6 hours ago, soapfan770 said:

I hope the only curtain call we see in 2025 will be on the writing careers of Josh Griffith and Thudley.

Hahaha, yes.

3 minutes ago, kalbir said:

Hahaha, yes.

AMEN! 

I think it's been established that soaps are struggling. I think a more fitting conversation is how much longer do the four remaining soaps have left? Will the existing tv soaps be shifted to streaming? Will The Gates revive the genre and either breed new soaps or extend the shelf life of the existing ones? Food for thought😉

 

Edited September 5, 20241 yr by Planet Soap

Going back to 2012 when we were down to 4 soaps and the future looking shaky for both GH and DAYS, I don't think anyone on this board thought any of the shows would be left by 2024, yet here we are. Are they quality shows? Ehhhhh.... but they're here. I'm hoping The Gates will be a success and a kick in the butt for the other current shows to step up their game in quality content. Stay tuned... 

I think this is kinda a ridiculous question to ask right now. If soaps were struggling Peacock wouldn't have picked up Days, Amazon wouldn't have picked up Neighbours and we sure wouldn't be getting a new soap.

The days of calling soaps expensive is outdated and no longer accurate when they are spending $100+ million to shoot one season of an 8 episode streaming series. These soaps are now the affordable option that is helping drive streaming subscriptions year round. Peacock had it's best quarter after adding Days. Days, Neighbours and GH are constantly in the Top Ten on their platforms. We don't know how Y&R and B&B do on Paramount Plus, but it can't be that bad if they're launching another soap.

Right now we're coming out of the era of overspending on shows people aren't watching. Soaps are valuable for these streaming services because they drive those year round subscriptions. The only soap I see being in danger is B&B, but that's more of a quality issue and lack of ownership on CBS part. If the see big success with The Gates, they'd have no reason to continue B&B when they can launch something new that they own, whether it be a third soap or another game or talk show. 

On 9/3/2024 at 2:51 PM, Melroser said:

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. 

The training which brought many of those writers up is gone now. 

1 hour ago, Chris B said:

I think this is kinda a ridiculous question to ask right now. If soaps were struggling Peacock wouldn't have picked up Days, Amazon wouldn't have picked up Neighbours and we sure wouldn't be getting a new soap.

The days of calling soaps expensive is outdated and no longer accurate when they are spending $100+ million to shoot one season of an 8 episode streaming series. These soaps are now the affordable option that is helping drive streaming subscriptions year round. Peacock had it's best quarter after adding Days. Days, Neighbours and GH are constantly in the Top Ten on their platforms. We don't know how Y&R and B&B do on Paramount Plus, but it can't be that bad if they're launching another soap.

Right now we're coming out of the era of overspending on shows people aren't watching. Soaps are valuable for these streaming services because they drive those year round subscriptions. The only soap I see being in danger is B&B, but that's more of a quality issue and lack of ownership on CBS part. If the see big success with The Gates, they'd have no reason to continue B&B when they can launch something new that they own, whether it be a third soap or another game or talk show. 

And I also want to add that I've witnessed Bold being on top 10 shows all around the world on European streaming platforms. Just for example - Videoland in Netherlands often shows Bold - both the classics and the new episodes in top 10.

I think you have some really correct points and I'm also very optimistic. 

 

5 hours ago, Chris B said:

The only soap I see being in danger is B&B, but that's more of a quality issue and lack of ownership on CBS part. 

 

3 hours ago, Maxim said:

And I also want to add that I've witnessed Bold being on top 10 shows all around the world on European streaming platforms. Just for example - Videoland in Netherlands often shows Bold - both the classics and the new episodes in top 10.

B&B has been surviving off of international sales for the better part of the last 25 years.

90s were soap's golden era. The four left now don't compare. Big changes in stories, production, and how we watch. Losing veteran actors hit hard - they brought depth and nostalgia that's tough to replace. New talent's good, but can't match those long-standing characters. It's like losing soap history. Any old favorites you miss most?

Just now, asafi said:

3 minutes ago, asafi said:

90s were soap's golden era. The four left now don't compare. Big changes in stories, production, and how we watch. Losing veteran actors hit hard - they brought depth and nostalgia that's tough to replace. New talent's good, but can't match those long-standing characters. It's like losing soap history. Any old favorites you miss most?

