The Story of Soaps Primetime Special

[EricMontreal22]

I thought it was better than I expected, though I can't argue with these complaints.

I know with Andy Cohen there we'd have a whole thing about reality shows giving viewers their soap fix, which rives me crazy.  I know people here who I have a ton of respect for watch Real Housewives--I just can not handle it.  But regardless, the idea that watching it is the same as watching a soap has never held weight for me (though I've encountered it all the time--when I was working on my MA essay about soaps a number of people automatically thought I must watch Housewives).  More pertinent was pointing out how much current "prestige" TV, which is almost all serialized, owe to soaps, but that was pretty briefly mentioned.

Like a lot of these types of broad specials, I think the problem was you wonder who the audience was.  In many ways it wanted to give a historical introduction to soaps and their importance to people who might not know much about soaps.  But on the other hand, as All My Shadows mentioned, it assumed that the audience would know a lot.  I mean they talk about Irna Phillips and Agnes Nixon but, aside from mentioning Nixon and All My Children, I don't remember them even giving a quick rundown on what shows the women created and wrote.  At least with the longer clips, why not say where the clip is from?  I'm not really sure what a better format would have been for all of this (it's not like we were gonna get a multi episode series that could really focus on different aspects) but...  I did appreciate the talking heads for people I don't often see interviewed (I'm not even sure I really knew what Lorraine Broderick looked like).  But yeah, the main fault was it was neither specific or even general enough.  Still, I guess I'm glad that they did it--more than wishing they hadn't.  I wasn't offended by anything in it really (the reality bit aside).  It was interesting to get into topics like the Luke and Laura rape, but again with that story, without the audience knowing a bit more about the deeper context, would it mean much?

Youtube has become the bane of these types of shows (as well as the local news, where maybe I am more keen to excuse it).  I swear for about 2 seconds they showed a bit from the Cortland Masquerade ball from 1980 on AMC that *I* uploaded to Youtube.

I mean on one hand it must make putting together a show like this so so much easier.  But the quality really suffers and is all over the map (and it does make me think about the irony of these networks who often don't officially approve of such uploads, then using the uploads to save money on their own programming)

They are 100% pulled from Youtube.

Yes but those characters never really broke into the mainstream zeitgeist the way Luke and Laura did.  Tons of non soap viewers had some idea who Luke and Laura were.  This has only happened with a few other soap characters (Erica Kane being an obvious one).  I think Victor Newman is pretty recognizable now but still if you said "Victor and Nikki" few non viewers would have any idea who you meant.

Was it the 1994 CBS special "50 Years of Soaps"?  Some good stuff there--more fitting for the time, it was done in a sorta award show format. 

 

[EricMontreal22]

Vulture praised it. But what's really interesting is the interview with the EP.  She admits she came to the subject when she first was looking into doing something about reality tv--which makes a lot of sense now. https://www.vulture.com/2020/05/the-story-of-soaps-abc-tv-history.html

Edited May 20, 2020 by EricMontreal22

[Faulkner]

I was comparing this to the CNN decade documentaries, but those were so much more professionally done, with appropriate budgets. They labeled most of their longer clips. Yet they didn’t have these elaborate sets and graphics mimicking slides from a carousel projector, which, again, were eye-catching (and maybe more accessible to a network primetime audience not used to a stark documentary style), but I’d gladly have sacrificed those for better clips.
 

And you are SO right about the hypocrisy of these networks going after unauthorized uploaders of clips yet using said clips to cut costs in their programming, claiming “fair use.“

[AbcNbc247]

For what it was, it was really good. I had a feeling we weren’t going to get the complete story, because it’s impossible to squeeze 90 years into two hours, with commercials. (I just realized that Bill Bell wasn’t mentioned at all) 

 

For me, it started to fall apart in the last half hour. It sort of became The Story of the Real World and the Real Housewives. I’m sorry but we didn’t need to hear about Pedro. I would have liked to have seen more about what soaps did at this time to try to lure fans back. 

 

But overall, I really liked it. And I’m glad that there are actors out that there like John Stamos and Bryan Cranston who realize what soaps are. I hope the documentary prompts people to tune back to the remaining four soaps.

Thanks!

She said during his time on the show, he became so overwhelmed with the amount of work that he went to the producers and pleaded with them to let him go

Edited May 20, 2020 by AbcNbc247

[EricMontreal22]

They really should have mentioned that Bill Bell was essentially the other one of Irna Phillips' proteges.  But, I guess the problem was they spoke about Irna and Agnes in the section about how it was groundbreaking for being so overwhelmingly by women creators.  (And I still think they could have at least listed all the shows those women created/worked on).

