Jump to content

15? 30? 45? 60? 90? Which is the best and worst runtime for soaps?


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 28
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members

I'm surprised these streaming platforms haven't attempted to do their own soap opera. I think a 30 minutes soap like BB with about 19-22 minute long episodes, if executed properly can do well on these platforms. It will also help them by holding onto viewers that subscribe to watch a particular series and then cancel when done binging as this will run continuously and it will also bring back viewers regularly to watch and then move onto other content on the platform. 19 minutes doesn't seem like much of a commitment which is beneficial with today's fickle viewership. 

 

I'm sure there are many factors which have also kept these streaming services away, like production cost, a long-term commitment as most shows have a small episode order, and the performance of current soaps on TV. Either way, it would be interesting to see how soaps with perform on streaming platforms with a fresh perspective. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

For me, it would depend on the writing, but I would lean more towards 60 minutes. Looking at some old 30-minute soaps, they did a lot of exposition scenes. Two people have a conversation or interaction and the particulars of that event are then retold at least one other time, if not more, to other people, who then continue to talk about it amongst themselves. Some of it was necessary to make other people aware of the event for story purposes but, beyond that, it got repetitive.  Granted, it likely resembled real daily life in that sense, plus it probably also made people feel so familiar with the characters. In the 60s and 70s, with fewer options, the audience was probably used to that and the resulting longer play-out of storylines. Write like that now and it would probably bore people who want to see more action-driven stories, or something more than characters having repeated conversations about the same incident. In this case, 30-minute soaps would take too long for most people's tastes at this time to tell a story. If I were having to watch Ryan's Hope and Dark Shadows now in real time (an episode a day, no fast forwarding option), I would probably fall away from them from getting tired of the repetitiveness of dialogue.

For years now, I've tended to watch dramas rather than sitcoms...some serialized, some stand-alone, some sci-fi, some real-life based. I like being told a story that builds up in that episode, has conflict and may or may not get resolved in the same hour. It's hard to do that in 30 minutes with any real depth. 
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

The best is probably 30 minutes. Nice, succinct, tighter focus.

 

There are exceptions - if any soap really benefits from being an hour, it was classic Y&R, who had the time and space to unfold things in their own, measured pace.

 

 

It's the classic daytime vs primetime debate. I've always loved the talk scenes too. Daytime has the time to do them; if they are done well, they provide character interactions and character work. It still annoys me today that we don't see characters react to things in primetime that much. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members


Oh, I enjoyed them up to a point, too. I just think people nowadays have a mix of shorter attention spans, more options, less time or patience, desire for "shock and awe", etc. Back then, that's what we knew and choices were limited so, of course, we watched. Using the 2 soaps I mentioned before...in the case of RH, I think it worked well in the sense that you really got familiar with the characters, their frustrations, flaws, family interactions, motivations, etc. Very realistic to have people repeat conversations and stories, just like people do in real life...and those conversations often colored the characters' interactions with one another. How many people heard about the Ryans or Delia's shenanigans before getting to know either well enough on their own? I've recently started binging DS on Amazon (up to where Barnabas is about to debut) and I made mention in another post of how that early period seemed very slow-moving and repetitive, talking about the same incidents and with not much in the way of action. Even in binging mode, it seemed to drag on. For someone to watch that in real time now, I wonder if they wouldn't give up pretty quickly. That being said, I have never watched the current 30-minute soap "The Bold and The Beautiful" (not sure what the acronym is, BB??) so I'm not familiar with its storytelling pacing. Has it changed in the years it's been on? If someone were to be introduced to it now, how would it seem?

Conversely, if they were to write without a lot of that exposition now, that might cause a certain disconnect or disinterest with a viewer who's interested in character building. I just think, with anything less than 60 minutes, they're having to make decisions of how much do they show and tell in an episode, drawing and maintaining viewer interest over a longer period of time to tell a story. Do they spread it out over time and risk viewer impatience or sacrifice more in-depth character study for the action?

