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?

3 hours ago, Soaplovers said:

When was the last time soaps wrote a true blue middle class and/or working class family?

 

I know the shows has the age old story of a working class girl wanting wealth and power thus goes after a wealthy guy... has there every been a working class girl/guy that ever.. gasps... obtains that by getting an education and working their way up the corporate ladders and the challenges being presented such as health care insurance, living with roommates vs living with family, dating vs staying single, etc?

Raul on Y&R?

The Evans & Patels on OLTL?

On ‎6‎/‎4‎/‎2018 at 10:55 AM, DramatistDreamer said:

Being tied to the Dallas and the Dynasty effect.  J.R. had an immense effect on popular culture and it seemed many (not all soaps) wanted their own J.R. in the way of having a scion of a wealthy family or in the case of Dynasty, their own titan of industry like Blake Carrington.  The Abbotts of Y&R soon emerged with Jack (charismatic scion) and John (beloved titan of industry).  Does anyone think that is a coincidence?

 

The Abbotts also had their own Alexis in Dina.

On ‎6‎/‎4‎/‎2018 at 9:33 PM, Faulkner said:

Raul on Y&R?

Lauren Hill, As the World Turns. 

On ‎6‎/‎4‎/‎2018 at 6:12 PM, Soaplovers said:

When was the last time soaps wrote a true blue middle class and/or working class family?

 

I know the shows has the age old story of a working class girl wanting wealth and power thus goes after a wealthy guy... has there every been a working class girl/guy that ever.. gasps... obtains that by getting an education and working their way up the corporate ladders and the challenges being presented such as health care insurance, living with roommates vs living with family, dating vs staying single, etc?

The Snyders.  As the World Turns. 

On 6/4/2018 at 10:44 AM, vetsoapfan said:

"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."

 

But is it the AGE of the shows that is the problem, or is it the endless, incomprehensible mismanagement, cheapness, indifference and idiocy on the part of TPTB? Television overall has evolved, but in many ways for the better. We get wonderful serialized dramas throughout the primetime schedule. But the navel-gazing, lazy, rigid soap ghetto went to pot decades ago and has never done anything to get up to date or back into shape. I firmly believe that it's not only the age of an institution that affects how well and vibrantly it survives. The care it receives plays a significant (if not the primary) role. In the last few decades (or more), capable, savvy, talented and inspirational caregivers have been non-existent in the soap world. I no longer have hope that any of the current four soaps will be saved. In truth, I wish they had been cancelled a long time ago, and put out of their misery while they still had some dignity. The soap opera medium can still a viable one, however, but only if people who know what they are doing produce and write them. That ain't going to happen anytime soon in daytime TV, alas.

 

"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."

 

I do not want or need every older character to be on the frontburner all the time. I really do like seeing storylines centered around characters of all ages, and even around newbies...if the stories are well-written and the roles well-cast. It's important to kept the cornerstone characters woven into the fabric of the show, of course. Viewers love them and want to keep seeing them on a regular basis, along with all the newer/younger characters on the canvas. (BTW, ATWT treated Lisa abysmally in its last years. If not a frontburner romantic triangle, she should AT LEAST have had a romantic interest and some actual attention paid to her from time to time. She was shoved so far onto the back burner, I'm surprised she never fell right off the stove. Shameful.)

 

"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."

 

Well, I do not demand that new writers pull in plots from many decades ago, but I do want the scribes to know the history well enough not to make major and annoying errors. Someone once asked Jamie Frame on AW how he was related to Sally Frame. He replied, "She's a cousin or something." Um...no. On TGL, Kelly Nelson once asked his godfather Ed Bauer, "Do you remember Steve Jackson, the surgeon?" Ed replied, "Sure, he was on staff here at Cedars." Again...fail. Steve Jackson was Ed's former father-in-law. Steve Jackson was Frederick's grandfather. Why would Kelly ask such a dumb question to begin with? And even if he did, Ed should have replied with, "Wake up, idiot! Of course I know my own son's grandfather!" LOL.