 

Frances Reid - she was Alice Horton on "Days of Our Lives" forever, right? Total daytime TV icon.

Jeanne Cooper - Katherine Chancellor on "The Young and the Restless." She was a force of nature.

Susan Flannery - Stephanie Forrester on "The Bold and the Beautiful." Such a powerhouse actress.

These women were the real deal. They brought gravitas and history to their shows that's hard to match nowadays. Losing actors like them definitely leaves a big gap in the soap world. They don't make 'em like that anymore, huh? 

Erica Slezak - She's famous for playing Viki Lord on "One Life to Live" for decades. Truly a soap opera legend.

Susan Lucci - She's best known for her role as Erica Kane on "All My Children". She was basically the queen of daytime TV.

Both these actresses were absolutely iconic in the soap world. They brought so much drama, charisma, and staying power to their roles. Soaps today really do miss that kind of star power and long-term character development, don't they? It's tough to find that level of talent and dedication in newer shows.

Edited September 7, 20241 yr by asafi

13 hours ago, Chris B said:

I think this is kinda a ridiculous question to ask right now. If soaps were struggling Peacock wouldn't have picked up Days, Amazon wouldn't have picked up Neighbours and we sure wouldn't be getting a new soap.

The days of calling soaps expensive is outdated and no longer accurate when they are spending $100+ million to shoot one season of an 8 episode streaming series. These soaps are now the affordable option that is helping drive streaming subscriptions year round. Peacock had it's best quarter after adding Days. Days, Neighbours and GH are constantly in the Top Ten on their platforms. We don't know how Y&R and B&B do on Paramount Plus, but it can't be that bad if they're launching another soap.

Right now we're coming out of the era of overspending on shows people aren't watching. Soaps are valuable for these streaming services because they drive those year round subscriptions. The only soap I see being in danger is B&B, but that's more of a quality issue and lack of ownership on CBS part. If the see big success with The Gates, they'd have no reason to continue B&B when they can launch something new that they own, whether it be a third soap or another game or talk show. 

The sad thing is that this is all true, and the networks have finally determined that they can keep the soaps on the air if they just keep cutting the operating budget and try to never do any storylines that are controversial or will rock the boat to keep the loyal audience they do have. It's all a math game now. There was a time when the soaps were fiercely fighting to grow their audience, and a lot of was very cringe (Reva's clone!) but they were trying.  Now GH is the only one that halfheartedly tries (writing shakeups, bringing back popular actors). Maybe that's because they're in last place of the soaps on network TV. Then you have Y&R who must have some exec who sits and decides if characters are going to a concert, will they just have them recap it in the coffee house or spring a couple of bucks to use green screen. It's beyond embarrassing and super hard for me to see how this airs on the same network that's investing in a new soap.

18 minutes ago, BoldRestless said:

The sad thing is that this is all true, and the networks have finally determined that they can keep the soaps on the air if they just keep cutting the operating budget and try to never do any storylines that are controversial or will rock the boat to keep the loyal audience they do have. It's all a math game now. There was a time when the soaps were fiercely fighting to grow their audience, and a lot of was very cringe (Reva's clone!) but they were trying.  Now GH is the only one that halfheartedly tries (writing shakeups, bringing back popular actors). Maybe that's because they're in last place of the soaps on network TV. Then you have Y&R who must have some exec who sits and decides if characters are going to a concert, will they just have them recap it in the coffee house or spring a couple of bucks to use green screen. It's beyond embarrassing and super hard for me to see how this airs on the same network that's investing in a new soap.

In the '50s and '60s, soaps often had the same mission of just catering to what viewers they had, being seen as the slums of TV, and there was still a level of care which just isn't around now. There's just so much bloat, too many longtime names who ran out of story long ago and are strangling any new characters or actors who could contribute if given the chance. 

20 hours ago, kalbir said:

 

B&B has been surviving off of international sales for the better part of the last 25 years.

I think that's part of why Bradley feels like he can do whatever he wants and doesn't care.

23 hours ago, kalbir said:

 

B&B has been surviving off of international sales for the better part of the last 25 years.