It just came to my mind the 30-minute soap that probably depicted these differences in storytelling the best: Port Charles. We started out with a conventional soap with conventional characters, much like any other soap. Somewhere it was decided that wasn't working and the whole format was changed. The hospital setting was now an accessory rather than a focus. A continuous throughline became 13-week arcs that were told independently of each other. Character buildup and personalities were tossed aside to accommodate the plots that were now supernatural. How many new viewers took notice? How many current viewers liked it or hated it? In the new arc format, it was already a given that, for better or worse, a particular story was going to be told in that amount of time. They did what they had to do to make the story work...turned heroes into villains, destroyed long-term relationships, etc. By the next arc, that could get changed again. It all comes back to the writing and pacing.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I get your argument, but I feel is more of effective in discussing 60-minute soaps than it is in discussing 30-minute soaps. The characteristics of 30-minute soaps that you've described are due more to the period in which 30-minute soaps reigned (1960s and 1970s) than they are to the 30-minute format. This was before the VCR age, before the turn to action/adventure storylines, before the desperate pursuit of younger audiences, etc. Even Ryan's Hope, as a half-hour soap, was affected by these and became less dialogue-heavy as time went on.

For the record, I'm a big fan of dialogue-heavy soaps for the reasons @YRBB gave. When daytime was presided over by the classic writers, those scenes created a strong sense of character, relationships, and community. Agnes or Irna, I can't remember which one, called it "the luxury of time." Soaps had it, no other medium did, and once upon a time, soaps were soaps and catered to people who wanted to watch soaps.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members


That's why I asked the questions about B&B, since it has the distinction of being not only the sole 30-minute soap today but also one that's been on since the 1980s, offering up a comparison of their old vs. modern storytelling styles and viewership. Could that serve as a barometer for measuring how a new 30-minute soap might do? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

30 mins. It this age with all the entertainment options to choose from, it's much easier for someone to keep up with a 30 min soap. If you decide to binge a week's worth at once, and fast forward through the commercials, it adds up to the average length of a movie, which isn't bad.   

 

It's also better from a production standpoint in my opinion as well. I feel like 30 min soaps are more focused, the stories keep moving forward and you don't have characters having the same conversations day in and day out, just to fill time. 

 

I feel like Brad Bell does a really poor job taking advantage of B&B being 30 mins. I've watched several European soaps on and off, they are all mostly 30 mins and do a great job overall. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Brad Bell can't tell a story. B&B would have been better off a decade ago if he handed off the show to a competent head writer and simply produced the show. That's all I'll say because I don't want to spill the tea (as they say...).

I believe Irna said that either just before or just after the launch of ATWT

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I actually found an article online a few days ago and I wish I had saved it, but it mentioned how returning soaps to 30 minutes might be the future of soaps. I believe it was written in the late 2000s and it was obviously wishful thinking as we know that networks actually preferred canceling soaps altogether rather than reducing their runtime. It mentioned that GL and OLTL might be the first soaps to experiment with the time reduction as they were the lowest rated. 

 

I always hoped networks would have reduced GL and ATWT as well as AMC and OLTL into 30 minute shows and package them as an hour block to affiliates. It would ultimately give affiliates an hour back in programming while still maintaining the shows on air where fans were used to tuning in to watch. Shifting OLTL and AMC online was a nice thought but it changed the entire dynamic of how people ordinarily consume their soaps...it wasn't like they were experimenting with new soaps. They were taking already established soaps and changing the familiarity as far as consumption for the audience.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I agree with you about reducing the struggling hours to half-hour shows and then selling the hour as a block. That would have been smart for CBS and ABC. The networks seem to forget that they can have a higher CPM in a half-hour soap versus an hour soap opera because there are fewer ads. Scarcity leads to higher ad prices. CBS could reduce Y&R to half an hour, lose one soundstage, halve the cast/crew/staff, up the ad price, and suddenly they'd have a very profitable show!

Oh, maybe another day! That's what I get for cruising message boards after three cocktails!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



