Someone posted an early 1980s episode of As The World Turns over the weekend and I posted my appreciation for the detail contained in a sequence involving a veteran actress on the show. The intricate camera work highlighting the actress’ facial expressions, the subtle music. It was so subtle that, if you didn’t know what to look for, it might pass unnoticed but for me, the timing of it all…it was art! Do the people making these shows today believe that they are genuinely making art? 

16 minutes ago, DramatistDreamer said:

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?

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.

 

1 hour ago, DramatistDreamer said:

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?

I can honestly say that Irna's inclusion is the only thing that makes me glad I have that book! We think of her as inventing all of the tropes & all of the cliches of traditional televised soap operas & here she was being modern & forward-thinking about throwing out one of them & they didn't want to listen to her! Other people, like Lee Phillip Bell, without any reservation at all, call her a genius. 

Personally I think soaps have always had a sense of humor about themselves. But BITD that was not negative or destructive, just self-deprecating. 

Now, I completely agree that the whole industry has a horrible self-esteem issue. People honestly do not believe they are "as good as" other genres. I wonder if other genres in similar positions experience this. Comic books? Sci-fi? I don't think so. 

I also agree that when individual soaps began to be less differentiated & more carbon copy that soaps lost a sense of themselves. 

1 hour ago, DramatistDreamer said:

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?

Interestingly, SCTV's The Days of the Week doesn't use organ music. In many respects the parody feels very true to the form and (at least here) doesn't have any obvious jokes beyond the utter brainlessness of Mojo.

 

The "SCTV" crew were paying very close attention to the actual soaps when they made that parody.  Even "Violet" and "Mojo" are so close to being like AW's Iris and Vivien that it's eerie, lol.

Well soaps were seen as womens' entertainment so that immediately placed it lower on the ladder.

And coupled with lower budgets and salary and working conditions they were at the bottom of the pecking order.

And we have to be honest,sometimes the finished product was lacking.

 

22 minutes ago, Paul Raven said:

Well soaps were seen as womens' entertainment so that immediately placed it lower on the ladder.

And coupled with lower budgets and salary and working conditions they were at the bottom of the pecking order.

And we have to be honest,sometimes the finished product was lacking.

 

Someone termed a coinage about pink collar ghetto!

Never forget that at one time many of these shows were cash cows for the companies that produced them as well as the networks that broadcast them.
Something else that hasn’t really been mentioned but should be factored in is the fact that these shows were ostensibly created to sell product, so the intersection of commerce and entertainment was very strong, and unlike other shows of the period (variety shows etc), it seems like the people who produce these soaps never quite got past the mentality that nowadays the entertainment aspect should take a higher priority than the commercial aspect. 

5 minutes ago, DramatistDreamer said:

Never forget that at one time many of these shows were cash cows for the companies that produced them as well as the networks that broadcast them.
Something else that hasn’t really been mentioned but should be factored in is the fact that these shows were ostensibly created to sell product, so the intersection of commerce and entertainment was very strong, and unlike other shows of the period (variety shows etc), it seems like the people who produce these soaps never quite got past the mentality that nowadays the entertainment aspect should take a higher priority than the commercial aspect. 

P&G began to get out of the domestic products business in 2000. In the 70s daytime coughed up 70% of network profits. P&G was once the major advertiser. 

On 1/7/2024 at 9:55 PM, Khan said:

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?

That's how I feel! It's hard to find a single redeeming thing to say about Passions! The writing was bad, the acting was bad and the worst part is that they were serious. It to me was the catalyst for the failure of modern soaps. There were still 10 when it premiered, Passions included and it took them down quickly. It was such a joke. It actually angers me that it was on so long and Sunset Beach got screwed.

On 1/7/2024 at 10:59 PM, Paul Raven said:

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...

That's exactly what I was looking forward to. Instead we got overdrawn, exploitative parody. Oh, and lots of rape!

Also... Desperate Housewives. It was meant to be a soap opera, yet it was winning awards as a comedy show. People thought that it might work in daytime as well. Look at CW's Dynasty. It never took itself seriously. There is no point in watching a soap that doesn't take itself seriously (and that was my problem with Santa Barbara at a point where things got too crazy).

12 hours ago, SteelCity said:

It actually angers me that it was on so long and Sunset Beach got screwed.

Especially since Sunset Beach did the tongue-in-cheek thing much much better, while also playing a straight soap. I've said it before and I'll say it again - if it had at least premiered later in the afternoon it might've had a chance to get that 18-34 audience that it was actually written for watching. It was always bizarre to premiere such a youth-skewing show at noon.