In my seven decades of soap watching, one refrain has remained constant among newer viewers: they wish they had been around to see legendary storylines that their friends and family have raved about; storylines that had aired before these newer audience members became acquainted with daytime dramas.

I was lucky to have witnessed, first-hand, some of the best material the genre has offered throughout my lifetime.

--Meta Bauer's murder trial, THE GUIDING LIGHT

--The Alice/Steve/Rachel triangle, ANOTHER WORLD

--The Mickey/Laura/Bill/Mike's paternity saga, DAYS OF OUR LIVES

--The Jonah Lockwood/Keith Whitney reign of terror, THE EDGE OF NIGHT

--Victoria Lord's murder trial/Karen Wolek's breakdown on the witness stand, ONE LIFE TO LIVE

--Chris Brooks' rape, THE YOUNG AND THE RESTLESS

--The Leslie/Brad/Lorie saga, THE YOUNG AND THE RESTLESS

--The Liz/Dan/Susan/later Kim story, AS THE WORLD TURNS

--The Julie/Doug/Addie tragedy, DAYS OF OUR LIVES

--BJ's Heart, GENERAL HOSPITAL (IMHO, the last time daytime gave us a real masterpiece)

I am curious, however, for people who are "newer" viewers, who began watching in the 1980s, 1900s, 2000s, what do you consider the best of the best; the most riveting material soaps have offered?

What are the masterpiece moments you have personally seen?

32 minutes ago, Maxim said:

I tried to watch GH in that particular storyline since I had heard it was some sort of a prime era of the show... When I got the chance and saw these episodes online... I grabbed it. And... it was really unbearable. I wrote it off as "not my cup of tea" and moved on. I did make a real attempt... But I just couldn't take any of it seriously.

Years later, I stumbled across a documentary on  PBS (I think), with a television analyst discussing trends on TV throughout the years. She said that the audience attracted to the camp craze on soaps was not made up of tried-and-true soap loyalists, but just temporary viewers who were looking for a quick fix of silly madness to enjoy. They ultimately were not prepared to spend five hours a day, forever, to watch soaps, however, so they abandoned the genre and went on to find other forms of entertainment to satiate their interests. The problem then was that the soaps had alienated regular daytime drama fans who couldn't stand watching the drivel of the past few years. They, too, had moved on to other viewing choices. It was a lose-lose situation for daytime TV.

Edited September 8Sep 8 by vetsoapfan

1 hour ago, vetsoapfan said:

Years later, I stumbled across a documentary on  PBS (I think), with a television analyst discussing trends on TV throughout the years. She said that the audience attracted to the camp craze on soaps was not made up of tried-and-true soap loyalists, but just temporary viewers who were looking for a quick fix of silly madness to enjoy. They ultimately were not prepared to spend five hours a day, forever, to watch soaps, however, so they abandoned the genre and went on to find other forms of entertainment to satiate their interests. The problem then was that the soaps had alienated regular daytime drama fans who couldn't stand watching the drivel of the past few years. They, too, had moved on to other viewing choices. It was a lose-lose situation for daytime TV.

This absolutely makes sense. Thank you for sharing. I think a lot of people online and even in real life don't understand one other thing... And that thing is that huge ratings don't necessary mean quality. I've had people tell me something must be great because everyone watched it at the time. Yes, sure... But people watch The Kardashians too. And some worse things than that too. And of course all of this is subjective.

I definitely agree with the fact that some of these ratings-grab tricks and bizarre storylines damaged the good reputation of soaps. To this day people laugh when I mention I am a soap fan and that this is the main genre I use to entertain myself in my spare time. They cringe when I mention I've watched pretty much every episode of The Bold And The Beautiful, because they have only seen glimpses of the trashy era of the show on their TVs. When I mention the first 7 seasons they don't believe me... If they haven't experienced it themselves. They are just so programmed to think that soap operas are trash. No exception allowed. Here in this community we are a different kind of group, most of us are already fans of the genre, when you go out in the real world you get a completely different reaction.

One more example and a way to connect my ramblings to the masterpieces aspect - my husband used to ridicule the fact that I'm a soap fan too. He used to describe Bold as "that stupid show where in one episode someone begins opening a door and 50 episodes later they are still opening it". All of this ended when I made him sit with me through the first 60 episodes of Bold. By then he was hooked... And by episode 1600 he called himself the biggest fan of the show, even bigger than me... and we would rewatch the BeLief storyline and repeat parts of dialogue by heart. He told me "Thank you for opening my eyes to this.".

All of this makes me think that if more people had the chance, be it by streaming or some other way, like Bold is popularizing their classics on many platforms... To see more of the soap "masterpieces"... They will completely change their mind. That's just positive thinking.

