They made some good points although the claim of "old fashioned" is basically stupid. And the worry about "working women" is nonsense. From TIVO to the net, to iTUNES, to so many ways to record and watch, the audience could be there.
Mimi Torchin was right on about the writing of soaps with silliness (back from the dead etc). The JER mentality was a big mistake. I don't care if the POSSESSION gave a blip in ratings. That kind of writing gets viewers to watch to mock and laugh and move on. The genre needs quality long term storytelling. Story telling is not old fashioned. Only the medium has changed.
However, one factor they left out or they were perhaps afraid to say is GREED. Corporate GREED. Reality shows are CHEAP. Talk shows are CHEAP and are part time free advertising for the industry as an actor with a new movies makes the rounds. JUDGE shows are cheap. Corporate America treats actors the way most of the corporate world has been treating workers for years now....since the Reagan years. Actors are union workers. Reality shows use scabs who will do anything for their 15 minutes of fame.
Soaps will make a comeback on the net because people love a good story.
Word! Greed is the major downfall of soaps you put a cheap reality show underneath the execs noses and they'll jump at it no matter what the shows about "who wants to marry my dad" comes to mind.
It is also telling that primetime shows, even sci fi and supernatural shows, incorporate the bases of what I see as soap based, that is romance, character interaction and character development. These are things which the post-JERk/Langan mentality destroyed.
I find it telling that they convinced Corday that the super couple was limiting, but there were more unique characters, who stood alone when there were super couples. Also, other characters were developed and were part of the whole romance, family members, friends were part of the whole development of relationships. And, when there were supercouples the show was much more balanced with various generations involved. Women were smarter, more independent, and worked, many as professionals, when they were involved as part of a couple; despite maybe being (quote) old-fashioned (end quote), and having sex with one person, waiting around for their first time, and equating sex with romance and love. Jennifer and Hope became weak, lost their spark, lost their brains, post-Langan/JERk, after they just umped into bed, betrayed their initial morals that sex meant love. They were weak characters.
It is interesting that despite when they were old fashioned, then they dealt with serious issues and did so intelligently, and dealt with consequences, but now with them more sexually liberated, and youth-centric there is less, or if any not treated other than a gimmick, and no real consequences or outcomes are examined, other than the initial shock, plot gimmick. The sex scenes, were making love and romantic in the past, but also they were more sexy and erotic as well -- everyone remembers J/J's, B/H's, Steve/Kayla's and Shane/Kim first kiss and first type making love -- when the term applied, and they were far from old-fashiped, they were rather daring and hot.
Greed is a big factor. As I posted in another post, NBC will have only eight hours per week of scripted shows, that would be out of the three hour block, seven days a week. The CW which does not have that many hours of TV scheduled, also has eight hours. The head of NBC, Zucker, is publicly stating that he does not worry if Leno does poorly, because the show only costs $35 million. From what I read from a local reviewer, that is nearly the cost of an hour long drama. So, having five scripted dramas would cost nearly 125 million, and those NBC is saving money. Zucker pretty much implied that he does not care about spending money for quality, he wants shows which are cheap. That is why the one article I read stated that there are five nights of Leno, plus so many reality shows on the network. So, with that mentality for primetime, shows which bring in more money and which NBC owns, no wonder DAYS is being downgraded, mediocre writers are hired, underwear models, or newbies. There is a serious problem when someone in charge of entertainment admits he prefers cheap over quality, proudly admits that mediocrity is acceptable.
That is why soaps are in trouble. You spend money to make money. You hire people with talents to create a quality show. Then you make money. Shows which have good writing and talented actors bring in the ratings, and bring in millions of viewers.
I remember hearing that in the past the soaps helped to pay for primetime. Hmm, maybe if they remember that, maybe if they remember that spending money on daytime then not only will daytime be more successful but then there will be more money to pay for quality scripted shows, and not have to lower the standards by going with cheap reality shows.
In the past CEO's and their lieutenants did not make in the billions. Twenty years ago the average CEO made 7x the average worker. Now the average CEO makes 300 to 400x the average worker. CEO's whether for a network or a health insurance company feel they are not happy unless they own over five homes, a private jet and don't ever have to deal with common people. It is reflected in everything they say and do. Shows are not "for the people" any more than corporations and the sick for profit enterprises. Quality means nothing.
And do not forget networks are now owned by major corporations, Disney owns ABC, GE owns NBC -- not sure about CBS, I think it was at one time Viacom.
