Before Gloria Monty, soaps had a smaller scale, stories were about relationships of all kinds (romance and family mostly), and seemed more like slice of life stories compared to other media. As working class issues and wealth inequality dominate our daily lives, how do we all feel about how soaps represent that slice of life aspect currently and would you even want to see that in the shows?

GH has virtually ignored any modern relevance to issues facing the medical industry since COVID began. Nobody really struggles for money anymore. The Q’s have nice sets but there is less distinction on the show about their wealth vs other people’s lives.

This came up for me rewatching the early Labine stories about Charles Street and the incinerator project. It reminded me once again that soaps just don’t resemble anything real anymore when it comes to socioeconomics. BTG’s comes the closest, but the main family is ultra wealthy by design. Where is our Angel Square, 5th Street, Pine Cone Hotels, etc? Part of the problem BITD was sometimes those stories felt trite and involved white savior complex because not enough diversity existed in the writing rooms. But at least they tried!

It just feels like most of the characters on these shows now are just generically comfortable and don’t have any reference to middle class issues and economics.

Edited 10 hours ago10 hr by titan1978

"This is Us" was a primetime soap (not promoted as a soap but instead promoted as primetime serial drama, similar thing, different promotion).
To me, the characters felt like real people.

Edit to add:

The three adult siblings came from a working class family.
Viewers saw them going back and forth through time as children, teens, young adults, and people in their thirties.
Certainly the parents were working class. Mandy Moore played the mom, and she did great with her portrayal. Her character's parents had money but she didn't take the money. Milo Ventimiglia played her husband, who was a war veteran, struggling through various jobs in the construction business.
The three adult children:
Justin Hartley's character was an actor so by definition had money.
Sterling K. Brown's character was a financial advisor but he had relatable struggles.
Chrissy Metz's character struggled through various jobs and eventually became a music teacher.

Edited 9 hours ago9 hr by janea4old

51 minutes ago, titan1978 said:

It just feels like most of the characters on these shows now are just generically comfortable and don’t have any reference to middle class issues and economics.

Yeah it's all generically upper middle class to wealthy on most of the daytime soaps, except for BTG.

I think the fact that shows like Y&R only have wealthy characters cuts out soooo much opportunity for conflict. Where's the classic characters trying to climb their way up?

6 hours ago, titan1978 said:

Nobody really struggles for money anymore.

ICAM!!

Look, I'm not saying there's no place for escapism or fantasy on soaps, or anywhere else, but I do believe TPTB have lost sight of who soaps are for or what they're intended to do.

Edited 2 hours ago2 hr by Khan

There were always wealthy characters present, but they were not at the level of some of today's rich set who seem to have so much money that nothing is really a problem for them eg Newman on Y&R.

And soaps can't present that lifestyle with any sort of reality. They have no staff/assistants etc and live in modest houses with no security.

I wish they could somehow scale back and make things more realistic/relatable.

6 hours ago, janea4old said:

Yeah it's all generically upper middle class to wealthy on most of the daytime soaps, except for BTG.

Even with BTG, the show is designed around the Dupree family and they are mostly presented as aspirational and the heart of the show. The Quartermaines used to be part of a puzzle of important characters, but they were also seen as fully dysfunctional and backstabbing. Edward was a tycoon type of businessman. So the non-affluent main characters were often presented as better people at their cores.

2 hours ago, 1974mdp said:

I think the fact that shows like Y&R only have wealthy characters cuts out soooo much opportunity for conflict. Where's the classic characters trying to climb their way up?

Nina comes to mind. But so does Paul Williams, who might cross paths with Victor but they shouldn’t be fully immersed with them.

44 minutes ago, Khan said:

Look, I'm not saying there's no place for escapism or fantasy on soaps, or anywhere else, but I do believe TPTB have lost sight of who soaps are for and what they're intended for.

It’s a question of storytelling taste and priorities I guess. I just don’t understand why the levels can’t be there. Someone like Wendy Riche at the early part of her GH tenure wanted verisimilitude, but it didn’t stop the show from being entertaining. Jagger was a blue collar guy, Rhonda wanted Karen with Jason for the social climbing aspects. Luke and Laura lived in the Charles Street area, and so did Bobbie for that matter. Now we have Joss and Trina living in a ridiculous apartment on the mansion grounds. We can’t even begin to have something grubby or seedy going on, let alone just normal!

33 minutes ago, Paul Raven said:

And soaps can't present that lifestyle with any sort of reality. They have no staff/assistants etc and live in modest houses with no security.

I wish they could somehow scale back and make things more realistic/relatable.

Exactly! The days of each show having their ultra wealthy characters with named staff are over. Esther might have gotten the most attention, but other shows had similar roles. It would be easy to scale it back but they choose to go the other direction. Didn’t Curtis pay Selena Wu a million dollars to off Drew and it just didn’t happen? Why isn’t that an ongoing problem for Curtis? They wrote out all Liz’s kids, so no more teenagers working at Kelly’s because they need the money.

When I tune into Y&R it’s such a miss-mash of bad business stories and a main psychopath. DAYS suffers when I see it from that same generic everyone is mostly comfortable or successful that GH also has a problem with.

I don’t necessarily want to see people just suffering under grocery prices in Port Charles. But it would be nice to see some normal things like nobody but Sonny coming close to being as rich as the Q’s.

Edited 2 hours ago2 hr by titan1978

12 minutes ago, titan1978 said:

It’s a question of storytelling taste and priorities I guess. I just don’t understand why the levels can’t be there.

I agree! I don't understand why the levels can't be there either.