And for the new soaps I think they have the responsibility to start deviating from the most damaging and trashy patterns that we have been subjected in the last decades. (Absurd dialogue, people dying 109 times, idiotic villains and I can go on and on)

Or the genre and the makers of it will naturally follow a complete creative and stylistic suicide. All of this is my opinion and I don't say this as the absolute truth. 

Edited September 8Sep 8 by Maxim

7 hours ago, vetsoapfan said:

I have staunchly made these exact same points for over 40 years, ever since the idiotic Ice Princess/The Cassadines Freeze the World crap on GH opened the floodgates to the low-brow, cartoonish camp stories which ended up permeating daytime TV. 

The Ice Princess, I believe, was the introduction of stupid sci fi/fantasy crap invading soap operas. Like a cancer, it unfortunately spread over the years. I think Days was intelligent until 1983. I'll never forget the moment Eugene Bradford made a talking robot who became a character. I remember thinking, this doesn't look good for the show. And I was a kid then! Sure enough, that signaled the beginning of the end for Days being an intelligent, realistic show. That was the same year that Renee DiMera was murdered and her murder was so well-written that I thought, "Ok. Maybe the Eugene/robot thing was just a blip." Then, people started ripping off masks and coming back from the dead and it's been downhill ever since. But I think Days of Our Lives from 1965-1982 was excellence! If THAT show was still on the air today, I'd be happy. But in the odd times I tune into the show now (usually for the death of a vet), it's just unrecognizable. And I'm not talking about the new characters. They just went campy and never got back to their serious, realistic drama. Is there any character on that show who hasn't come back from the dead at least once? Except when a vet dies in real life, no death has any meaning on that show. 

Edited September 8Sep 8 by Reverend Ruthledge

5 hours ago, Maxim said:

I think a lot of people online and even in real life don't understand one other thing... And that thing is that huge ratings don't necessary mean quality. I've had people tell me something must be great because everyone watched it at the time. Yes, sure... But people watch The Kardashians too. And some worse things than that too.

Even a nominal perusal of the history of our culture confirms the popularity of "junk" entertainment. Masterpieces like St. Elsewhere and The Wire languished in ratings hell while The Kardashians and The Jerry Springer Show drew massive audiences. I'm convinced that a huge segment of the public just doesn't like to think; they don't want to be intellectually challenged. They gravitate towards popcorn entertainment that allows them to turn off their brains and "veg out" in front of the TV.

5 hours ago, Maxim said:

I definitely agree with the fact that some of these ratings-grab tricks and bizarre storylines damaged the good reputation of soaps. To this day people laugh when I mention I am a soap fan and that this is the main genre I use to entertain myself in my spare time. They cringe when I mention I've watched pretty much every episode of The Bold And The Beautiful, because they have only seen glimpses of the trashy era of the show on their TVs. When I mention the first 7 seasons they don't believe me... If they haven't experienced it themselves. They are just so programmed to think that soap operas are trash. No exception allowed. Here in this community we are a different kind of group, most of us are already fans of the genre, when you go out in the real world you get a completely different reaction.

Starting way back in the era of radio soaps, critics went out of their way to denigrate the soaps and demean the (mainly female) audience. One critic wrote that the soaps were written for "slack-jawed housewives who can't be bothered to change out of their bathrobes, get off their sofas, or put down the chocolate bon-bons." It was clear that such critics were trying to elevate themselves ("Look how intellectually  superior we are!") by vilifying others who "dared" to appreciate an art form the critics neither watched nor understood. I am sure the intense hatred for the soaps and their audience was rooted in misogyny.

5 hours ago, Maxim said:

One more example and a way to connect my ramblings to the masterpieces aspect - my husband used to ridicule the fact that I'm a soap fan too. He used to describe Bold as "that stupid show where in one episode someone begins opening a door and 50 episodes later they are still opening it". All of this ended when I made him sit with me through the first 60 episodes of Bold. By then he was hooked... And by episode 1600 he called himself the biggest fan of the show, even bigger than me... and we would rewatch the BeLief storyline and repeat parts of dialogue by heart. He told me "Thank you for opening my eyes to this.".

I have experienced this phenomenon as well: people who mocked daytime TV for being boring, poorly done, and devoid of substance. It was an opinion based on second-hand condemnation of the soaps by other folks who didn't have any knowledge of the genre, either. One of my friends had a long-term medical issue at one point, and was relegated to staying on the couch or in his bed for a few months. Then he started watching General Hospital with his girlfriend. She had not been involved with that show as long as I had, so pretty soon he was calling me and asking all sorts of history questions and for my opinions on current plots. He was AGHAST when BJ died and her heart went to Maxie. He said watching Lucy, Felicia, Bobbie and especially Tony break down just stunned him. ("Have soaps ever been this powerful before?" YEEEEES!)