I am not surprised that ABC's soaps's quality has diminished, because ABC micro-manages the soaps, and those overseeing AMC, GH and OLTL have nothing to do with these shows' original creators. However, you have DAYS, with Corday, the son of the Cordays, in charge and he seems to have no respect for the show, for what his parents' had in mind when they created the show, he lets idiots and hacks, hateful idiots and hacks, ruin the basics upon which the show was founded, he lets them treated loyal writers, producers and especially actors like dirt; and he all but tells the LONG TIME, LOYAL fans to go to Hades. I would think that he would respect the thing his parents created, but he does not.
actually, they did mention greed, but they didn't use that word, just wrapped it up other language and called it the "business model" but greed is what they're talking about...
"The decline of the soap opera as is much a factor of the business model as it is of the creative," he says. "It was designed to be 52 weeks a year of original product, no repeats. In today's business model for network television, that's not an efficient model anymore."
...not the 'efficient' model anymore...in other words, it's not making them the kind of money they can make off of reality shows/talk/shows, or anything else that is unscripted.
Loved Torchin's comment about reality shows being "voyeurism of the lowest order" Sadly, I think talk shows in the 90s like Maury showed the networks they could make a LOT of money by pandering to their audience's baser tendencies
Back in the 90s Springer was getting large numbers of teen viewers, the networks tried to put the show on in the later afternoon, after the teens returned from school. I always thought that the JERk/Langan modeled DAYS after that show. Female characters who were moral and decent because tramps, the mothers were more obsessed with sex with the latest loser than watching their children. Ugly behavior supplanted loving relationships. No more younger characters listening to Alice. Confused parentage of babies. And the teen demos did go up.
Love Mimi, she hated PASS, and did not like post-JERk DAYS. And gotta love how she criticized DAYS, and the petulant brat Corday boycotted SOW, but she held firm.
Well, I think that that is the mentality of the suits, but well written shows are doing well. You need to gear towards adults, and teens will watch too, and by adults I do not mean that there has to be sex, and show it, but that the material has to be intelligent, and well acted, and not cheap gimmicks, but character driven plotting.
I think that fans want soaps, and love that they are five days a week, without breaks in the summer. That format is why fans felt so close to characters, couples and families, they were familiar to them, they saw ever aspect of the characters' lives, they became like friends. That is not the case now. And characters developed slowly, relationships developed slowly. Fans were emotionally invested in them, anticipating the first kiss, the first time they made love, the pains of separations, the weddings, which were big events, like real life weddings -- even to the point that some of the weddings were made public for the fans to attend. Births were special, and all the characters were involved. The adventures were not the IT, but the characters were the focus, the adventures just helped the characters, and the relationships.
I need to add, I think now it is much easier to watch that many hours because there are TiVos and DVRs, and that material is on the net. You can watch several episodes at one time to catch up. There is also boards on the net to help you with history and what you missed, making it easier to fill in the blanks and know show and character history.
But network suits are sheep, look at how the 70s and 80s how they put on a bunch of game shows and soaps, then the later 80s and 90s it was talk shows, and now reality shows. And once one type of scripted show is popular than you have everyone copying it. I would guess that in about five or so years someone comes up with the idea of an old-fashioned soap, like they were in the 60s through 80s, it is successful because they hire talented producers, writers and actors, and then you see the everyone scrambling to create soaps again.
I have a question for anyone who may see this who is in the industy. Are there more union rules now then they were in the eighties? One thing the article got wrong, is that the number of woman at home have actualy been incresing during the past ten years. Also, the internet is a good thing for soaps, if the industry decides to embrace it. I think the most important thing that soaps have to offer is to get people emotionally invested in the charcters which the JER era did not do well! People have not changed. I think there are a few in the industry that think THEY know what people want to see. Actually ,some of the younger writers have produced more quality material,like was seen in years past. Give them a chance please! I think slowly the talk shows surrounding the saops will take a hit, because many people watched them along side their soap. I think they should turn Days over to our Diva!!!!! The Diva knows the history, and knows what is hip, etc.
I think the stupid theory that teens will save the industry is killing it. As was mentioned, the soap demographics was more multi-generational in the past, families passed on soaps to one-another, but if you alienate viewers who are 35 and over, you also cancel out any younger people in those households. And you cannot have just young, inexperienced "actors," in the past the neophytes were thrown in with actors with years and even decades of experienced, they learned from them. Also, selling to teens is ridiculous since they are as likely not to be home, they grow out of liking the stuff allegedly which teens love, and many like the same things.
The shows want gimmicks, and that does not bring in loyal viewers, which is what they want. For all the BS that getting teens you have long time viewers, you are not, they are not loyal because there is nothing for which to be loyal.