In a way, it's like how I felt THE CITY lacked a multi-generational element at the start. Yeah, you could build a show around characters who all are of the same age group or socioeconomic class, but just imagine how much more (and much better) storylines you could get if you were to broaden the canvas somewhat and try and reflect more of society.

33 minutes ago, Khan said:

I agree! I don't understand why the levels can't be there either.

In a way, it's like how I felt THE CITY lacked a multi-generational element at the start. Yeah, you could build a show around characters who all are of the same age group or socioeconomic class, but just imagine how much more (and much better) storylines you could get if you were to broaden the canvas somewhat and try and reflect more of society.

My local ABC affiliate didn’t carry The City, so I didn’t see it when it was airing. But I know what you mean and I agree. We get eye mites on GH, but not a menopause story. They just write stunted adults behaving like young people instead of stories about aging, embracing maturity, etc.

5 minutes ago, titan1978 said:

My local ABC affiliate didn’t carry The City, so I didn’t see it when it was airing. But I know what you mean and I agree. We get eye mites on GH, but not a menopause story. They just write stunted adults behaving like young people instead of stories about aging, embracing maturity, etc.

This is one of the biggest failings of soaps in the last 20-30 years. There are no true generations, no matriarchs, etc. Instead, characters keep getting married again and again or having more children up to 70 or 80 years old.

1 hour ago, Paul Raven said:

There were always wealthy characters present, but they were not at the level of some of today's rich set who seem to have so much money that nothing is really a problem for them eg Newman on Y&R.

And soaps can't present that lifestyle with any sort of reality. They have no staff/assistants etc and live in modest houses with no security.

I wish they could somehow scale back and make things more realistic/relatable.

I remember Victoria Wyndham complaining in AW's last years about the lack of servants. This hurt the Corys because having characters like Louise and Vivien around added more layers and class dynamics.

I don't think it hurts as much on soaps now but that's not a great thing - it just means the characters lack difference. It shouldn't be the case that the Quartermaines are generic enough now to not need servants.

UK soaps are hit even worse with this than US soaps as they used to have packed pubs, and Emmerdale has Home Farm, which used to have servants and extensive location footage but is now just a very cheap set.

back in 2009, we love soaps published some thoughts from irna phillips.

the entire piece is worth reading. but, for this thread, this paragraph resonates:

2. Identification. It is a perilous practice among dramatic writers to allow their situations or characters to become too remote from the average listener. On AS THE WORLD TURNS, for example, I have tried to keep my characters on a life-size scale. They are well off, but not wealthy. They are average in intelligence. My villains (though I reject the concept of the totally irretrievable character) are never so villainous that the listener turns away in disgust. There must be that element of universality in everything - that something that causes the listener to say, "Yes, I have felt that way," or "I have known someone very much like that."

3 minutes ago, DRW50 said:

This is one of the biggest failings of soaps in the last 20-30 years. There are no true generations, no matriarchs, etc. Instead, characters keep getting married again and again or having more children up to 70 or 80 years old.

I think this trouble really began in the 1990’s, when characters like Erica Kane, Marlena Evans, and Victoria Lord, amongst others, stopped progressing into middle and older age and became stunted 45 year olds. It just got worse after that, which is why we had like 25 years of Nick Newman and Sharon behaving like they were perpetually 26-30 years old, Sonny with a variation of jet black shoe polish died hair (that Maurice doesn’t even want!). They killled Cassie partly to keep them younger! Hope, Melissa, and Jennifer were better characters for having the relationships they did with Tom and especially Alice.

It works when they do engage in it too! Marlena being the person Will came out to/confided in was special and made good use of Marlena as an older matriarch. Laura dealing with Nikolas, Esme, and Spencer made good use of her as a matriarch. I am not saying relegate the vets to making donuts. But on GH the entire Scotty/Laura/Luke story was richer because of the other relationships too- Lee/Gail, Lesley/Rick, Monica, and Ruby.

15 minutes ago, wonderwoman1951 said:

On AS THE WORLD TURNS, for example, I have tried to keep my characters on a life-size scale.

I don’t disagree with her intention. ATWT was a solidly midwestern set show with those values at the core. Even later Lucinda works because she is wealthy and successful, but she not so far beyond reality that it seems ridiculous. Victor and Katherine used to be believable for their communities too on Y&R. I do think there should be some reality there.

5 minutes ago, titan1978 said:

I think this trouble really began in the 1990’s, when characters like Erica Kane, Marlena Evans, and Victoria Lord, amongst others, stopped progressing into middle and older age and became stunted 45 year olds. It just got worse after that, which is why we had like 25 years of Nick Newman and Sharon behaving like they were perpetually 26-30 years old, Sonny with a variation of jet black shoe polish died hair (that Maurice doesn’t even want!). They killled Cassie partly to keep them younger! Hope, Melissa, and Jennifer were better characters for having the relationships they did with Tom and especially Alice.

It works when they do engage in it too! Marlena being the person Will came out to/confided in was special and made good use of Marlena as an older matriarch. Laura dealing with Nikolas, Esme, and Spencer made good use of her as a matriarch. I am not saying relegate the vets to making donuts. But on GH the entire Scotty/Laura/Luke story was richer because of the other relationships too- Lee/Gail, Lesley/Rick, Monica, and Ruby.

You're right. This is down to ageism, sexism, and also the midlife crises of producers. Viki became much weaker as a character in the mid/late '90s and never recovered. Erica at least I could say was meant to never grow up, but it still felt increasingly contrived seeing the show come up with the thinnest of reasons to destroy her life. They learned the wrong lessons from aging characters up too much in the '60s and '70s. Of the current soaps Y&R is probably the most badly affected as there are no Katherine type characters or Liz Foster type characters. And some, like Nick, Sharon and Phyllis are deeply, deeply sad.