This doesn't give CBS any incentive to keep the show though, which is the issue. I wish I had saved the article, but I do recall an article about The Gates mentioning that B&B wasn't owned by them and that they feel it's success is due to its timeslot and connection to Y&R. We also know they have no creative control over the show. That is why I speculate that if The Gates take off I could see them launching something they own instead. 

On 9/7/2024 at 6:53 AM, Chris B said:

I think this is kinda a ridiculous question to ask right now. If soaps were struggling Peacock wouldn't have picked up Days, Amazon wouldn't have picked up Neighbours and we sure wouldn't be getting a new soap.

The days of calling soaps expensive is outdated and no longer accurate when they are spending $100+ million to shoot one season of an 8 episode streaming series. These soaps are now the affordable option that is helping drive streaming subscriptions year round. Peacock had it's best quarter after adding Days. Days, Neighbours and GH are constantly in the Top Ten on their platforms. We don't know how Y&R and B&B do on Paramount Plus, but it can't be that bad if they're launching another soap.

Right now we're coming out of the era of overspending on shows people aren't watching. Soaps are valuable for these streaming services because they drive those year round subscriptions. The only soap I see being in danger is B&B, but that's more of a quality issue and lack of ownership on CBS part. If the see big success with The Gates, they'd have no reason to continue B&B when they can launch something new that they own, whether it be a third soap or another game or talk show. 

Exactly. Y&R gets 3 to 4 million viewers whereas critically acclaimed cable shows like Mad Men were getting below 1 million viewers yet paid actors handsomely with higher production values.

On 9/7/2024 at 12:21 PM, asafi said:

90s were soap's golden era. The four left now don't compare. Big changes in stories, production, and how we watch. Losing veteran actors hit hard - they brought depth and nostalgia that's tough to replace. New talent's good, but can't match those long-standing characters. It's like losing soap history. Any old favorites you miss most?

Frances Reid - she was Alice Horton on "Days of Our Lives" forever, right? Total daytime TV icon.

Jeanne Cooper - Katherine Chancellor on "The Young and the Restless." She was a force of nature.

Susan Flannery - Stephanie Forrester on "The Bold and the Beautiful." Such a powerhouse actress.

These women were the real deal. They brought gravitas and history to their shows that's hard to match nowadays. Losing actors like them definitely leaves a big gap in the soap world. They don't make 'em like that anymore, huh? 

Erica Slezak - She's famous for playing Viki Lord on "One Life to Live" for decades. Truly a soap opera legend.

Susan Lucci - She's best known for her role as Erica Kane on "All My Children". She was basically the queen of daytime TV.

Both these actresses were absolutely iconic in the soap world. They brought so much drama, charisma, and staying power to their roles. Soaps today really do miss that kind of star power and long-term character development, don't they? It's tough to find that level of talent and dedication in newer shows.

The problem with actors today is that they lack that dramatic flair. Many of them deliver lines in a conversational tone lacking theatrics. An example would be the campy Maura West versus the subdued Kelly Monaco. 

We've also lost dramatic production values. Dim lighting, extreme close up shots and grand background music are all absent in today's soaps. 

Finally today's writers don't know how to stretch plot in an interesting way. B&B literally copies and pastes dialogue between episodes. Meanwhile Bell era Y&R  had endless twists during the Sheila baby switch story such as the miscarriage doctor getting hired at Sheila's lab, Lauren claiming to offer Sheila company insurance as a ruse to blood test for paternity etc ..

 

Edited September 13, 20241 yr by Planet Soap

12 hours ago, Planet Soap said:

Exactly. Y&R gets 3 to 4 million viewers whereas critically acclaimed cable shows like Mad Men were getting below 1 million viewers yet paid actors handsomely with higher production values.

The problem with actors today is that they lack that dramatic flair. Many of them deliver lines in a conversational tone lacking theatrics. And example would be the campy Maura West versus the subdued Kelly Monaco. 

We've also lost dramatic production values. Dim lighting, extreme close up shots and grand background music are all absent in today's soaps. 

Finally today's writers don't know how to stretch plot in an interesting way. B&B literally copies and pastes dialogue between episodes. Meanwhile on Bell era Y&R were had endless twists during the Sheila baby switch story such as the miscarriage doctor getting hired at Sheila's lab, Lauren claiming to offer Sheila company insurance as a ruse to blood test for paternity etc ..

 

 

You better preach!