Do you think Soap fans of today are resistant to change?

[SamandWillowFan]

I’ve noticed that it seems soap fans of today are much more resistant to recasts and bringing on new families. They want everything to stay the same, though soaps have always been recast heavy. Despite the dreaded newbie label, most of the popular characters of today were once newbies. The families that led Y&R and GH in the beginning are nonexistent now, having been replaced with families like the Newmans and the Corinthos. Am I wrong in feeling like soap fans weren’t always this reluctant to accept change? I

[titan1978]

I think the issue is that the audience was larger, so there was room to grow and shrink without loosing your core, as long as you still had familiar faces there to anchor the show.  So something different didn’t necessarily make or break you.  Now it easily could.

 

To me, soaps are a lot like the current market of customers buying comic books published by Marvel and DC (I am not referring to the larger industry, which is more supportive of the art of graphic storytelling and the still vibrant Manga fan base). What was left of a robust industry is now mostly filled with an aging, hardcore fan base.  The characters are known to everyone and popular in other media, but the monthly comics have terrible sales and the big two superhero industry is near collapse as it stands now.

 

They are both filled with an audience that feels really connected to the characters due to years of watching/reading.  And they are often upset when change happens.

Adding to that is everyone has a strong opinion about everything now, and a platform to communicate directly with actors/tptb about how much they love or hate their story.

 

You also have to take into account-  for many years, if I tuned into Y&R, eventually I saw Nikki and Victor either together or longing to be.  I saw the Quartermaines displaying passions of all kinds.  You saw Sami Brady blowing up relationships, her own or others.  You saw Viki trying to maintain her dignity as Dorian pushed her to the edge.  Consistency was as present as current stories, and they wrote them with a point of view.

 

Now the shows are populated by people I recognize (as in the actor’s actual faces), but their characters are just shuffled around around to fit into the plot they want to tell.

[AbcNbc247]

I think it's less about soaps changing and more about how these changes may damage the soap or even get it cancelled. 

 

So many times, a soap was changed because the person in charge could change it, not because the soap actually needed to be changed. Literally every time, it was basically an ego trip and an addition to a resume and nothing more. What needed to happen was that producers, writers, network execs. needed to take their time bringing in and building up new characters and creating new storylines, instead of just forcing it on the viewer all at once. 

 

Look at GH. According to posters on here, when the Webbers were first brought in they weren't too well received, mainly because they were quickly placed on the front burner. Plus, they were a family and up until that point GH was not a family soap. But look what the Quartermaines did for GH just a few years later. Taking your time, gradually phasing in your new characters/families and weaving them into storylines with existing characters is the way to make a change. There's no reason to rush, because that's why some changes failed and caused some soap fans to dislike changes on their soaps.

Edited July 25, 2020 by AbcNbc247

[titan1978]

The Webber invasion is such an interesting issue to bring up.  Because under Monty and Marland/PFS, the Monica/Alan/Rick/Lesley story, according to Denise Alexander, is what shot the show to number 1.  Then Luke and Laura just kept raising their ratings.  So the change ended up being good for the show’s ratings under the right creative team.

 

I would rather they cancel these soaps when they are at least trying, instead of what we see a lot of right now, which is generic soap across four shows.  Because at least then they go out with some respect for their genre.

Edited July 26, 2020 by titan1978

[GLATWT88]

One factor may be that longtime fans know soaps in general are coming to an end and they rather they go out holding onto some nostalgia and familiarity with characters they know and love well and with actors that have been a part of the canvas for decades in some cases. 

[P.J.]

Somehow, I doubt it.  I'm positive if you could dig up viewers' opinions from the 60's, you'd find the same kinds of complaints. The real difference is  social media allowing fans to connect with each other, vs them sending their complaints directly to the studio or actor via fan mail.

[Planet Soap]

I always wondered what would happen if soaps took the SNL approach where a cast only lasts a few years, then a new generation takes over every decade or so.  I do appreciate the style of following the same characters like Marlena, Victor or Bob & Kim for decades. I don't think there's any other genre where I can keep up with the same charachters from 1980 to 1990 to 2020. It makes it feel like their lives are happening in real time.

