Jump to content

ALL: End of an Era: Are Daytime Soaps Washing Away?


asafi

Recommended Posts

  • Members

The soap opera world's been shrinking for years, and 2025 might be the final curtain call for the last four.

Please register in order to view this content

TV's changed big time – we've got streaming, social media, you name it. Who's got time to watch a show every single day anymore? Plus, with tight budgets, the networks might be thinking it's time to pull the plug.
But hey, soaps have survived tough times before. Maybe they'll find a way to keep the drama going, just in a new format. What do you think? Ready to say goodbye to soaps, or hoping they'll stick around somehow? vs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 39
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Members

Yes I hope they stick around. But I also hope they can adapt to ever changing viewing habits. Stop dragging them out. Make them run shorter. I can barely get through a 20 minute show. I don't know how people can commit themselves to one hour. The writing would have to be excellent.

That’s my 2 cents anyway

Edited by Troppo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

It's funny that people try to point to streaming as an issue for soaps - if anything I think it's helped, especially with the advent of the FAST model. You have a format that makes people check in your platform regularly and on top of that is cheap to produce compared to those expensive 8 episode seasons that drop every two years.

 

There's a reason why DAYS have somehow managed to survive for three years on Peacock, Neighbours got picked up by FreeVee and The Gates got picked up. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I think the concerns are still valid - many of us have spoken this year, repeatedly, about how much longer DAYS and GH will be on. And internationally the situation is also dire, with shows like Shortland Street and Hollyoaks hanging on by their fingernails, with reduced episode orders. Neighbours also has not been given a renewal as of yet. 

 I do feel like we've said most of what we can say on the topic. 

I will say again that I wish they would go back to creating 15 minute soaps just to see what the public response might be.

Edited by DRW50
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Please register in order to view this content

sorry, dumbass joke.

But if we're being serious, the investment in THE GATES is very obviously based on the African-American audience and their potential to be monetized, if we're putting it in very blunt terms. "STAR" on Fox had a high viewership but couldn't be monetized for prime time because it came largely from "low-earning households" (aka the pay disparity between AA households and non-AA households became an issue). In daytime, this doesn't matter.

 

It would be interesting to see how this disparity figures into FAST models on streaming. I suspect for FAST shows, minorities might come into importance with how their shows are developed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I grew up finding salvation in soaps as an outlet to "escape". I will never give up on the genre. It definitely needs to reinvent itself though. The current state isn't working. Having the same writers bounce from show to show that are left isn't helping. As others have said, the genre needs new writing talent and paired with someone that understands the breakdowns of soaps to help fit into the faster pace of episodes. 

Personally, I'd trim the casts and write for fewer people. I'd narrow the number of stories to one A story with a couple of minor B and C stories only sprinkled in so when the A story ends the B or C then becomes the A story.  Would make it easier for viewers to tune in. 

Unfortunately, the whole structure of actor guarantees would have to end so the writer could write for who they want when they want. No longer shoving in X and Y to a scene that makes no sense for them to be there just to have a guarantee fulfilled. Plus, if a story is rocking they can keep it in the forefront instead of a couple days a week without worrying about the guarantees. Maybe instead of per episode pay, do it as a salary with the understanding some weeks will be balls out while other weeks will be "lying in a coma" (lol) and actors can still rely on a steady paycheck each week. Recurring characters are fine if you can get reliable actors that are still committed in a way. Wally Kurth, for instance. 

I'd allow for longer scenes at times. I hate these 20/30 second clips when there's a major confrontation between characters. Bring the drama back. If it's done well, viewers will stay engaged for longer scenes. 

Sadly, I think the writers of today's shows are tied down a lot. Too much interference and thinks out of control. If the genre is going to come back around, there needs to be great writing talent like that of the past. Harding Lemay. Bill Bell. Doug Marland. Writers who were, for the most part, allowed to write

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I feel that the storylines should be slower, if they are well-written. Umbrella stories like Bill Bell and Doug Marland did. Even JER. Part of the logic is that people can stop watching for a bit but then easily catch up. I have an interview with Lin Bolen where she said that expanding to an hour,  by doubling the scene length, in conjunction with slow baked storytelling, makes it easier for the working mother.

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

    • Stephanie writing a novel is odd.  She's never seemed interested in writing or much of a creative type.  Is One Stormy Night a nod to the primetime Days episode from the early 90's?  That would literally have nothing to do with Stephanie, nor were any of the characters featured in that special closely related to her IIRC.  Although One Stormy Night isn't a super creative title or anything, so it's probably just a coincidence.  And, yes, it was very rude for Alex to just take Stephanie's personal, private writing without asking lol.
    • And its 2025, not the 1970s, 80s, 90s... just bc pre-emptions have been a thing for decades, doesn't mean there shouldnt already be ways to deal with it in the modern era. Airing th episodes in the markets that can and putting them up and directing viewers to CBS.com to see them for free and of course Paramount Plus for those subscribers, seems like a reasonable compromise. Today's tv market leans heavily towards streaming so there is no reason why they shouldnt leverage that when it comes to this
    • Anita Dupree is Ruth Marshall from Generations. Ruth also a past of being a singer who gave it up because of raising a family and having a husband.

