i'd be interested to see how the stats compare in UK, AU and NZ - from watching a lot of taskmaster, ongoing soaps like coronation street, eastenders, neighbours, and shortland street still get referenced as universal touchstones that need no explanation
One key difference is that the majority of these shows air in early primetime--so always attracted a bigger audience (also more men--and women--who worked in the day, etc.) There are also thematic differences--the UK soaps tend to be based on working class characters not the primarily wealthy/glamorous, though often with the same problems. That said, all these soaps have had huge drops in ratings in the era of streaming TV, etc (Neighbours was actually cancelled, then came back for a somewhat successful Amazon Prime streaming reboot which after two years has once again been cancelled.)
I remember when All My Children ended, Andy Cohen suggested all the viewers should just watch his Real Housewives. And there obviously is some crossover (in audience demos and fans) though as a former soap fan I don't get the appeal of those scripted reality shows whatsoever--I watched All My Children for the acting and writing which, I know to non soap fans probably sounds laughable but though you get glam and catfights on Real Housewives, I don't see much else.
At the risk of veering too far from my movies lane, I always think of this quote about TV from Joe Reid: "TV has never transcended the soap opera or the sitcom, and every ‘great’ TV show is just polishing up one or the other.”
And to my mind, I don't see why that's a bad thing. They serve different needs. (Of course now TV wants to be movies, and I'd say movies often want to be TV, and it's all gotten muddled, for good and bad...)
I'm a soap opera lover and defender, although none of the remaining US soaps appeal to me. (I wrote my Engl MA in part about a mid 90s All My Children storyline I watched as a young teenager about gay teen coming out, which helped me to come out.) So I won't get into all the defensive things we like to bring up--how Agnes Nixon's soaps especially 'got away' with exploring issues (from abortion, to gay storylines) that were still mostly taboo in primetime largely because networks ignored them as long as they did well. Also, when the best (my opinion) soap operas shot in New York they took advantage of the talky nature by often hiring the best actors (and directors) from that theatre community--which is why among the rushed acting, or poor acting by pretty models who can't memorize forty pages a day, you really did get some classic acting (back when soaps still had budgets and would have full rehearsals--a long gone tradition.)
But I think the best point you do bring up is how we get our serialized storytelling fix now through other TV shows--which tend to all be serialized to varying degrees, have better production values, have lower episodes which are easier to watch on our own time, etc. One thing I will say that defines daytime soap operas that only *some* primetime (or streaming or cable) shows now have though is they were *open* serializations, meant to never have an actual end point. Agnes Nixon used to defend her medium by pointing out it comes from the tradition of Victorian serialized novels by Wilkie Collins and Charles Dickens and she's right, but though those sometimes were extended if they were popular, they always had an end story point.
I can't really think of a major form of open serialized storytelling, at least on a huge mainstream level, until radio soap operas and serialized adventure and soap opera newspaper comic strips which originated in the US around the same time (a form that is even deader than soap operas but still has some hanger-ons--Mary Worth, etc.)
(Oh I'll also pick on you for saying that soap operas came from the most unlikely of places, the radio. Nearly every initial genre of TV came out of TV--the sitcom, Lucille Ball having a radio sitcom before TV for example, the game show, the drama anthology... and the soap opera. Maybe it's just unlikely to people who aren't weird like me and have never heard of radio shows, but... And even there, now we have a number of popular serialized narrative podcasts...)
(It's also worth pointing out that I agree Twin Peaks in many ways created prestige serials, but the way viewer drop off happened *so* quickly with that show when it aired is interesting to examine. The 80s, known for their primetime soap operas like Dallas and Dynasty, which one daytime soap writer called "soap operas on speed, with an emphasis on the glamour, and craziness but not on family or quieter moments," also had started to have their share of highly regarded dramas that were loosely serialized--Hill Street Blues added a serialized/soap element to the police procedural, thirtysomething added that to the domestic drama, etc.)
Hmmm...I'm wondering if soap operas, of old, aren't ready for a soft comeback. I pick up so much chatter for SPs like "Passions" that were so uncontrollably nutty that today's present day viewers see much of Passions ticks in reality tv. People are hoping Pluto TV creates more soap opera channels. I think people also want campy humor that's been missing lately or completely. It's safe and fun and always combines elements of glamour that have been thrown by the wayside.