 

I am just waiting for a scene on Days in which Julie Williams says that being pregnant with Hope was a difficult time in her life, but that giving birth to such a beautiful daughter was a joy. 

 

"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."

 

Well, soap operas were HUGELY successful franchises that supported the entire networks' schedule for decades. TPTB USED TO respect and nurture them. That is the problem. Star Trek, Star Wars, Dr. Who, etc., are being well-maintained and remain profitable because TPTB put effort and money into them. Soaps are NOT being well-maintained, TPTB just don't care, and therefore the soaps' viability has plummeted as TPTB's indifference and incompetence have grown.

 

"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."

 

I agree. The genre is broken and the shows we still have on the air are beyond repair. Well, as long as there are no miracle workers left to overhaul them, and there are not.

"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."

 

Again, ITA, but the problem is not that no one out here in audience-ville wants to see quality serialized dramas anymore. The problem is that NO ONE IN THE DAYTIME SOAP WORLD is giving it to us. The idiots at P&G let their archives sit and rot even though Dark Shadows was a huge success when released on DVD . The Doctors reruns must be doing fine. If they weren't they would have been yanked a long time ago. Sony should try a streaming service at a reasonable cost, and air Y&R from the beginning. If no one buys DVD releases or subscribes to streaming services, fine. I'll admit there is no market. But I'll bet there is. I'll bet fans would pay the money if only the material were available to us somewhere, somehow.

 

On eBay, the bidding for a single hour of AW from 1973/4, on VHS, soared to over $300.00. Soap fans aren't cheap, LOL. Let us spend money!

 

The atrocious "bedsheets in the wind" opening, with anonymous models "crying" fake tears, and men showing their horse teeth?

 

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!! I loathed that opening!

I've enjoyed following this thread.

Here's a link to a great article written about Peyton Place called "Why Institutional Memory was Peyton Place's Hidden Asset" (https://tv.avclub.com/why-institutional-memory-was-peyton-place-s-hidden-asse-1798241844)

The article argues that even though there was turmoil and turnover on the show during its first season, the characters, story, and show remained stable and got better because of the stability of the writing team and how well they knew their show. If these writers had left the show, it may have been a mess. I think that once the creator - or the team which steers the show towards excellence leaves and takes their passion with them, any show becomes another job that people do by rote whether it's writing a soap or promoting Pepsi. Passion from the producers, writers, networks, cast & crew, and audience are what matters. If you're missing one aspect, the whole thing falls apart.

Here are some quotes from the article:

 

"Duration was Peyton Place’s hidden asset. Its creators had the luxury to build characters over the course of years rather than within the confines of a fifty-minute hour. Because the writing staff was relatively stable after the first year, Peyton Place developed a terrific institutional memory. Complex characters remained emotionally consistent throughout years of labyrinthine plot twists. Norman Harrington (Christopher Connelly), Rodney’s sullen younger brother, grew from near-delinquency toward a simple contentment unknown for most of the characters; the catalyst was the introduction of Rita Jacks (Patricia Morrow), a cute oddball who was clearly Norman’s soul mate. Lana Wood played the duplicitous waitress Sandy Webber with a lip-biting sensuality that made her perhaps the most tangibly sexualized female in television up to that point. But as the show laid out Sandy’s depressing options—remain faithful to an abusive husband (Stephen Oliver) or cheat with the manipulative, unattainable Rodney—her honesty and self-assertiveness took on a heroic stature."

 

"Betty Anderson, one of only three regulars who lasted for the whole five-year run, may have benefited most from the writers’ skill for deepening and reinventing their characters. They paired Betty romantically with lawyer Steven Cord (James Douglas), a fellow social striver whose illegitimacy gave him a world-class inferiority complex. Although their schemes were petty, Betty and Steven tapped into a universal anguish—the feeling of being on the outside looking in—that made them more sympathetic than many of the “good” characters. The writers also threw out frequent callbacks to Betty’s past with Rodney, reuniting them occasionally for what-might-have-been scenes in which they came awkwardly to terms with their failed marriage and lost child. With years of backstory to draw upon, O’Neal and Parkins could play varied notes of jealousy, ruefulness, sweetness, and mordant humor, building an emotional array that could only exist in a series with the longevity and continuity of Peyton Place."

