Jump to content

When and Why did Soaps Start Making Fun of Themselves? And has That Trend Led to the End??


Recommended Posts

  • Members

I can speculate on the "when."  But no idea about the "why."

I think it was soon after Luke and Laura's "freeze the world" adventure on General Hospital.  The reason I say "after" is because I think Gloria Monty took that storyline pretty seriously.  Although it was clearly over the top and fundamentally science-fiction, it really wasn't intentionally campy or humorous, in my opinion.  But soon after, it was the soap operas that attempted to copy General Hospital's style that took their efforts too far -- the earliest and most obvious example was Days of Our Lives, which quickly turned Euro-gangster Stefano Dimera into a moustache-twriling super-villain, and sent Bo and Hope on campy cloak-and-dagger adventures.  Many of the other soaps eagerly copied the trend, branching into comedy (rather than traditional soap opera humor) and maximizing the campiness, rather than focusing on believable human drama.  A few held-out, still attempting to play out believable storylines.    

But on to the "why?"  I have no idea.    

Any thoughts????

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 26
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Members

The fact is the soaps, and the people who work in the soaps, always have been ashamed of themselves.  They don't see what they do for their most loyal fans as being as "legitimate" as what primetime shows and movies do for their audiences.  IOW, daytime has suffered for a long time from a massive inferiority complex; and it's that complex, IMO, that has been the primary cause of its' downfall.

Edited by Khan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

You can see that really ossify in the '90s, with the reigns of people like JFP and Guza who so clearly hated soaps and wanted to make them more acceptable to their own standards. 

The industry had such a clear contempt for soaps - you can see that in so many TV shows and movies going back even to the '40s and '50s - but they were still able to have their own identity and didn't bow to the mass hatred until somewhere in the '80s and '90s.

What bothers me the most is someone like Carlivati who is endlessly patted on the back for loving soaps, yet also treats them as a joke. At least Guza's failed ambitions were honest. I have a harder time getting part Ron turning so much of the end of OLTL into a wankfest for his endless self-parodies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

GH got a lot of attention and ratings success out of LnL. a failing hospital based soap was re-invented as a more action oriented serial.

So other shows thought far out stories involving young couples was what the audience wanted. They too would take on a new identity as GH had done.

And nightime soaps took off so that become the default template and  in came glamor and big business.

The domestic/ small town / generational/emotional angst angles that had been the bedrock of soaps for decades  took a back seat.

It was a short sighted approach as soaps became dependent on hot couples and plot based storylines.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I think there are a lot of third (or fourth) generation writers to blame.  The first generation created the soap, it was their baby, and they took it very seriously.  Whether that meant writing morality plays or social issues stories, they created a genre that was unique to the audience and the time of day.  The second generation rebelled against Gen I and wanted to turn daytime into something else.  They may have been playwrights or failed novelists, and they wanted to overlay the format with their own agenda.  Now we are at Gen III who grew up with soaps, they revered the format, and they comment upon the conventions either by trying to recapture the magic of the past, or through humor.  What we need is a writer who wants to push forward and adapt the romance and drama to be relevant within today's culture.

Edited by j swift
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

The people involved in the soaps from the more traditional era 50's-70's slowly were edged out, retired and died.

Roy Winsor, Irna Phillips, Henry Slesar and later Harding Lemay,Pat Falken Smith, Bill Bell,Agnes Nixon plus people like Ed Trach and Bob Short at P&G. 

The list goes on.

So the next generation- people like Pam Long, Chris Goutman, Megan McTavish, Jill Farren Phelps,Chuck Pratt and Ron Carvilati really only knew soaps from the 80's style and were not aware or interested in the past. Execs were the same and kept trying to 'update' the soaps in the wrong way.

Hence Passions,The City and Sunset Beach.

 

Edited by Paul Raven
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Interesting analysis, and I tend to believe you are correct.  But if the folks in charge of daytime dramas have had a long-term inferiority complex, then why did that complex only emerge in the mid-1980s, 1990s, and the 2000s, with the crazy plots, campiness, and insulting comedy?   Why were soaps so serious and compelling in the 1960s and '70s? There must have been a catalyst to propel all the change in the early 1980s.  What was it?   An outsider might suggest it was simply a misguided grab for ratings. But nearly all the soaps had very high ratings in the 1970s.  Why change something that isn't broken?    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Again, I have to go back to PASSIONS as being the absolute nadir of this genre.  There were bad soaps before PASSIONS, but no soap, IMO, was as bad - not just dull, like pre-Barnabas DS; or generic, like most of LOVING; but flat-out, funky-ass bad - from day damn one as PASSIONS was.  I mean, bad writing, bad acting, bad directing, bad music and sets - that piece of [!@#$%^&*] never should have seen the light of day.

