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 also wonder if it was considered controversial at the time to show a morally corrupt doctor?(another character troupe for Agnes Nixon, the upstanding male citizen who is hiding secrets back at home) Up until the early 1970s, prime-time would very rarely tell stories about the private lives of doctors, because advertisers tended to shy away from such content. @robbwolff -- so is this wrong that Ruth dated David before marrying Joe?  Dr. David Thornton is a fictional character from the ABC daytime soap opera All My Children, portrayed by Paul Gleason from 1976 to 1978.  He was introduced as a respected physician in Pine Valley, presenting himself as a widower to his colleagues at the hospital. This facade, however, concealed a darker truth: his wife, Edna Thornton, was alive, and he was leading a double life. David’s character is defined by manipulation and secrecy, as he maintained a carefully curated public image while engaging in deceitful and criminal behavior in his personal life. His relationships were marked by control and betrayal, particularly in his marriage to Edna and his romantic entanglements with other women. David’s charm and professional status allowed him to navigate Pine Valley’s social circles, but his actions revealed a calculating and ruthless nature. Career David was a doctor at Pine Valley Hospital, where he was well-regarded by his peers for his medical expertise. His professional life provided him with a veneer of respectability, which he exploited to mask his personal misdeeds. However, his career was not a central focus of his storyline; instead, it served as a backdrop to his personal schemes. His position at the hospital gave him access to resources, such as the drug digitalis, which he later used in his attempt to murder his wife. David’s professional life unraveled as his criminal actions came to light, tarnishing his reputation in the medical community. Personal Relationships and Family David’s family and romantic relationships were fraught with tension and deception, shaping much of his narrative arc: Edna Thornton (Wife): David was married to Edna Thornton, with whom he had a daughter, Dottie. To his colleagues, he claimed Edna was deceased, allowing him to pursue other relationships without suspicion. In reality, David was plotting to kill Edna, motivated by his desire to be free of her and possibly to gain financial or personal freedom. He began poisoning her with digitalis, a heart medication, which caused her to experience heart pains. Edna was unaware of David’s true intentions until after his death, when the truth about his poisoning scheme was revealed. Dottie Thornton (Daughter): David and Edna’s daughter, Dottie Thornton, was a significant character in All My Children. Portrayed by Dawn Marie Boyle (1977–1980) and later Tasia Valenza (1982–1986), Dottie was raised primarily by Edna. David’s neglectful and manipulative behavior extended to his daughter, as he showed little genuine care for her well-being. Dottie’s life was impacted by her father’s actions, particularly after his death, when Edna became a wealthy widow. Dottie later married Thaddeus “Tad” Martin in 1985, though their marriage ended in divorce in 1986, and she suffered the loss of an unborn child with Tad. Ruth Parker (Fiancée, 1976): David was engaged to Ruth Parker in 1976, furthering his pattern of deceit since he was still married to Edna. His engagement to Ruth, who was also involved with Jeff Martin, highlighted David’s willingness to manipulate romantic partners for his own gain. The engagement did not lead to marriage, as David’s true intentions and double life began to surface. Christina “Chris” Karras (Lover, 1978): In 1978, David began a romantic relationship with Dr. Christina “Chris” Karras, a fellow physician. This affair added another layer of complexity to his web of lies, as Chris was unaware of his marriage to Edna and his poisoning scheme. After David’s death, Chris was initially accused of his murder due to their relationship and her access to medical resources. However, Jeff Martin’s investigation cleared her name by proving David’s death was caused by his own actions. Parents: David’s parents are unnamed in the source material, and both are noted as deceased. No further details are provided about their influence on his life or their role in his backstory. Death David Thornton’s death in 1978 was a dramatic and fitting conclusion to his villainous arc, brought about by his own treachery. Intent on killing Edna to escape their marriage, David had been secretly administering digitalis to her, causing her heart issues. In a twist of fate, their daughter, Dottie, innocently switched Edna’s