 

"Money, or more accurately class, was Peyton Place’s overarching subject. Monash and the writers used their Nielsen capital to reintroduce the issue that ABC had most wanted to avoid. When Rodney killed rapist Joe Chernak, Joe’s impoverished family—effectively a rewrite of the Crosses—became major characters. Seething Stella Chernak (Lee Grant) emerged as an avatar of class resentment, vowing revenge on the rich kid and anyone else connected to her brother’s death. The writers delineated socioeconomic strata with precision. A doctor, a bookseller, a barmaid, and a secretary all held slightly different positions within the town’s social hierarchy, and the uneasy, unspoken maneuvering for purchase on that invisible ladder motivated many of the most interesting conflicts."

 

"To craft those conflicts, Monash more or less invented the modern writing staff. Although daytime soaps and variety shows were staff-written, prime-time dramas at that time operated on a freelance basis. Peyton Place’s full-time creative team consisted of a head writer (De Roy) and two story editors (Del Reisman and Nina Laemmle) who supervised the plotting, using color-coded index cards to map out characters’ arcs on an office wall. Working under them were about eight full-time writers, one of whom was assigned half of each two-act episode in rotation. This structure was novel enough to trigger a dispute between Fox and the Writers Guild, which ultimately ruled that the studio owed the writers additional pay. Monash’s other innovation was to align the writing staff demographically with the characters. In a medium dominated by middle-aged men, the Peyton Place writers—which included Carol Sobieski (an Oscar nominee for Fried Green Tomatoes) and Michael Gleason (the creator of Remington Steele)—were nearly all under thirty-five, and about half were women. Their voices had a subtly progressive influence. Staff writer Peggy Shaw penned a scene in which Constance and Elliot returned from the market and both of them, not just Constance, put away the groceries and prepared dinner. “I thought, well, that’s one in the eye, without saying anything,” Shaw recalled. “Nine million people are seeing that.""

 

 

The number one trending video on YouTube this morning was a video about a Youtuber and her boyfriend who had broken up.  Beyond the weirdness that these people who are only famous to a very small audience still feel the need to publicize their relationship as if they were Brangelina, it stuck me that this is the "new soap opera."  Commenters are the Phoebe Tyler's of the internet, always judging and getting into people's private lives.  The YouTubers are like Kitty Shea, doing anything for a bit of fame. 

 

These people wear makeup, light themselves and have background music for their daily lives.  They seek to always look perfect and they even edit their speech to reduce hesitation. The supercouples meet on twitter, show their first date on Instagram and then create a youtube channel to documents the drama of being in a relationship.  If one of these youtubers gets amnesia, an evil twin, or goes to work in the European office of their family business then my theory will be proven.

 

Search the tag, we have to talk, and it is filled with people looking straight to camera and talking about their live's tragedies.  It is an odd piece of entertainment that must fill the soap void for teens who don't watch tv.

Edited June 7, 20187 yr by j swift

2 hours ago, Fevuh said:

Lauren Hill, As the World Turns. 

The Snyders.  As the World Turns. 

 

Another unpopular opinion... The Snyders were an unnecessary creation that helped shift the focus from the Hughes family as the main family.

1 hour ago, Soaplovers said:

 

Another unpopular opinion... The Snyders were an unnecessary creation that helped shift the focus from the Hughes family as the main family.

Agreed. 

On 06/06/2018 at 8:12 PM, mikelyons said:

I've enjoyed following this thread.

