3 minutes ago, Tonksadora said:

I know that the people who worked on Mary Hartman, Mary Hartman, say that they were not a soap, that they were a satire of a soap. 

I believe viewers will always debate exactly what "Mary Hartman, Mary Hartman" was.  lol.  

It was most definitely satire, but it was a serialized story built around comedy.  It was a pretty bold endeavor, and had it been more successful, I expect it would've been attempted in daytime.  But one can see from the reruns how demanding it was to produce thirty minutes of comedy that frequently.  

The experiment seemed to show daytime writers that comedy within a soap was effective, if it could spring naturally from the characters or from the situation they were in, without the "forcefulness" of "Mary Hartman".  

2 minutes ago, Paul Raven said:

In the late 60's CBS were making more money from daytime than their #1 primetime schedule.

As for the lack of diversity in soaps, I think this was pretty much due to the inherently conservative nature of the networks-they liked the tried and true. This was just as evident in primetime.

Quite often, anything outside the box that worked was regarded as the exception to the rule.

In daytime the innovations eg soaps in the morning, teen orientated (Never Too Young) gothic (Dark Shadows) never really took off. 

CBS /Irna pushed the envelope with interracial romance on Love Is A Many Splendore Thing but it was soon dropped.

Only Agnes Nixon really had success with more daring plots but she was smart to incorporate plenty of traditional soap stories also.

So Gloria Monty incorporating sci/fi adventure really was an innovation that worked and other shows followed. But it was another nail in the coffin along with the 60 min format and the 'star system'.

 

Expand on the star system. Would like to hear your perspective. 

8 minutes ago, ironlion said:

Would you say all soaps should have never touched the ultra-melo dramatic material or should have been a balance with shows old-school stage play feeling while others went over the top?

SB: Outside of medical and supernatural,  I'm surpirsed the genere never went for more distinction between soaps like primetime. A few comedy soaps here and there, a legal soap etc.. Largely all daytime dramas have been about the same with a few subtle differences. 

Back in the day, while all soaps had certain elements in common (continuing storylines, cliffhangers, family conflict, romance, etc), they were prone to having unique identities as well. The Edge of Night was vastly different from As the World Turns, for example.  General Hospital was vastly different from Another World. Early All  My Children was very different from The Young and the Restless. As time went on and the creative voices of the masters were snuffed out, the "suits" started to micro-manage the soaps and wanted them all to copy whatever seemed popular at the time on other high-profile soaps. Writer Don Chastain of Search for Tomorrow, openly complained that the network and P&G did not want his show to focus on what was best suited for SFT with its own unique history and identity; they mandated that he had to copy what General Hospital was doing with Luke and Laura and their adventures. SFT's leading man even had to perm his hair, because GH's Luke Spencer had curly hair, and was receiving tons of media coverage (any idiot would understand that it was not only because of Tony Geary's frizzy afro).

GH had gained a lot of media coverage for its idiotic Ice Princess story, about a mad scientist freezing the world in 1981. Clueless suits jumped to the conclusion that sci-fi camp was why the ratings had spiked, not understanding or paying attention to the fact that the ratings were already sky-high because of the intelligent, absorbing romantic storylines (written by Douglas Marland and Pat Falken Smith) playing out long before a scab writer foisted the Ice Princess dreck onto Port Charles. Low-brow camp started permeating daytime in general, and the initial novelty lured new viewers in for a while, even as it alienated die-hard, long-term fans. As the novelty wore off and fly-by-night viewers drifted away, however,  many life-time soap viewers didn't seem interested in coming back after the shows' "reality bubbles" had been burst.

IMHO, the supernatural/sci-fi/camp material ultimately killed the genre. Even if some of the soaps which "went there" got surges in the ratings for a while. After those type of stories burned out, soaps' ratings ended up being lower than they had ever been before. The most successful genre soap was Dark Shadows, but even that only last five years. Passions had its tiny cult following and last eight (?) seasons, but was never a true hit in any mainstream sense.

