance, LOL. Douglas Marland spoke of the immense, positive feedback ATWT received when widowed Nancy Hughes found love again and married Dan McCloskey. But waaaaay before that the audience had adored the story of elderly Grandpa Hughes falling in love with his Irma Kopecke shortly before he died. And Harding Lemay wrote in his book how over the moon AW viewers were when matriarch Ada Downs married Gil McGowen and had (an improbable) late-in-life pregnancy. Days' Alice Horton never once stopped giving advice and handing out doughnuts, but even as a great-grandmother she got into the swing of things with Bo and Hope, and shared their adventures. Y&R's Katherine Chancellor continued to be involved in major stories until her 80s.

 

If Nancy Hughes' romance with Dan was not centered around her and Dan, whose "whole story" was it? Katherine Chancellor was past 70 when Y&R revisited the Katherine/Marge drama and launched her romance with Murphy. Wasn't that a whole story devoted to senior citizens?

 

Even the young'uns in the audience are protective of the old folks of Oakdale, Salem, GH, etc., and want to see them on-screen. The reaction the young audience members have when seniors are featured is indicative of this.

 

That's what I meant when I said those characters all deserved better. I'll give you love interests, but I kid you not, I recall ten years ago people wanting Lisa in a love triangle on the frontburner. Clearly all of those characters should have been regularly visible (and there were brief moments in which they were, something I remain thankful for), but too many people wanted them to carry the show. Keep in mind that these were actors and actresses in their 70s who had already carried the show through 30 years of day-in, day-out, TOUGH work, many years of it done live. I know they all wanted to be on more, but I don't think they wanted to continue carrying the show when everyone else their age was enjoying retirement.

 

1 hour ago, vetsoapfan said:

When Claire Labine took over TGL in 2000, the show was over 60 years old, yet she referenced characters and situations from the show's earliest radio days. When she assumed the reigns of GH it was 30 years old, yet again, Labine knew the history.  Harding Lemay proved knowledgeable of SFT's canon when he took over that 30 year-old program. Writers of today who take over the reigns of enduring franchises are expected to adhere to the roots, and understand the characters and important past events. Just ask Star Wars, Star Trek, and Dr. Who viewers how they would react if newbie writers screwed up the canon. The excuse of, "Well, I wasn't born when Star Trek premiered in the 1960s! How am I supposed to know what a tribble is?" would go over like a lead balloon. Dr. Who saying that he had never had children or grandchildren would bring an avalanche of protests from viewers who had studied the show more carefully than the new scribes who had written such a line. If writers cannot, or will not, learn the facts, they should look for other work, because writing for soaps and other enduring franchises is not an easy  task. Not everyone can do.

 

I am by no means defending writers for not caring about previous characters and storylines, but a handful of examples doesn't really change the fact that expecting writers to pull in 30-year-old plot lines in a genre that is constantly running 250 episodes a year with no gaps between series or incarnations is a tall order. The greats could do it because that's what makes them the greats. If we're sitting around expecting that caliber of writing again, then we're spinning wheels.

 

Re: Star Wars, Star Trek, Doctor Who. Apples and oranges, IMO. Mainly, these are still hugely successful franchises that TPTB respect and care for. None of the production companies involved in today's soaps give a damn about their quality, only their profit, and so they don't care if a writer comes in who is completely unfamiliar with a show. Also consider that those other franchises have been in reruns and other media for years. Each soap has been in daytime TV and nowhere else.

 

1 hour ago, vetsoapfan said:

No, in 1976, we had many soaps that had been on television for more than 20-25 years, like: TGL (39 years old), SFT and LoL (25 years old), ATWT and TEON (20 years old), TSS (22 years old).

 

The sentimental demands  were not as vocal and persistent at that time because...THEY WERE BEING MET AND SATISFIED by the creative teams of the day. Criticism of modern soaps is so strong because viewers' expectations for quality storytelling and true characterizations are NOT being met.

 

1976 soaps and how many years they were on the air by that time:
(Guiding Light - 39 years/24 years)
Search for Tomorrow - 25 years
Love of Life - 25 years
As the World Turns - 20 years
The Edge of Night - 20 years
General Hospital - 13 years
The Doctors - 13 years
Another World - 12 years
Days of Our Lives - 11 years
One Life to Live - 8 years
All My Children - 6 years
Somerset - 6 years
The Young and the Restless - 3 years
Ryan's Hope - 1 year

I didn't count GL's radio run in my original calculation, but even including those years, the average age of a soap in 1976 was 14 years. Today, in 2018, the average age of a soap is 46 years. To me, that's a huge, huge, huge indicator that the genre is broken beyond repair, and it will never, ever be what it once was. Daytime was at its best and most successful when it was filled with a nice mix of old stalwarts and newer shows. That arrangement started to dry up in the early 90s when 6 years passed between the premieres of Generations and The City, and now we're at year #19 since the last network daytime soap premiered.

Look, I love the fact that these shows just kept going and going and going like life itself, but when it all boils down, what good has it done for them? ATWT and GL, THE quintessential long-runners, now sit in a warehouse. No reruns, no streaming, no more DVD sets, nothing at all from TPTB. I can't even go into a novelty store and buy some ridiculous Erica Kane tchotchke. The only thing keeping them alive is the work done by fans for other fans. I don't think any other form of entertainment has suffered that fate.