where the writers are
more thoughts on bringing daytime back to its future...

Twenty-five years after Hill Street Blues led to "TV's second golden age" (Steven Stark: Glue to the Set), a new incarnation of primetime soaps were introduced in the fall of 2006. In addition to Brothers and Sisters, ABC had Ugly Betty; NBC, the critics' darling, Friday Night Lights; all will be returning for third seasons in fall 2008. In many ways, these 21st-century primetime soaps, along with Dirty, Sexy Money, have embraced the true soap opera ethos - intimate, complex character-driven drama - their daytime counterparts long ago abandoned in the pursuit of "the youth market."

In some ways, the scale of these primetime soaps more closely resembles that of the 30-minute soap operas of old. I recall Claire Labine, creator of the much-loved Ryan's Hope, once suggesting in an interview that soaps really began losing their way when most expanded to an hour in the mid-70s. The increased number of characters required by the longer format has certainly contributed to soaps lack of consistency. How else to explain two recent fan board (MediaDomain) postings: "Very Good Show in Tuesday," and "Goodbye, ATWT" just three days later? Tuesday's show focused on Oakdale's core family, the Hughes. Friday's poster was largely fed up with two new characters Janet and Liberty, connected only to a single couple, Katie and Brad, all of whom are "being shoved down our throats."

This schizophrenia has been building for some time; its roots lie in daytime soaps' abandonment of multi-generational storytelling. ATWT's cast currently numbers 38, 13 of whom - almost a third of the characters - have no parent present on the Oakdale canvas. And of those 13, 11 are currently involved in front-burner stories. This is in sharp contrast primetime soaps like Brothers and Sisters, which New York Times television critic, Ginia Bellafante described as "committed to the primacy and romance of the family." As have the rest of the new breed of 21st century primetime soaps.

Yet daytime continues to ignore primetime's success, encouraged by critics like Marlena de la Croix, who went so far as to say, "Daytime drama and primetime drama are two very different genres with two very different audiences." Her point was quickly rebutted by Snark Weight In, who sums up succinctly why daytime soaps ignore what they have in common with primetime at their peril:

"I'm not sure I understand this line of reasoning-do people who watch daytime soaps really not watch primetime drama? Doesn't the fact that we have engaged thinking members of the soap community referring to these prime-time shows put that theory to bed? Daytime fans and primetime fans are the same! Indeed, many primetime fans are former daytime fans who now stick exclusively with primetime, because it's the only place they can get anything resembling the socially aware, character-driven, serialized storytelling they used to get from soaps."

Another argument often articulated by daytime fans is that while daytime lost when it began emulating primetime back in the early 80s, primetime gained far more by emulating the daytime of old. It's not that the argument is wrong, but it suggests that the relationship between daytime and primetime soaps is a zero sum game. That's exactly the kind of thinking that led daytime into its current sorry state. Rather trying to expand daytime's overall audience, by reinforcing each show's unique identity, those in charge settled for diluting and homogenizing the shows so you can barely tell one from the other. The underlying assumption - a soap is a soap is a soap and any distinctions among them are wasted on daytime viewers - is a deeply flawed strategy that continues to fail.

But it's never been a zero sum game. And it certainly isn't now, not with multiple platforms providing fans opportunities to watch shows - daytime or primetime - morning, noon and night, seven days a week, 365 days a year. This is exactly the time daytime must take a step back and look at the bigger picture, and rather than focus on what separates daytime and primetime soaps, begin to understand what they share; then use that understanding to bring daytime back to the future it abandoned so long ago.

 

© 2008 Lynn Liccardo

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Comments
5 Comment count
Comment Bubble Tip

I think that's why EastEnders is so popular...

across the pond-they know they have half an hour, and they cram a lot in. Which is why I like it better than any of the soaps these days.

Comment Bubble Tip

hi jen...

good to hear from you. must confess, i never got into the brit soaps, although my mother loved them.

after i put the post up, i was thinking that it's only been in the past 10-15 years that soaps have become so very disconnected. my first inclination was to chalk that up to the giant talents who never found the hour format daunting -- bill bell, agnes nixon, and doug marland (of course) are no longer writing. then it occured to me that a big part of the problem now is how tight the budgets have become. writers are so much more limited in how many actors they can use per episode. then i started wondering how bell, nixon, marland would have dealt with the current budget constraints. i expect they would have used the lemons to make lemonade.

i also think that the technology that allows us to ff through episodes at warp speed has been a contributing factor, but that a topic for another piece.

Comment Bubble Tip

I don't know about the ff button...

they had that on VCR's when I was growing up in the eighties, yet soaps were still pretty good back then.

I think AMC has been bad since Nixon was forced out, and Marland? He might've retired and written a novel. He wasn't one that suffered fools gladly, from what I've read of him.

Comment Bubble Tip

Marlena Quote Out of Context

Lynn--You have quoted me out of context here.  The line "Daytime audiences are different from primetime audiences" came out of a answer to a letter which was a reply to my column "Kids  and Guns and Sweeps" on my blog www.marlenadelacroix.com in February.  The quote was referring to the fact that daytime audiences are primarily female  and as such daytime drama is aimed towards them (and thus shooting children on soaps is especially scurrilous as the audience is comprised of many mothers.)  Snark seized on my words incorrectly  to make his own point.  I was referring to the traditional daytime audience which still has a huge element  of stay at home moms, and the primetime audience, which is both genders.

 As a journalism professor, I  especially resent being misrepresented by a peer.   

Comment Bubble Tip

for the record. here's

for the record. here's connie's entire reply:

"Marlena says: Roger, “The Wire” is a cable program mostly seen at night. “General Hospital” is an afternoon show (although you can TIVO it or watch it on SoapNet in the evening.) Shooting kids resides properly in the nighttime dramatic form, I think. On another board, a viewer commenting on this column said she saw kids shooting adults on E.R. many times so what would be wrong with them shooting a gun on a daytime soap? Huh? Daytime drama and primetime drama are two very different genres with two very different audiences. I know in the past GH executive producer Jill Farren Phelps loved to incorporate primetime elements in her shows. (Such as her attempt to remake Another World a la NYPD Blue) I humbly think the only way daytime soaps survive will be if yhey remain true to the classic form."