      Please register in order to view this content

      Still. THIS ONE!  
    • Some photo collages I've done. 

      Please register in order to view this content

                     This is not mine. 
    • Your right, as opposed to other matriarchs, even Nancy Hughes, Bert had a vital life outside of her family. She wasn't just sitting in her kitchen waiting for someone to stop by and cry. She volunteered, and later (thanks actually to Pam Long) had a job running the Patient Advocacy program, had friends, it didn't seem weird if she was at a party or an event, (with Nancy even with Marland it was like she was tagging along and every felt responsible for including her)  Bert was kind of a role model for aging gracefully and independently. I dont understand why they didnt bring a recast Mike and Hope back when Alan returned.  Your right, his animosity towards Ed and his branch, seemed forced....but not as much as the years of Alan hating on the Lewis family, then even worse, the Coopers..(like they would be a match for Alan..they would be totally beneath his notice.) They should have had Mike in constant oppostion to Alan and Roger (Ed was too docile and had his own problems at home) especially if Alan was involved with Alex.
    • Loving the show these days, one week into the post Ron era and I am feeling the difference. First off, thrilled to see Steve and Kayla together, and with their daughter. Ron never cared about this legacy couple. Shawn asking Steve to help him steal the drug is very much, finally, in character, for Bo's son. Bo would absolutely do the same thing. I am excited about this whole story, and now Xander is clearly in the mix. Will Titan provide the resources to help Kayla synthesize the drug, save Bo, and then take credit?  Leo was not too bad today but he is still obnoxious. Gabi and Philip though... now that has more spark than she has ever had with dull JJ. Here for this! Especially since it seems he gets to keep his stolen Co CEO job (and honestly, he should, Victor would want him at Titan. I think the solution is Xander gets Titan and Philip gets Dimera).  I liked Xander and Alex too, it is good to see them working together after the whole mess up last year with their names. Stephanie's book was an odd thing. Guess Alex will try to get it published with or without her permission. Kind of rude to just walk off with it.
    • I NEED MY SILK PRESS SHEILA FIX!
    • Thanks! I've kept thinking that he carried some negatives.  Patrick Mulcahey told a story about a scene being written where a helicopter swooped down upon a group of people & the P&G rep tried to sell them on the idea of it not being a helicopter, but a blue luxury sedan. Yeah, NOT. 
    • I've never thought about this. I'm curious about what made you think to pose it as a question. I am strong on AW & weak on OLTL.  Linda Dano & Stephen Schnetzer both acted on OLTL first & then were lifetime characters on AW. Both shows had Agnes Nixon.  Irna Phillips had two main proteges: Agnes Nixon & Bill Bell. Irna was part of the creation of 2 soaps that in the 1970s were in grave danger of very early cancellation. Agnes Nixon saved AW & Bill Bell saved DAYS OF OUR LIVES.  After being HW at AW Agnes created OLTL, right? Her first ABC tenure, where before she had been a P&G writer, 1st GL & then AW. (Do I have that chronology correct?) Both AW & OLTL had very high points in terms of ratings, awards, success & also very low points where they struggled. At times OLTL was considered "not as good" as AMC. At times AW was considered "not as good" as DAYS OF OUR LIVES. They share anything & everything that relates to being a New York City soap. I think they share that they didn't get the respect they deserved. Both had their female lead be the strongest character on the show & also that they were the unquestioned star of the show.  When AW's cancellation was announced, Angela Shapiro went to P&G & tried to buy AW to air on ABC. It is not known how she planned to schedule that but one theory was that she would air AW & OLTL both as half hour soaps, back to back, mid to late afternoon. P&G declined & then she tried to buy the character Felicia Gallant. No, again. Then she did what we all know too well & put Linda Dano as Rae on all the ABC soaps. I have dubbed that 'Shapiro's Folly'.  Honestly, I don't think that OLTL suffered from being "Bay City-fied" or AWfication. However, these are some [nitpick] parallels or similarities. Possibly they are of interest. Anyway, I've had fun with it. 
    • Oh, wow. This explains why there is a scene in one of the 1987 episodes where Alan out of the blue brings up Rita to Ed! It always seemed incredibly out of place before now. For most of 1987 Alan was involved with Vanessa. Marland initially planned to have Rita and Vanessa become rivals over Ed. They ultimately decided Ed and Van were not a good pairing. While I was never convinced Van was in love with Alan, she could be very possessive, so the two of them fighting over him could have been very interesting.  If she had come back with a KID, after Maureen accepted Ed's baby with Claire.... SO MANY great possibilities here. Not to mention, if she had come back, MAYBE that would have kept Alan out of Reva's orbit. (I can dream, can't I?) My guess for why they didn't bring her back in 1989--Alan was being hustled off the canvas, plus after bringing back Zaslow and Garrett, they might not have been able to afford her. He complained a lot about Mike's romantic pairings. I seem to remember he also complained that he didn't get to do enough action scenes. I think he wanted to fly a helicopter in a scene and was miffed they had the stunt man do it. Which was probably done because of insurance reasons. In Locher Room interviews I can't recall anyone who worked with him who speaks of him fondly, while people will speak warmly about Chris Bernau and Tom O'Rourke. The best Elvera could do was mention he flirted with her mother during a set visit.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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