drink with David’s during one of his poisoning attempts. Unaware that the drink was laced with a lethal dose of digitalis, David consumed it and suffered a fatal heart attack. His death was initially investigated as a possible murder, with Chris Karras as the prime suspect due to her relationship with David and her medical knowledge. However, Dr. Jeff Martin conducted a toxicology screen on David’s body, which revealed that the digitalis poisoning was the cause of both Edna’s heart pains and David’s death. This evidence exonerated Chris and exposed David’s plan to kill his wife, cementing his legacy as a tragic and self-destructive figure. Impact and Legacy David Thornton’s storyline, though relatively short-lived (1976–1978), was impactful due to its intensity and the ripple effects on other characters. His death left Edna a wealthy widow, altering her and Dottie’s circumstances and setting the stage for further drama, including Edna’s manipulation by conman Ray Gardner. David’s actions also strained relationships among other Pine Valley residents, particularly through his engagement to Ruth Parker and affair with Chris Karras, which intersected with Jeff Martin’s storyline. His character exemplified the classic soap opera archetype of a charming yet duplicitous villain whose downfall is precipitated by his own hubris. Additional Notes Portrayal: Paul Gleason’s performance as David Thornton brought a compelling intensity to the role, making the character memorable despite his brief tenure. Gleason’s ability to portray both charm and menace suited David’s dual nature as a respected doctor and a scheming husband. Storyline Context: David’s arc occurred during the early years of All My Children, a period when the show focused on intricate personal dramas and moral dilemmas. His poisoning plot and double life were emblematic of the show’s penchant for high-stakes interpersonal conflict. Lack of Additional Family Details: Beyond Edna and Dottie, no other family members (such as siblings or extended relatives) are mentioned in the source material, limiting the scope of his familial connections. Conclusion Dr. David Thornton was a multifaceted antagonist in All My Children, whose life was marked by professional success, personal deception, and a fatal miscalculation. As a doctor, he wielded authority and respect, but his secret plan to murder his wife, Edna, revealed a cold and calculating core. His relationships with Edna, Dottie, Ruth Parker, and Chris Karras were defined by manipulation, and his death by accidental self-poisoning was a poetic end to his schemes. David’s legacy in Pine Valley lived on through Edna’s newfound wealth and Dottie’s subsequent storylines, making him a pivotal figure in the show’s early narrative. His story remains a classic example of soap opera drama, blending betrayal, tragedy, and retribution.
    • The only blonde I see is one of the actual women staring at first & then screaming & running later.  DAYS: Vivian's manservant Ivan is in a long curly red wig. 

      Please register in order to view this content

      Y&R: long straight black wig is the actor Peter Barton whose character name I am blanking on.   
    • I very much liked office Cleary and the actress who portrayed her (as you say, Mary Peterson).  A shame her turn didn't evolve into a contract role.   BTW, does anyone know the timeframe/years that Betty Rae served as casting director?  If i understand correctly, she not only led the effort for contract roles, but also for shorter 13- and 26-week roles.  IMO, GL had LOTS of very well-casted, limited roles, too. I'm surprised the actors throughout the soap industry, and especially P&G actors, have not assembled a book or something similar, praising Rae.  Each actor could write a few paragraphs or a page of text describing his or her experience.
    • No. Ruth had an extramarital affair with David while married to Joe.
    • I'm not sure I agree with Bernstein's children on that. Bernstein's life and activism here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_Bernstein#Social_activism_and_humanitarian_efforts
    • Thursday & Friday's episodes were excellent. The build-up was most definitely worth the wait (2 months). TMG, I can't give her enough accolades. AM, was also absolutely incredible. I think the fallout is going to have a ripple effect. The little clues that have been dropped,  hopefully, will weave seamlessly to reveal even bigger bombshells for the Dupree's and Martin.
    • Thanks, msn drives me nuts on the one hand but on the other hand their headlines appeal to me. And, I just don't do FoxNews.   
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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