Prejudice of daytime TV is borne from sheer ignorance, like any other form of bigotry.

5 hours ago, Maxim said:

All of this makes me think that if more people had the chance, be it by streaming or some other way, like Bold is popularizing their classics on many platforms... To see more of the soap "masterpieces"... They will completely change their mind. That's just positive thinking.

Right, but the challenge is in getting new viewers to give soaps a fair try. People who think the WWE is the greatest thing since sliced bread are not always open to sampling The Young and the Restless, LOL.

5 hours ago, Maxim said:

And for the new soaps I think they have the responsibility to start deviating from the most damaging and trashy patterns that we have been subjected in the last decades. (Absurd dialogue, people dying 109 times, idiotic villains and I can go on and on)

I agree. That formula has decimated the genre, and it's long past time to discard it.

 

14 minutes ago, Reverend Ruthledge said:

The Ice Princess, I believe, was the introduction of stupid sci fi/fantasy crap invading soap operas. Like a cancer, it unfortunately spread over the years. I think Days was intelligent until 1983. I'll never forget the moment Eugene Bradford made a talking robot who became a character. I remember thinking, this doesn't look good for the show. And I was a kid then! Sure enough, that signaled the beginning of the end for Days being an intelligent, realistic show. That was the same year that Renee DiMera was murdered and her murder was so well-written that I thought, "Ok. Maybe the Eugene/robot thing was just a blip." Then, people started ripping off masks and coming back from the dead and it's been downhill ever since. But I think Days of Our Lives from 1965-1982 was excellence! If THAT show was still on the air today, I'd be happy. But in the odd times I tune into the show now (usually for the death of a vet), it's just unrecognizable. And I'm not talking about the new characters. They just went campy and never got back to their serious, realistic drama. Is there any character on that show who hasn't come back from the dead at least once? 

I could have written this entire post, line by line, myself. You have encapsulated my thoughts perfectly. Bravo. I agree the last year DAYS was written well was 1982 under Pat Falken Smith. Did you ever read the interview with Joseph Mascolo, who bluntly said, "When Pat Falken Smith left the show, she took the quality of the writing with her"...?

Subsequent writers really turned Mascolo's character into a cartoon villain, an unrealistic buffoon.

Others can correct me if I am wrong, but I believe Julie Williams is the only legacy character who has never been presumed dead.

Edited September 8Sep 8 by vetsoapfan

Yes, once again we see things eye to eye when it comes to the soaps. When I mentioned back from the dead nonsense, I wasn't just talking about "presumed" dead. That's bad enough when overdone but it is at least somewhat realistic. I'm talking about characters that have literally died and then been brought back to life through some serum or something silly like that. 

7 minutes ago, Reverend Ruthledge said:

Yes, once again we see things eye to eye when it comes to the soaps. When I mentioned back from the dead nonsense, I wasn't just talking about "presumed" dead. That's bad enough when overdone but it is at least somewhat realistic. I'm talking about characters that have literally died and then been brought back to life through some serum or something silly like that. 

Good point: the back-from-the-dead plots are bad enough when the characters in question have only been presumed dead, but these stories are significantly worse (more idiotic and damaging) when the characters have literally died, for real, in front of our eyes, and then been brought back to life through impossible hocus pocus trickery.

2 hours ago, Reverend Ruthledge said:

The Ice Princess, I believe, was the introduction of stupid sci fi/fantasy crap invading soap operas. Like a cancer, it unfortunately spread over the years.

along with the cat fights that began with crystal and alexis on dynasty and have become synonymous with daytime soaps. 

1 hour ago, vetsoapfan said:

Good point: the back-from-the-dead plots are bad enough when the characters in question have only been presumed dead, but these stories are significantly worse (more idiotic and damaging) when the characters have literally died, for real, in front of our eyes, and then been brought back to life through impossible hocus pocus trickery.

This conversation is reminding me of the scene in the movie Soapdish, where Whoopi Goldberg plays a headwriter told to bring a character back from the dead:

"He's got no head! How am I supposed to write for a character who's got no head!"

(I think the solution they came up with was brain transplant, which still doesn't explain the missing head).

I believe when Pam Long was told to bring back Roger Thorpe she had a similar, if scaled down, reaction. IIRC, she said she watched the scene where he fell off the cliff many times because she had no idea how she was going to bring him back.

Anyway, best return from the dead, in a way that mostly made sense and became one of the great soap moments of all time:

Gerald Anthony's return after Marco Dane's "murder" on OLTL. 

My sister and I were watching Viki's trial when someone entered the courtroom and sat among the spectators. No fanfare. He just sat down. My sister and I look at each other and we're like, "Who is that? He looks kind of familiar...OH MY GOD, THAT'S GERALD ANTHONY!"