TV is not like a novel, on TV fans gravitate to a character due to the actor(s) in the role(s), the mentality that "The show is actor proof" and that firing and treating actors, REAL LIFE PEOPLE, get to the fans. Fans relate to the real life actor, and when they hear and read that their favorites are unjustly treated, they stop watching. I think using the examples of Matt Ashford and Stephen Nichols shows this. Stephen was hired as "Patch," a character with no name, who was only to be short time player, there to promote the other characters' stories. But fans liked him, and slowly due to Stephen the character became more and more involved in the other characters' stories, and eventually became a character in his own right, with a whole backstory and family. Jack was brought in to develop Steve's story, but the first two Jack's were busts. Then Matt was hired, and Jack first was one of the most hated characters on TV, due to the rape and great way Matt played him, and then due to the way Matt gave Jack nuances and quirks he was slowly redeemed and becam one of the most popular and loved characters not just on DAYS but all soaps. Other times they cast well, like Peter with Bo, Charles for Shane and Thaao for Tony, the writing was good, but I doubt had they not cast well would the characters have then been as loved as they did. Kayla was fine with the first actress, but when Mary Beth took over she became beloved and one of the top actresses on the show. Then there was good or at least decent writing, but the characters became special DUE TO THE ACTORS. It is the actors fans have the emotional connection to, not the writers, they might appreciate good writing, but their hearts belong to the actors who breath to life the characters, and who, the good ones, add little extras to make the characters more than two-dimensional, but almost real, flesh and blood, three-dimensional people.
I think that is why Langan and JERk, and the hacks now, do what they do, they resent the fact that the actors are the ones who are loved, so they fire them as punishment, and they hire newbies who may have fans, but not near those of the past, and these newbies just read the scripts and do not add anything special to the roles. But those people who have talent tend to be fine with actors getting involved, the less talent a person has the more that person resents those who do -- LANGAN, JERk, TOMLIN, DENA, and many others, including KENNY.
I agree when I was in middle school and started watching soaps it wasnt the teens that got my attention it was the Bo and Hope's the Vivian and John and Stephano I loved Dorian and Vikki on OLTL and barely cared about the teen set.
They made some good points although the claim of "old fashioned" is basically stupid. And the worry about "working women" is nonsense. From TIVO to the net, to iTUNES, to so many ways to record and watch, the audience could be there.
ReplyDeleteMimi Torchin was right on about the writing of soaps with silliness (back from the dead etc). The JER mentality was a big mistake. I don't care if the POSSESSION gave a blip in ratings. That kind of writing gets viewers to watch to mock and laugh and move on. The genre needs quality long term storytelling. Story telling is not old fashioned. Only the medium has changed.
However, one factor they left out or they were perhaps afraid to say is GREED. Corporate GREED. Reality shows are CHEAP. Talk shows are CHEAP and are part time free advertising for the industry as an actor with a new movies makes the rounds. JUDGE shows are cheap.
Corporate America treats actors the way most of the corporate world has been treating workers for years now....since the Reagan years. Actors are union workers. Reality shows use scabs who will do anything for their 15 minutes of fame.
Soaps will make a comeback on the net because people love a good story.
Word! Greed is the major downfall of soaps you put a cheap reality show underneath the execs noses and they'll jump at it no matter what the shows about "who wants to marry my dad" comes to mind.
ReplyDeleteIt is also telling that primetime shows, even sci fi and supernatural shows, incorporate the bases of what I see as soap based, that is romance, character interaction and character development. These are things which the post-JERk/Langan mentality destroyed.
ReplyDeleteI find it telling that they convinced Corday that the super couple was limiting, but there were more unique characters, who stood alone when there were super couples. Also, other characters were developed and were part of the whole romance, family members, friends were part of the whole development of relationships. And, when there were supercouples the show was much more balanced with various generations involved. Women were smarter, more independent, and worked, many as professionals, when they were involved as part of a couple; despite maybe being (quote) old-fashioned (end quote), and having sex with one person, waiting around for their first time, and equating sex with romance and love. Jennifer and Hope became weak, lost their spark, lost their brains, post-Langan/JERk, after they just umped into bed, betrayed their initial morals that sex meant love. They were weak characters.
It is interesting that despite when they were old fashioned, then they dealt with serious issues and did so intelligently, and dealt with consequences, but now with them more sexually liberated, and youth-centric there is less, or if any not treated other than a gimmick, and no real consequences or outcomes are examined, other than the initial shock, plot gimmick. The sex scenes, were making love and romantic in the past, but also they were more sexy and erotic as well -- everyone remembers J/J's, B/H's, Steve/Kayla's and Shane/Kim first kiss and first type making love -- when the term applied, and they were far from old-fashiped, they were rather daring and hot.