  • Recent Posts

    • She has the Bo Buchanan curse.  Agreed, Carly's reaction would be quite interesting. 
    • I agree. Even the discussion about cuts at the end of scenes. I'm binging THE DEFENDERS right now, and it has those cuts. Is it odd? Oh God yes. Heck, I will say it's worse than what has been discussed here because it does not bother me here and this was back in 2017/2018.   That said...I am starting to look forward to BTG finding their proper rhythm.     
    • Louise, what memories & Brooks with her! Other favorite domestics: Lucinda's butler Matthew, Ginger on GL, Vivian of course on AW. A notable butler & a notable cook at the Qs. DAYS Ivan taking care of Vivian Allamain all of those years. Oh, on AW Carl had a driver who sometimes had other duties: Ito? I recall him being Asian. I always felt sorry for Louise & Brooks when Mac & Rachel would fall out. How difficult it must have been for them with all that tension & heaven forbid they be in the room for one of their fights, which were violent & mean-spirited & loud! 
    • I don't believe JFP wanted rid of Donna because she was isolated. She wasn't any more isolated than most characters on the show at that point. JFP just couldn't live out her fantasies with Anna Stuart the way she could with Linda Dano. She degraded the character instead, as happened to Donna under a number of regimes.  Donna, Rachel and Felicia were never characters who were all over the canvas. Felicia probably had the most reach of the three, as she ran restaurants for a decade, but they had their own spheres.  Rachel had a large role in Felicia's alcoholism storyline, as Felicia tanked her relationship with Cory Publishing and then her drinking caused her to start a fire at the TV studio, meaning Rachel had to fire her from her talk show. Rachel was at Felicia's failed intervention. Felicia and Donna had some back and forth during that strange period where Donna was dating Cass. 
    • This show has many, many old school influences in how it approaches recapping, elder characters or supporting players, certain character monologues, etc. Some of that is stuff that feels straight out of the Bell formula or B&B, and some of it feels even older to me. That's not entirely a compliment or a positive nor is it a whole negative. It's a very wonky mix at times of dialogue that tries very, very hard to be hip and current - with varying degrees of success or cringe - with old-fashioned soap storytelling exposition and character monologuing. It's actually fascinating to watch, good or bad.
    • Emphasis on the work...VANISH.

      Please register in order to view this content

          I've discussed this at length in the monthly threads on the main A stories as established by Week 1...which Martin's secret was one of them. Most soaps would have an A story one week with all the B/C plots just orbitting about. BTG did that well itself in the first two/three weeks. But like I mentioned before one of the A stories (Dani/Bill/Hayley) they can't keep going to that at the moment since it was already overkill by the end of Month 1. The other one...the Silk Press storyline...was really the only one that has been well-paced in my opinion with twists, turns, and builds...including subplots and near-misses. But that was not going to explode before May Sweeps. So that left Martin's secret...which as I said...started off well. I loved how it started with Martin having problems sleeping, but NO images. Then we got sounds. THEN we started to get images. And NOW those images are getting more established. But before we got all that, his storyline...which has been established to be a main one...vanished for a month and a half. While it worked for the storyline since Month 2 gave Martin (and Brandon Clayborn to grow) time to be more established...along with his family...the story of his secret could have also been a story that had a nice slow burn (which I love) to the show while having the other B/C plots orbitting it. Again, not mad at it since it allowed the audience to learn more about Martin and his family life. It also allowed for other B/C plots to grow on the audience. I also think the story development for that A story might have suffered from the writers still trying to find a rhythm that works for this show.   In any case, I also said that I felt they might go old school soap in May. And by old school I meant as an A story is climaxing, the writers take another story that will be the next one and start to build it up again, while also starting another plot as a C plot. And right now, we have the SilkPress storyline climaxing while Martin's nightmares (with images) have finally started to come back into play. I mentioned when I saw the promos of Martin vs Ted that hopefully the reveal would trigger Martin to the point that we FINALLY get to see what he did. So far...how Martin's been acting since the reveal, being so triggered, I still feel that is how we will see how things happened...allowing the next A story to finally take off.    Fingers crossed.   
    • You know what? After all the men she's been with dying, it's only appropriate that she try her hand with women. Only then will she discover how much of a curse she is when it comes to relationships. Of course, I don't think the show would go there, but if they do, I wonder how Carly would react to her daughter being with Robin's.
    • If I'm not mistaken, much of this took place while Claire Labine was writing LOL -- and believe me, it was a very compelling show!  Probably the best soap on the air during Labine's short tenure as head-writer.  I assume Labine left LOL to create Ryan's Hope in 1975, but much of the action your describe seems to be her work.  Not sure why -- maybe some dates are off.
    • Felicia and Rachel were suddenly represented as friends when Mitch came back to Bay City in 1986 in order to try to add tension to the storyline of Mitch and Felicia getting together. I suppose we are lucky that Margaret DePriest didn't eliminate Felicia as she did Quinn and Maisie for being outside the "core families" of McKinnon/Love/Cory.   Felicia was more antagonistic when she was first introduced. She brought Carl to town not knowing he was Donna's ex. She was carrying on an affair with Cass while he was sneaking around with Cecile behind her back and was livid with him when she found out. She was resentful when Cass signed Julia to Winthrop Publishing. She was friendly with Lily though IIRC.     
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy