Jump to content

Soaps try to be socially conscious unless it is about....


Recommended Posts

  • Members

I think with both mental illness / addiction plots they tend to forget that most of the time it's not actually something you can be cured of, but something that can be handled and you'll need to keep up with regularly.

 

Plastic surgery in general, especially when it's used as a plot device - like someone getting their face horrifically burnt won't make you get a perfect new, albeit different, face - you'll still have scarring even with good/decent results. Of course they'll sometimes have scarring put on, but usually the make up department will get bored of putting it on every day in make up and it's too time consuming so they'll just quietly dump it once the storyline is over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 22
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Members

Paralysis is an interesting case on the soaps because 80% of cases due to spinal cord trauma do resolve within 12 months.  However, soaps are responsible for some misinformation on the subject:

   - most spinal cord injury patients, and their families, face catastrophic economic losses

   - for visual purposes most soap patients only suffer paralysis below the waist, which is not the most common result of the injury

       - even if the paralysis is below the waist, patients still need support around their torso, so they don't traipse around in wheelchairs like on soaps without upper body restraints

   - @I Am A Swede @Paul Raven Chris Tate lived in a remote farmhouse where all of the bedrooms were upstairs (even though most of his scenes were shot in his living room), so it is unlikely that his primary care would have supported his desire to recover at home.  Most spinal cord patients need to be placed in facilities that are built for people with mobility issues because (for obvious reasons) most soaps don't discuss the digestive/elimination issues involved in paralysis.

 

The other one that came to mind after my original post was abortion.  GH, Y&R, and AMC all featured women who somehow had difficulties conceiving after they had an abortion.  As if a D&C affects the ability to get pregnant?  It often seems as if soap writers are using this as a moral cudgel to punish female characters who have chosen to have dominion over their reproductive rights.

 

Edited by j swift
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

It seems that older beloved characters were written to be wheelchair-bound once their performers became such in real life. Ruth Warrick referred to Phoebe as "the bitch on wheels" when she started using a chair.
 

Wasn't Anna Lee's accident that paralyzed her relatively early on in her run on GH?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I remember her using a cane when I was a kid, during the period of time Monica and Sean Donnelly took all their money and kicked them out of the house.  She was still in scenes standing up when Tracy returned in 1989, although she did appear frail, held on to the set when hugging her.  So not too early in her run.

 

PC had Dr Matt Harmon who used a wheelchair, as did the actor.  I had stopped watching the show before he left, I have no idea how his character was treated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Anti-depressants get the worst reputation on soaps. They turn people into zombies, irrational, completely manic and moody (which is the exact OPPOSITE of their effects). I can't stand when they do this. I think the last time I saw this was Hope on B&B, but I know I've seen this happen with multiple characters on soaps throughout the years. It's a terrible misrepresentation and gives those who need it a false impression of their benefits and side effects.  And with older, home-bound, impressionable soap fans who probably need them, it'll deter them from seeking help. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



  • Recent Posts

    • Same here.  Anyone who voluntarily left Margo's penthouse set (except to go overseas or to Heaven) was immediately on my blacklist.  lol.  
    • https://x.com/MicheleValJean/status/1919575319146856657  
    • The penthouse was my favorite set... and it changed hands from Margo to Draper/April to Miles/Nicole then to just Miles... before he opted to give that beautiful place for that drab house with the even more drab Beth.  That was a jump the shark moment for me LOL
    • The storyline April and Draper are involved in during the summer/autumn of 1979 seems fairly "benign" but soon turns very serious.  April has a VERY intrusive, wealthy mother (Margo Huntington Dorn).  Margo knows that April and Draper (who've recently had a miscarriage and are theoretically never going to be able to conceive another baby) want to buy a house.  Margo hoodwinks them into buying a house they can't afford.  The house is listed at $100,000 (about $400,000 in today's dollars).  Margo pays the first $35,000 and leads Draper to believe the asking price of the house is $65,000 instead of $100,000.  If Draper finds out his meddling mother-in-law paid 1/3 of the cost of the home and tricked him, he'll be mad as hell.   Meanwhile, Draper has received a job offer from a prestigious New York law firm.  Margo pulls some strings and has the senior partner in the firm rescind the offer, to keep April in Monticello.  If Draper finds out about THAT, he'll be even angrier with Margo than he will be about the house trickery.  All of that is "bubbling under the surface" in the fall of 1979 but will be the next major story, as everything begins to spiral out of control.   Yep, you've got the Karrs and their very basic middle-class house, the Victorian-themed place where Miles and Nicole live, April and Draper's old craftsman house with the exposed beams, the Madisons & their Mission revival house, and Margo with her 1970s-chic penthouse.  Each of the sets is completely different.  And their budget was like zero, lol.  
    • It felt weird and out of place.  I get. While I agree with those on here that he's gotten better, it's still really bad. I'm not seeing the "good" acting some see...but I'll give him a B for being better than when he first started. There's potential. I'll leave it at that. 
    • It's like watching paint dry at a slow-ass pace. It's bad acting. Entirely. Excellent? With Claybon? Never. Ever. 

      Please register in order to view this content

    • Ah! Good to hear. Isn't it especially odd to think that house fictionally exists not far from the Karrs?  Or, that it was designed non-fictionally by the same person who designed April's place?
    • Good to know I'm not the only one who noticed that. Strange and awkward, and I don't know what they're doing with those fades.   -- Finally, had to laugh at how many Emmys this board passed out today.

      Please register in order to view this content

       
    • Not unless they live in an apartment complex. 

      Please register in order to view this content

    • That was bad. Product placement is fine, but not here, not now. Besides, no one carries their damn detergent to the living room.   Completely and utterly disagree. I thought Brandon Claybon was excellent today -- maybe his best performance since the show started. No recast needed.   Not unpopular with me. That didn't work. The montage was good, but 5 minutes of Amazing Grace? With all those verses? No. What kind of family breaks into a loud version of Amazing Grace after what just happened??? None. Anita's lecture to Leslie was great. Ending the show -- a really good episode with crackling dialogue -- like that was a mistake.  
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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