Agreed about when it really fell apart--I linked to the Vulture interview with the producer, above, and that part must have been left over from her desire to do something about reality tv and she just couldn't drop it.  It was clever juxtaposing it with the GH AIDS story scenes, although I'm not sure ultimately if that was needed.

I like John Hamm, and I liked his comments, but he was the one actor I really had no idea why he was there...

Yes.  Seriously, if they are pulling from Youtube, in most cases the soap episode original broadcast dates *are* listed.  Would it have been hard to just put a little label with the name of the show and the year?  I was reminded of how annoyed my mom gets with internet FB and blog posts where someone posts photos and never identifies them

Please register in order to view this content

I mean sure most of us could probably roughly place nearly all of the clips, but...

And yeah--the whole Youtube thing from that perspective has been a mess for a while now.  I've seen network news, etc, use YT clips (say for when an actor dies, or whatever) for nearly ten years now with no concern of copyright--and yet when it benefits them to remember they own the copyright...

(Also, I'm sorry, *someone* should have pointed out that Peyton Place was, briefly, something of a phenomenon and helped boost newbie ABC, when they called Dallas the very first primetime soap... )

[vetsoapfan]

 

Thank you.

 

Those of us who were watching the show in the 1970s knew that poor Granger had a lot of trouble with his lines. He kept stumbling over his dialogue, "going up," and (obviously) reading from the teleprompter. What's weird is that he was much better with his material on ATWT.

[AbcNbc247]

Exactly. Thanks for posting the article too!

 

They talked about sex on soaps. Bill Bell is the reason why there’s sex on soaps. They just needed more than two hours to tell the full story.

 

And as for Jon Hamm, that’s ok lol I really had no idea why Andy Cohen was there. It got to the point where every time he came on the screen, I turned back to read the comments on here

 

Edited May 20, 2020 by AbcNbc247

[Faulkner]

I was curious if Jon Hamm had any daytime credits (as a jobbing actor who had been kicking around the industry before his Don Draper break, it wouldn’t have surprised me). But I can’t find any. I thought he might have been there to bolster the idea that even a “prestige” drama series like Mad Men was basically a soap, but they didn’t make anything of it. Maybe he was friends with one of the producers? He seems up for anything. Who knows.

 

I chalked a lot of the Agnes Nixon focus and Bill Bell erasure to the fact that she was ABC. Plus, thematically, she followed the “shows for women, by women” theme.

[antmunoz]

You guys are giving Andy Cohen a lot of grief!  LOL

 

I like to think he was there because he’s a huge soaps fan. 
 

When he has former soap actors on his talk show, he always shows old clips and asks about their soap experience, in s good way. 
 

In his autobiography, he goes on and on about his love for soaps (mostly AMC) and Lucci. His housekeeper when he was a kid only watched CBS soaps and that annoyed him. LOL. (We all know that person who watched ANOTHER NETWORK.)

 

Cut the guy some slack. I bet he misses soaps too. 

[Vizion]

 

An odd thing to focus on while failing to mention that not a single soap currently on the air has a woman HW or EP. 

[DramatistDreamer]

 

Yeah, I think I'll pass on this one, lol.

[All My Shadows]

I think another problem with this is that it is called “The Story of Soaps,” but it wasn’t told as a complete story. You can’t tell “The Story of Soaps” adequately without discussing Bill Bell and his philosophy in developing Y&R. If it’s not going to be the whole “story of soaps,” don’t call it that. Call it “Inside the Soaps” or something like that.

 

Not a huge glaring omission at all, but I’m surprised they didn’t have a piece on international soaps and telenovelas. I would have loved to have seen some grainy clips of Coronation Street from 2017.

[ChitHappens]

 

Please register in order to view this content

 

Andy was asked questions, and he answered.  Folks need to direct their anger at ABC for putting that crap together.  How you gone have a clusterfvck like GH on the air and celebrate the story/history of soaps?  

 

[Pine Charles]

 

Edited May 20, 2020 by Pine Charles

[DRW50]

My dislike for Andy Cohen isn't based on this show - he's just an unpleasant and unlikeable person who profits off the exploitation of mentally ill women - but to me if you love soaps that much, you wouldn't work so hard to tell us that your product has now made them irrelevant.