Days of Our Lives is the remaining soap that still persists in telling the most egregiously-stupid storylines imagineable, and it's the one with the weakest ratings, even though it does have some viewers who actively support its brand of lunacy. Alas, its "days" are numbered, and it's my contention that the plot choices and writing have led to its downfall.

6 minutes ago, vetsoapfan said:

They were prone to having unique identities as well.

IMHO, the supernatural/sci-fi/camp material ultimately killed the genre.

Absolutely true about the "unique identities".  

The two shows that I routinely followed in the late 1970s -- "The Young and the Restless" and "The Edge of Night" -- had absolutely nothing in common, story-wise.  One was a dark, moody, sensual show about family relationships and sexuality.  The other was a rapid-fire detective show about lawyers, cops, red herrings, and hidden clues.  The only thing they had in common was that they each provided 30-minutes of new content each afternoon.  

Perceptive writers should've seen that the sci-fi/camp material would burn-out quickly and erode the audience.  But somehow they didn't see that, being more focused on the short-term success of General Hospital and the Ice Princess than on the long-term success of the genre as a whole.   

5 minutes ago, ironlion said:

Expand on the star system. Would like to hear your perspective. 

I guess what I am referring to was the result of the mainstream media paying more attention to soaps.

In the 70's Doug and Julie were hugely popular characters . Susan and Bill were beloved by fans but outside that bubble no-one knew them. They didn't leave Days for 'greener' pastures.

Soaps were an ensemble and the core of actors stayed with the show.

Once Luke and Laura hit mags started paying more attention. Every show wanted a hot young couple that got frontburner stories. They got hyped by the network and invariably decided to leave.

eg Genie Francis, Tony Geary, Emma Samms,Peter Reckell, Kristan Alfonso,Kim Delaney,Meg Ryan etc

Very few actors stayed beyond their initial contracts. Also the big soaps being in LA meant that moving to primetime was easier. NY actors were less ready to leave and relocate. Many of them worked in the thriving NY theater scene.

And the writing pushed supercouples that would be together against all odds, which made it harder to write. The usual soap trope of a breakup was resisted by fans. As were recasts.

So the consistency of cast and theme were broken down which damaged the shows.

3 minutes ago, Broderick said:

Absolutely true about the "unique identities".  

The two shows that I routinely followed in the late 1970s -- "The Young and the Restless" and "The Edge of Night" -- had absolutely nothing in common, story-wise.  One was a dark, moody, sensual show about family relationships and sexuality.  The other was a rapid-fire detective show about lawyers, cops, red herrings, and hidden clues.  The only thing they had in common was that they each provided 30-minutes of new content each afternoon.  

Perceptive writers should've seen that the sci-fi/camp material would burn-out quickly and erode the audience.  But somehow they didn't see that, being more focused on the short-term success of General Hospital and the Ice Princess than on the long-term success of the genre as a whole.   

Exactly.

And what kills me, is TPTB have continued to make the exact same, idiotic and destructive choices for FORTY FREAKING YEARS, about what they dish out on the soaps.

There are knowledgeable, savvy, creative soap historians on this and other sites whom I guarantee would make better choices and be more adept at steering the remaining soaps in the right direction.

33 minutes ago, Broderick said:

I believe viewers will always debate exactly what "Mary Hartman, Mary Hartman" was.  lol

I'm sure you are right about that. And, despite their objections texts do list them with soaps. 

Most soaps had more in common than not but the unique identity came from the original concept and characters.

On AMC Pheobe was always causing problems, Kate could be relied on for sound advice, Erica was up to mischief. If there was hospital drama, you knew Joe would be involved.

But slowly those characters were de-emphasized and there were lots of new faces who may have had little relationship to the them.

Of course, those actors got older but the next generation were not nurtured, either because they turned 50 and were jettisoned or were not entrenched in the show.

So every show was just about a group of people, some of whom were only around a few yeears.

By the mid 80's,shows like SFT and GL had only 2 or 3 characters who were around 5 years earlier. That's no way to build the long term connection the hshows need.