But the truly funny/sad part is how PASSIONS tried to re-brand itself as tongue-in-cheek satire after they realized how much of a thud they had landed within the general soap watching community.  "It's campy, because it's supposed to be campy!"  Bitch, please!  Your show reeks and you know it!

Anyways.  Y'all were saying?

Edited by Khan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

As I said the success of GH that got media attention on soaps in a way that never happened before and the arrival of nightime soaps that gave the genre way more attention.

So TPTB decided that the slower pace domestic angle was not what the public wanted, even though that had worked for decades. Also demographics were changing with more women working, VCRs introduced and new competition from cable. Things were in a state of flux but the response was in the main wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I'm saying PASSIONS and NBCD wanted us, the viewing public, to believe that what they were producing everyday was legitimately good soap opera and not anything else until they realized that they were fooling no one.  Then, rather than admit that the show was horrible, that no one other than small children thought it was any good, that NBCD had made a mistake in giving JER his own show and full creative control, and that maybe they should replace him as HW (if not as EP and show owner, too) with someone who knew what the [!@#$%^&*] they were doing, TPTB decided that they would Jedi Mind Trick everyone instead into thinking it always was meant to be camp/satire/spoof and that we were just missing the point.

Edited by Khan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Yes, I don't recall any pre publicity stating that the show was going to be tongue in cheek or satire. Had they done that then maybe viewers/critics might have had adifferent attitude.

Instead we were promised a Peyton Place meets Twin Peaks vibe. Kinda gothic, suspenseful and mysterious, maybe a little off beat.

And what we got amongst other things in the first ep  was Galen Gering and Jesse Metcalfe on location having an episode long conversation...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Exactly.  

I remember JER talking up the show beforehand to the soap mags, referencing PP and other works and saying it would be a traditional soap but "with a twist" (meaning, of course, Tabitha and Timmy and that creepy girl who was warning Dana Sparks that "evil is coming!"), but nothing that said, "But we'll also give our audience a few playful winks and nudges and just have some fun with the conventions of this genre."  

Norman Lear made it clear at the outset that "Mary Hartman, Mary Hartman" was not meant to be taken seriously, as did ABC with "Soap."  If your intent is to send up something like the soaps, then you say so, so your audience doesn't go in with false expectations.  Otherwise, if you don't make that clear up front, you're just confusing us.

Frankly, I think JER was the only one who thought what he was writing was any good, satire or not, and that no one else who was affiliated with PASSIONS ever had the heart to tell him otherwise.

By the way, I apologize for turning this thread into a PASSIONS-oriented one, but I've always seen that show in particular as the final, bitter outcome of a gradual dumbing-down of soaps that began all the way back in the early '80's with the Ice Princess storyline on GH.

Edited by Khan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I didn't watch Passions. Did it make fun of soap tropes and conventions specifically and directly, or was it just that it had silly outlandish supernatural storylines? I would argue that you can combine soap with other genres without necessarily undermining the soap elements.

My radical opinion is that soaps would have been better off if they had been satisfied with capturing and entertaining their own niche audiences rather than trying to mimic what other "more successful" soaps were doing and diluting their own individual brands. Don't chase the GH supervillain ice princess if your show is about a publishing magnate and his artist wife.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Good topic @Mona Kane Croft. Lots of food for thought.

If people haven’t read the book When Women Invented Television I would highly recommend it, it’s worth a read but the sections on Irna Phillips would be particularly relevant to this discussion. From what I read, it appeared that Phillips felt that the executives, P&G, et al, never had much faith in her and didn’t trust her instincts. There is that story of Phillips wanting to do away with the organ music that led to ad breaks for televised soaps, insisting that it was only really necessary for radio broadcasts and if it continued on television, she feared that it would only become something that would be made light of and mocked. Obviously, TPTB didn’t agree with her and felt it was a signature of sorts, for a soap and left it in. Who was right, who was not? I don’t know if the answer is that simple but think of all of those sketch comedy shows that parody soaps, what’s the first cue that they use? Organ music?

Please register in order to view this content

I think though that there was always something of a hierarchy within entertainment with television somehow being at the bottom, that has changed with the era of prestige prime time television that began around the end of the 20th century. Meanwhile, in daytime, it feels as though people making the dramas were determined to either be in on the joke or make a mockery of themselves lest they be mocked by others. 
There are other elements that went into it as well, sexism, misogyny, chauvinism, arrogance, lack of vision, lack of foresight, too much of a willingness to go with the trend and toss out the fundamental tenets of good storytelling, seeking cheap thrills.

The other part of it was that once the genre developed an inferiority complex (I would agree that it was likely industry wide some time in the 1990s) the companies that produced these shows started chasing screenwriters who couldn’t find work in films to write for these daytime dramas, whether these writers knew anything about the shows they were writing for or not.