Of course, at first they told the audience he was Mario, Marco's brother. We went back and forth endlessly arguing about who he really was. By the time we had accepted he was Mario...they revealed he was Marco. Mario had been killed in his place and when Marco found him he took his identity and vowed to change his life. And he did.

The reveal was when he forced Karen to admit Brad had raped her, and she whispered afterwards, "Marco."

(My sister and I jumping all over the living room screaming, "He's Marco! He's really Marco!)

That was 👨‍🍳😘 soap writing.

11 minutes ago, DeeVee said:

This conversation is reminding me of the scene in the movie Soapdish, where Whoopi Goldberg plays a headwriter told to bring a character back from the dead:

"He's got no head! How am I supposed to write for a character who's got no head!"

(I think the solution they came up with was brain transplant, which still doesn't explain the missing head

The brain transplant was Celeste's (Sally Fields) improv solution to prevent her daughter's character from being written out of their show -- she was sacrificing herself -- in of course a live broadcast. The back from the dead character was played by Jeffrey (Kevin Kline). I don't recall whether they supposedly wrote anything creative to bring his character back from the dead within the show. The movie was produced by Aaron Spelling. 

5 minutes ago, Xanthe said:

The brain transplant was Celeste's (Sally Fields) improv solution to prevent her daughter's character from being written out of their show -- she was sacrificing herself -- in of course a live broadcast. The back from the dead character was played by Jeffrey (Kevin Kline). I don't recall whether they supposedly wrote anything creative to bring his character back from the dead within the show. The movie was produced by Aaron Spelling. 

Right, thanks for the refresh! 

It's a great movie for soap fans. It makes fun of soaps but in a very affectionate way. The cast is phenomenal: Sally Field, Kevin Kline, Whoopi Goldberg, Robert Downey, Jr., Elisabeth Shue, and small roles by Kathy Najimy and Carrie Fisher. If you've never seen it, seek it out!

45 minutes ago, wonderwoman1951 said:

along with the cat fights that began with crystal and alexis on dynasty and have become synonymous with daytime soaps. 

To be fair, there are some catfights that are logical and justifiable, based on established history and characterization. Those are few and far between, however. The majority of them are artificially contrived and forced, thrown into shows gratuitously to get attention. That's why they have become redundant and boring, if not outright childish and stupid.

I would say that the first catfight between Krystle and Alexis (in the lily pond) was earned. The endless follow-ups, not so much.

53 minutes ago, DeeVee said:

This conversation is reminding me of the scene in the movie Soapdish, where Whoopi Goldberg plays a headwriter told to bring a character back from the dead:

"He's got no head! How am I supposed to write for a character who's got no head!"

(I think the solution they came up with was brain transplant, which still doesn't explain the missing head).

I remember that! Unfortunately, although Soapdish was a comedy/parody, daytime TV really has foisted some heinously absurd plots on us.

53 minutes ago, DeeVee said:

Anyway, best return from the dead, in a way that mostly made sense and became one of the great soap moments of all time:

Gerald Anthony's return after Marco Dane's "murder" on OLTL. 

That was one time a soap made it work. Under Gordon Russell, Sam Hall and Don Wallace, OLTL's grasp on characters and its ability to write natural dialogue pulled it off. People spoke the way...people speak, and behaved realistically and well in character.

53 minutes ago, DeeVee said:

That was 👨‍🍳😘 soap writing.

Fans don't often list that writing team among the greats like Phillips, Nixon, Bell, Lemay, Slesar, etc., but those scribes were experts at their craft.

13 minutes ago, vetsoapfan said:

Fans don't often list that writing team among the greats like Phillips, Nixon, Bell, Lemay, Slesar, etc., but those scribes were experts at their craft.

They definitely belong among the greats. Such a loss to the genre when Russell died at a relatively young age.

35 minutes ago, DeeVee said:

They definitely belong among the greats. Such a loss to the genre when Russell died at a relatively young age.

I also thought Rita Lakin and (particularly) Rick Edelstein wrote their soaps quite well, and they are not spoken about a lot, either. While the hacks always stand out in our minds, we've had many unheralded, quality scribes in daytime TV as well.

Even if no soap has been well written in many years, viewers were spoiled way back when!

7 hours ago, Reverend Ruthledge said:

I think Days was intelligent until 1983. 

 

7 hours ago, Reverend Ruthledge said:

But I think Days of Our Lives from 1965-1982 was excellence! 

 

7 hours ago, vetsoapfan said:

I agree the last year DAYS was written well was 1982 under Pat Falken Smith.

I always point out Days as being an interesting case in soap history. Started as a Bill Bell show but became known for the supercouple era and Reilly era.

@Reverend Ruthledge and @vetsoapfan I take it you weren't fans of supercouple Days and Reilly Days.