Greed is a big factor. As I posted in another post, NBC will have only eight hours per week of scripted shows, that would be out of the three hour block, seven days a week. The CW which does not have that many hours of TV scheduled, also has eight hours. The head of NBC, Zucker, is publicly stating that he does not worry if Leno does poorly, because the show only costs $35 million. From what I read from a local reviewer, that is nearly the cost of an hour long drama. So, having five scripted dramas would cost nearly 125 million, and those NBC is saving money. Zucker pretty much implied that he does not care about spending money for quality, he wants shows which are cheap. That is why the one article I read stated that there are five nights of Leno, plus so many reality shows on the network. So, with that mentality for primetime, shows which bring in more money and which NBC owns, no wonder DAYS is being downgraded, mediocre writers are hired, underwear models, or newbies. There is a serious problem when someone in charge of entertainment admits he prefers cheap over quality, proudly admits that mediocrity is acceptable.
ReplyDeleteThat is why soaps are in trouble. You spend money to make money. You hire people with talents to create a quality show. Then you make money. Shows which have good writing and talented actors bring in the ratings, and bring in millions of viewers.
I remember hearing that in the past the soaps helped to pay for primetime. Hmm, maybe if they remember that, maybe if they remember that spending money on daytime then not only will daytime be more successful but then there will be more money to pay for quality scripted shows, and not have to lower the standards by going with cheap reality shows.
In the past CEO's and their lieutenants did not make in the billions. Twenty years ago the average CEO made 7x the average worker. Now the average CEO makes 300 to 400x the average worker. CEO's whether for a network or a health insurance company feel they are not happy unless they own over five homes, a private jet and don't ever have to deal with common people. It is reflected in everything they say and do. Shows are not "for the people" any more than corporations and the sick for profit enterprises. Quality means nothing.
ReplyDeleteAnd do not forget networks are now owned by major corporations, Disney owns ABC, GE owns NBC -- not sure about CBS, I think it was at one time Viacom.
ReplyDeleteI am not surprised that ABC's soaps's quality has diminished, because ABC micro-manages the soaps, and those overseeing AMC, GH and OLTL have nothing to do with these shows' original creators. However, you have DAYS, with Corday, the son of the Cordays, in charge and he seems to have no respect for the show, for what his parents' had in mind when they created the show, he lets idiots and hacks, hateful idiots and hacks, ruin the basics upon which the show was founded, he lets them treated loyal writers, producers and especially actors like dirt; and he all but tells the LONG TIME, LOYAL fans to go to Hades. I would think that he would respect the thing his parents created, but he does not.
actually, they did mention greed, but they didn't use that word, just wrapped it up other language and called it the "business model" but greed is what they're talking about...
ReplyDelete"The decline of the soap opera as is much a factor of the business model as it is of the creative," he says. "It was designed to be 52 weeks a year of original product, no repeats. In today's business model for network television, that's not an efficient model anymore."
...not the 'efficient' model anymore...in other words, it's not making them the kind of money they can make off of reality shows/talk/shows, or anything else that is unscripted.
Loved Torchin's comment about reality shows being "voyeurism of the lowest order" Sadly, I think talk shows in the 90s like Maury showed the networks they could make a LOT of money by pandering to their audience's baser tendencies
Back in the 90s Springer was getting large numbers of teen viewers, the networks tried to put the show on in the later afternoon, after the teens returned from school. I always thought that the JERk/Langan modeled DAYS after that show. Female characters who were moral and decent because tramps, the mothers were more obsessed with sex with the latest loser than watching their children. Ugly behavior supplanted loving relationships. No more younger characters listening to Alice. Confused parentage of babies. And the teen demos did go up.
ReplyDeleteLove Mimi, she hated PASS, and did not like post-JERk DAYS. And gotta love how she criticized DAYS, and the petulant brat Corday boycotted SOW, but she held firm.
Well, I think that that is the mentality of the suits, but well written shows are doing well. You need to gear towards adults, and teens will watch too, and by adults I do not mean that there has to be sex, and show it, but that the material has to be intelligent, and well acted, and not cheap gimmicks, but character driven plotting.
I think that fans want soaps, and love that they are five days a week, without breaks in the summer. That format is why fans felt so close to characters, couples and families, they were familiar to them, they saw ever aspect of the characters' lives, they became like friends. That is not the case now. And characters developed slowly, relationships developed slowly. Fans were emotionally invested in them, anticipating the first kiss, the first time they made love, the pains of separations, the weddings, which were big events, like real life weddings -- even to the point that some of the weddings were made public for the fans to attend. Births were special, and all the characters were involved. The adventures were not the IT, but the characters were the focus, the adventures just helped the characters, and the relationships.