Here's a link to a great article written about Peyton Place called "Why Institutional Memory was Peyton Place's Hidden Asset" (https://tv.avclub.com/why-institutional-memory-was-peyton-place-s-hidden-asse-1798241844)

The article argues that even though there was turmoil and turnover on the show during its first season, the characters, story, and show remained stable and got better because of the stability of the writing team and how well they knew their show. If these writers had left the show, it may have been a mess. I think that once the creator - or the team which steers the show towards excellence leaves and takes their passion with them, any show becomes another job that people do by rote whether it's writing a soap or promoting Pepsi. Passion from the producers, writers, networks, cast & crew, and audience are what matters. If you're missing one aspect, the whole thing falls apart.

 

 

That's a really great, perceptive, and accurate analysis of the Peyton Place situation, but I think it holds true for all soaps. A major reason the audience watches these shows is because we care about the characters. The better written and more consistent they are, the more we want to stick with them.

 

On 06/06/2018 at 9:55 PM, Soaplovers said:

 

Another unpopular opinion... The Snyders were an unnecessary creation that helped shift the focus from the Hughes family as the main family.

 

The Snyders. Sigh. I never warmed up to them either, and felt they were an extraneous (if not irritating) intrusion on the show, sidetracking attention away from the Hugheses and the Stewarts.

 

I actively disliked Josh, Caleb and Ellie. I was totally indifferent to Iva (that drip), Seth, Aaron and Meg, and then started to loathe Meg when Marie Wilson assumed the role. I was indifferent to Holden as well, but at least when he first arrived he looked good in those tight jeans, LOL. The only character from the entire clan I liked was Emma. If TPTB had limited the Snyders' presence to her and Holden I would have accepted it, but the Snyder family became The Fungus That Ate Oakdale. I was not impressed.

 

Similarly, I was not thrilled with the Reardons on TGL, but Nola was certainly Lisa Brown's better role, and a wonderful character who provided great drama during the triangle with Morgan and Kelly. I found Ellen Dolan's Maureen to be brittle and off-putting, but once Ellen Parker took over the part, her warmth, charm and decency made me adore Maureen. I eventually accepted her as the matriarch of the Bauer family and as the heart of the show. So...of course TIIC had to kill her off. 

Edited June 9, 20187 yr by vetsoapfan

On 6/6/2018 at 7:19 PM, Fevuh said:

Lauren Hill, As the World Turns. 

The Snyders.  As the World Turns. 

 

On 6/6/2018 at 9:55 PM, Soaplovers said:

 

Another unpopular opinion... The Snyders were an unnecessary creation that helped shift the focus from the Hughes family as the main family.

 

Also, not to be a fuss-budget but it's Lauryn Hill and the character she portrayed was Kyra.

Edited June 9, 20187 yr by DramatistDreamer

Those invasive '80s bloodlines are all I know of genuine, layered soap families... compared to today, they seemed much more natural and real(?).

 

I was a big fan of GL's Coopers. Especially Buzz. Maybe only because Justin Deas is great. Harley and Marina sure started to suck towards the end, though.

Edited June 9, 20187 yr by koos

On 2018-06-04 at 1:23 AM, 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.

 

 

For many years on DAYS it seemed to be the opposite. The women seemed to have the power, or at least the main attention from TPTB. Corday loves Alfonso, Reeves (despite the contract breach in 1995) and Sweeney. 

 

Hell, even in recent years many of the female vets remained on the show while the men were fired or low-balled out.

 

Kristian Alfonso/Peter Reckell

Deidre Hall/Drake Hogestyn. Although in the late 90s and early 00s it seemed like TPTB were more interested in writing for John than Marlena.

Mary Beth Evans/Stephen Nichols (same thing is about to happen again)
Melissa Reeves/Matthew Ashford

Going off my Synder view on ATWT...

 

I have to say I thought Lily was an ungrateful bitch, but only when Martha Byrne played the part.  When Rattray, Beck, and the first actress (Deakins) played her, I found Lily more likable for some reason.  When rewatching the 1987 episodes where Lily finds out Iva is her mother, the way she is angry at Lucinda...saying her house isn't her home anymore, etc... I was hoping Lucinda would have cut her off and removed the trust fund and let that ungrateful princess go live with the Snyder hicks.