 

Eventually writing for the same characters is going to get stale and repeditive after a while. IMO a good approach is to develop a multi-generational cast so the *WELL DEVELOPED* younger folks can take over eventually and they themselves go onto becoming the town establishment. The other good method might be to phase in new families like the Quartermaines were in the 70s, and possibly phase out old families with no storyline to avoid a ballooned cast like current GH.

Edited August 3, 2020 by ironlion

[Manny]

I think one of the reasons for sure is that today's writers are either not strong enough or are not allowed by the managers to develop the new characters in the same way that classic writers (Nixon, Philips, Bell, Marland) were able to. So a lot of the new characters just fall flat and are not interesting enough.

 

But there is also the point that someone else brought up that today there is so much more outlets where people can complain, so it might seem like the viewers are more vocal, when in fact today is it is just easier to complain. Before you actually had to sit down, writing your letter and go to the post office to mail it to the studio. While today all you have to do is log into twitter or facebook or whatever and just speak your mind within minutes. 

[prefab1]

 

And of course, history is kind to those "classic" writers. All the ones that you mentioned introduced plenty of new characters who were total duds, but they get remembered for the characters they introduced who lasted. (Interestingly, in the case of Marland's ATWT, a lot of the show's most iconic characters were introduced either before or after his long head-writing reign, and the ones he did introduce, like Holden and his kin, arguably should have been phased out after he passed away). 

[Fevuh]

Omg people still say this.  I grew up watching ATWT in the late 70s and the entire Farm family Snyder clan was the biggest fresh air to hit that show.  No one had a real middle class country family.  

And so the Hughes and Stewart families on ATWT - when the writers who created them passed away they should have been phased out?  My lort 

[prefab1]

I came to the show pretty late (around 2000), so I probably didn't get to see the Snyders in their heyday. But since I can't think of any story I liked in the show's last 10 years featuring any of the Snyders, I do in fact wish they had been phased out. 

 

And if people on these boards can go on and on about how the Coopers on Guiding Light (who were introduced around the same time) were interlopers who should have been written out, I think it's fair to feel the same way about the Snyders. 

[All My Shadows]

I think the idea is that Marland was the only one who really had a handle on how to write the Snyders. They were a depressing and repetitive bunch for most of the time after his death.

[titan1978]

I agree we give a huge pass to some of those classic talents.

 

Y&R in the mid 1990’s was as bad and bland as I had ever seen it, and only really came back to life at the end of Bell’s HW stint, when we know Alden was putting things into place for her eventual takeover.  And then she herself had plenty of duds (although nothing like what came after).

 

Labine wrote stupid GH stories- Kevin and Mac in drag for one, and I thought her OLTL gave us some good characters but put the entire cast into stories that did not fit well.  Her GL was not good.

 

As I have stated before in the cancelled thread, I am one of those people that finds Marland’s writing to be dry.  He does build a community feeling though.  And as much as I love Curlee’s/Demorest etc GL, that team did create the Coopers, and even if some/a lot of it was JFP’s fault, the show was wildly unbalanced in their last year as HW team and people like Nick and Lucy were shoved down viewers throats.

Monty’s GH floundered IMO without Pat Falken Smith, only staying at the top of the ratings because of a cast/characters people loved.
 

 

[Fevuh]

Yeah you were late to the real party. 

[kalbir]

Yes, Y&R did start to go down Fall 1994-early 1996 when Nick and Sharon ate the show, then there was the lull from Fall 1996-first half of 1997. Things did pick up in the second half of 1997 through to 1998, which was the last excellent year. While Kay Alden's run started good, we could see signs of tanking from 1999-2005. As we all know, nothing was the same 2006 onward.

 

I'm pretty sure Pamela Long created the Coopers, as Harley, Frank, and Nadine were already on when I started watching in Spring 1989. JFP brought on Buzz in early 1993 and Lucy in Fall 1993.