I need to add, I think now it is much easier to watch that many hours because there are TiVos and DVRs, and that material is on the net. You can watch several episodes at one time to catch up. There is also boards on the net to help you with history and what you missed, making it easier to fill in the blanks and know show and character history.
ReplyDeleteBut network suits are sheep, look at how the 70s and 80s how they put on a bunch of game shows and soaps, then the later 80s and 90s it was talk shows, and now reality shows. And once one type of scripted show is popular than you have everyone copying it. I would guess that in about five or so years someone comes up with the idea of an old-fashioned soap, like they were in the 60s through 80s, it is successful because they hire talented producers, writers and actors, and then you see the everyone scrambling to create soaps again.
that should be "show is popular THEN you have..."
ReplyDeleteI have a question for anyone who may see this who is in the industy. Are there more union rules now then they were in the eighties? One thing the article got wrong, is that the number of woman at home have actualy been incresing during the past ten years. Also, the internet is a good thing for soaps, if the industry decides to embrace it. I think the most important thing that soaps have to offer is to get people emotionally invested in the charcters which the JER era did not do well! People have not changed. I think there are a few in the industry that think THEY know what people want to see. Actually ,some of the younger writers have produced more quality material,like was seen in years past. Give them a chance please! I think slowly the talk shows surrounding the saops will take a hit, because many people watched them along side their soap. I think they should turn Days over to our Diva!!!!! The Diva knows the history, and knows what is hip, etc.
ReplyDeleteI think the stupid theory that teens will save the industry is killing it. As was mentioned, the soap demographics was more multi-generational in the past, families passed on soaps to one-another, but if you alienate viewers who are 35 and over, you also cancel out any younger people in those households. And you cannot have just young, inexperienced "actors," in the past the neophytes were thrown in with actors with years and even decades of experienced, they learned from them. Also, selling to teens is ridiculous since they are as likely not to be home, they grow out of liking the stuff allegedly which teens love, and many like the same things.
ReplyDeleteThe shows want gimmicks, and that does not bring in loyal viewers, which is what they want. For all the BS that getting teens you have long time viewers, you are not, they are not loyal because there is nothing for which to be loyal.
TV is not like a novel, on TV fans gravitate to a character due to the actor(s) in the role(s), the mentality that "The show is actor proof" and that firing and treating actors, REAL LIFE PEOPLE, get to the fans. Fans relate to the real life actor, and when they hear and read that their favorites are unjustly treated, they stop watching. I think using the examples of Matt Ashford and Stephen Nichols shows this. Stephen was hired as "Patch," a character with no name, who was only to be short time player, there to promote the other characters' stories. But fans liked him, and slowly due to Stephen the character became more and more involved in the other characters' stories, and eventually became a character in his own right, with a whole backstory and family. Jack was brought in to develop Steve's story, but the first two Jack's were busts. Then Matt was hired, and Jack first was one of the most hated characters on TV, due to the rape and great way Matt played him, and then due to the way Matt gave Jack nuances and quirks he was slowly redeemed and becam one of the most popular and loved characters not just on DAYS but all soaps. Other times they cast well, like Peter with Bo, Charles for Shane and Thaao for Tony, the writing was good, but I doubt had they not cast well would the characters have then been as loved as they did. Kayla was fine with the first actress, but when Mary Beth took over she became beloved and one of the top actresses on the show. Then there was good or at least decent writing, but the characters became special DUE TO THE ACTORS. It is the actors fans have the emotional connection to, not the writers, they might appreciate good writing, but their hearts belong to the actors who breath to life the characters, and who, the good ones, add little extras to make the characters more than two-dimensional, but almost real, flesh and blood, three-dimensional people.
I think that is why Langan and JERk, and the hacks now, do what they do, they resent the fact that the actors are the ones who are loved, so they fire them as punishment, and they hire newbies who may have fans, but not near those of the past, and these newbies just read the scripts and do not add anything special to the roles. But those people who have talent tend to be fine with actors getting involved, the less talent a person has the more that person resents those who do -- LANGAN, JERk, TOMLIN, DENA, and many others, including KENNY.
I agree when I was in middle school and started watching soaps it wasnt the teens that got my attention it was the Bo and Hope's the Vivian and John and Stephano I loved Dorian and Vikki on OLTL and barely cared about the teen set.
ReplyDelete