And the TPTB seemed determined to want to reinvent the shows by not only hiring new young actors but creating new characters when viable characters with connections were ignored.

eg John Wesley Shipp could have been Billy Fletcher -already connected to the Bauers, not Kelly Nelson.

It's telling that the two most reality grounded soaps, Y&R and B&B, have remained on top.

2 minutes ago, ironlion said:

It's telling that the two most reality grounded soaps, Y&R and B&B, have remained on top.

And yet, Y&R decided to remake themselves into an ABC soap in pursuit of younger demos. They are lucky that they kept so many of their older viewers.

I just want to say how refreshing it was to read commentary that was not the usual total hero worship of "Gloria-Monty-Saved-Soaps". All too often i find myself in a Minority Opinion of One who sees a downside to her actions. 

Also the loss of unique identity of the soaps replaced by corporate copycatting. 

Thanks, folks. 

In the larger picture, what I remember most from soaps of the pre 2000 era was a willingness to take more chances.  We had much more variety in character and storyline- not everybody was wealthy, characters had richer lives in that we saw them interact with family, friends, lovers, and co-workers.  You saw love stories of many different types too- young love, affairs, toxic and realistic marriages, etc.

Another thing I did was sample many shows.  I always kept an eye on GH, OLTL, and DAYS.  But I would watch other shows for a period of time, sometimes years (Y&R).  There was the option to move to other shows then.

What soaps did not get right back then was the same across media of the times- not enough actual diversity in front and behind the scenes.

22 minutes ago, titan1978 said:

In the larger picture, what I remember most from soaps of the pre 2000 era was a willingness to take more chances.  We had much more variety in character and storyline- not everybody was wealthy, characters had richer lives in that we saw them interact with family, friends, lovers, and co-workers.  You saw love stories of many different types too- young love, affairs, toxic and realistic marriages, etc.

Another thing I did was sample many shows.  I always kept an eye on GH, OLTL, and DAYS.  But I would watch other shows for a period of time, sometimes years (Y&R).  There was the option to move to other shows then.

What soaps did not get right back then was the same across media of the times- not enough actual diversity in front and behind the scenes.

I totally miss how textured these shows were when they could afford it. Characters like Miguel, Lynn, John Silva, and Douglas Austin on Y&R or Stavros, Donna, and Ginger on GL added so much dimension (and often lightness and comedy) to those shows. They didn’t need to be involved in deep stories, but someone like Douglas Austin made Victor seem so much more relatable, as their friendship illuminated Victor’s motivations, yearnings, and humanity. 

GH is the only show that still has a deep roster of recurring characters, but they are used so sparingly that Port Charles doesn’t feel as rich as it could be. Characters need friends who aren’t their exes or family members.

(They also made these shows feel repetitive than they do now.)

16 hours ago, Paul Raven said:

By the mid 80's,shows like SFT and GL had only 2 or 3 characters who were around 5 years earlier. That's no way to build the long term connection the hshows need.

I seem to recall reading that when Charita Bauer passed away and they had Jerry ver Dorn address the audience as himself to announce her passing, it was ver Dorn that was chosen because he was the most senior castmember at the time, but he had only been there for six years. I thought surely that can't be right? But it was. 

3 hours ago, titan1978 said:

In the larger picture, what I remember most from soaps of the pre 2000 era was a willingness to take more chances.  We had much more variety in character and storyline- not everybody was wealthy, characters had richer lives in that we saw them interact with family, friends, lovers, and co-workers.  You saw love stories of many different types too- young love, affairs, toxic and realistic marriages, etc.

I loved how back in the 90's, you still could see the different class structures of the town. The wealthy characters (i.e. the Spauldings on GL) would not be shlepping it at Company; instead, they'd dine at Towers or the country club. 

GL did this; Y&R did this; I'm sure others did (AMC, etc.). It was more realistic and it actually made the town seem larger, showing different socioeconomic backgrounds.