Of course, there is no rule against genre hopping —Paddy Chayefsky was a writer that many writers wanted to emulate (minus the horrible health issues) because he was successful writing scripts for television, theater and film. But many of these writers didn’t know or seem to care about the history of the genre they were entering into.

Edited by DramatistDreamer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



  • Recent Posts

    • I found it to be a rather odd way to deal with a character departing for parts unknown.
    • Today reminded me as to why I’m a little disappointed in the name that the new Pope chose

      Please register in order to view this content

      Luckily, EJ and Johnny, and pretty much every other character saved today’s episode.  I didn’t expect Javi to be the one to save Sarah though, and I don’t mind it at all, because if it means that Javi is finally going to get his own identity/character, away from his douchy bf, I’m all for it. Javi’s scenes would’ve been a lot better had it not been for him. EJ and Johnny were the best part of today. Their conversation hit a lot of important beats and I’m so looking forward to seeing them play out. And now that EJ knows that Johnny is going to work for Xander, that opens up another dynamic to their storyline and to the Kiriakis family storylines as well. Tying them all together could be really good. There are so many story possibilities that can come out of this. And I thought Carson Boatman did a pretty good job again too.  I also liked that Johnny was there to comfort Chanel after everything that happened with Sarah. They’re so good together. But I do have mixed feelings about Chanel possibly forgiving Johnny so quickly. Hopefully, the question that she asked him at the end of today leads to more conflict for the two of them.  And yeah, still no changes in Alex’s character lol 
    • Awesome, thanks so much for taking the time to grab this episode. I had a quick review of your rip because I was curious why it was 700MB and 30 minutes. The first 10 minutes of the episode is 3169 (opening credits at 5 minutes and again at 15 minutes). I thought we had the full HD version of ep.3170 on the YouTube channel, but it appears they added the wrong episode but labelled it 3170. 
    • I guess, according to Mike Manning in the Michael Fairman chat, he was almost Derek 

      Please register in order to view this content

    • OIC Thanks. I saw thzt & looked for a prior  ... never mind. 
    • I imagine Brad will blow through all the money in a year and come crawling back, just as Portia warned him not to.
    • Please register in order to view this content

         
    • That's a name I haven't heard in a minute. Thanks! 
    • Well, since I'm still up unexpected past my growing-into-it bedtime. lol.   I finally got to rewatch Monday's. I even rewatched Friday's to take it all in. Now that we got the reveal and hit the climax of the SilkPress Sheila storyline, now we get to watch the aftermath and/or turns that come with its climax. So far, so good. Friday left us with three cliffhangers. And what I found surprising was how I felt about them over a rewatch.    I know some of you all felt a way about the dialogue during Kat vs Eva. I remember liking it more the first time around and it was nice for them to have these scenes to establish more of a frenemy vibe for them going forward. That still held up. But I found myself agreeing with you all about that dialogue. lol. Still, it was nice to have both of their POVs.   Second up was Silk Press Sheila vs the Duprees. And I was happy to get a brief spat with Dani in there. But the rest standouts for me was Anita and Martin. Haters can hate and given the tail end of the episode, I will agree to a fault, but Brandon has impressed and he was on fire on Monday and had great subtle work on Friday. And that subtle work made it all the better. Like I believe I said when I was watching...BC has a much better grip on his character and seems to be realizing what his tics are so has started to be able to know when to turn it up and when to dial it down. And for the most part (emphasis on most), he got that. Meanwhile, TT was giving fierceness, and I was here for every minute of it. Her reading SilkPress. Her being quip about it. Her 'BE STILL.' Ooooo she had a chokehold on me as Anita gave what I was expecting her to SilkPress. WORTH THE WAIT. I also loved Vernon's CHOOSE SILENCE. I wonder though if SilkPress will figure out Martin's condition from her observing Anita and Vernon with him.   And speaking of worth it...Oooo YES Nicole vs Ted was worth totally worth it. Oooooo I knew DD would nail it, and it was all so well done. The fight between the part of Nicole who is a therapist vs Nicole as a woman who wants to express how she feels. And being so angry. And how there would be moments when it would shoot out of her. And how she would restrain herself. But how she felt she should not be restrain. Just the levels of processing and layers. And DD played it all so well. I do wish Maurice gave just a little bit more, but overall, I thought he did a good job even if it was just Ted coming across as a deadbeat and not at all redeemable. And Kat being there for her mother was so beautiful.   Minority, but I love the montage though yes, it did run a little long. Given how the Duprees like to bond (and also as I mentioned from my own very recent family experiences), it did not seem out of place to me.     That said...let's see how the aftermath worked in today's episode. Overall. Cuz RC can be hit or miss. 
    • I wonder whose brilliant (

      Please register in order to view this content

      ) idea it was to do an almost complete rip-off of the "who killed Tom King"-storyline. That's some quality style writing right there.....  
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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