Hmmm...I'm wondering if soap operas, of old, aren't ready for a soft comeback. I pick up so much chatter for SPs like "Passions" that were so uncontrollably nutty that today's present day viewers see much of Passions ticks in reality tv. People are hoping Pluto TV creates more soap opera channels. I think people also want campy humor that's been missing lately or completely. It's safe and fun and always combines elements of glamour that have been thrown by the wayside.
Great analysis. The other dominant & popular daytime programs (as I was growing up) were talk shows and game shows. I can't help but wonder if these genres had similar downward trends?
To some extent, they certainly have--especially network ones (as opposed to syndicated.) I know when ABC got rid of All My Children and One Life to Live they replaced them with two much cheaper talk type shows, the food based The Chew and the health based The Revolution. The Chew lasted 6 or so years though never with good numbers, The Revolution only lasted 6 months. The Chew was replaced with a third hour of Good Morning America and The Revolution ultimately gave its hour back to affiliates to do with what they wanted (it had record low daytime numbers.) In general network daytime programming has been having issues for a long time, with affiliates wanting the time for themselves, etc.
CBS is the only network with their own daytime game shows--The Price is Right, and since Guiding Light went off the air, the reboot of Let's Make a Deal but otherwise game shows seem now to only be in primetime or a few syndicated successes (including the Wheel of Fortune/Jeopardy pairing which airs nearly everywhere in early primetime.)
I've been watching General Hospital since I was a baby. In high school and college I stopped following but when James Franco came in as stunt casting in 2009 I got hooked again. I hope it's not over. Being a fan of these shows is a lot of fun, there's always ridiculous twists to gossip about with other fans. One element that you missed that separates GH from other shows is that you get to watch characters grow and change over a *very* long period of time. More than any other show, I feel like I know these characters. In many cases I've watched them grow up from either little kids or young 20 somethings into middle or old aged adults. My hope is that they can make it through this period of shows splintering into a million outlets and cheaper content because I think, over time, there is real value in having comfort shows. People still watch Cheers and Friends and a lot of the old sitcoms not just because they are funny, but because they are so familiar. I hope that consistency and feelings of stability keeps GH on the air. I'm curious if it's place on Hulu as often the number 1 in popularity will help it grow back an audience.
That's a great point. Soap creator/headwriter Agnes Nixon used to be asked about the ridiculous plot twists and cliffhangers required to hook viewers, and she pointed out that often they would get the new fans, but what created long term fans was the continuity with the characters (and the actors--all the recasts not withstanding.) When you see these people five times a week in your house, living parallel lives, and aging along with you, it's just something you can't get in any other fictional medium, including all the current primetime serialized dramas.
i'd be interested to see how the stats compare in UK, AU and NZ - from watching a lot of taskmaster, ongoing soaps like coronation street, eastenders, neighbours, and shortland street still get referenced as universal touchstones that need no explanation
One key difference is that the majority of these shows air in early primetime--so always attracted a bigger audience (also more men--and women--who worked in the day, etc.) There are also thematic differences--the UK soaps tend to be based on working class characters not the primarily wealthy/glamorous, though often with the same problems. That said, all these soaps have had huge drops in ratings in the era of streaming TV, etc (Neighbours was actually cancelled, then came back for a somewhat successful Amazon Prime streaming reboot which after two years has once again been cancelled.)
interesting, i didn't realize their soaps aired primetime!
you didnt mention anything about Bravo genre of “Housewives” shows. Aren’t those the new soap operas?
I remember when All My Children ended, Andy Cohen suggested all the viewers should just watch his Real Housewives. And there obviously is some crossover (in audience demos and fans) though as a former soap fan I don't get the appeal of those scripted reality shows whatsoever--I watched All My Children for the acting and writing which, I know to non soap fans probably sounds laughable but though you get glam and catfights on Real Housewives, I don't see much else.
At the risk of veering too far from my movies lane, I always think of this quote about TV from Joe Reid: "TV has never transcended the soap opera or the sitcom, and every ‘great’ TV show is just polishing up one or the other.”
And to my mind, I don't see why that's a bad thing. They serve different needs. (Of course now TV wants to be movies, and I'd say movies often want to be TV, and it's all gotten muddled, for good and bad...)
I'm a soap opera lover and defender, although none of the remaining US soaps appeal to me. (I wrote my Engl MA in part about a mid 90s All My Children storyline I watched as a young teenager about gay teen coming out, which helped me to come out.) So I won't get into all the defensive things we like to bring up--how Agnes Nixon's soaps especially 'got away' with exploring issues (from abortion, to gay storylines) that were still mostly taboo in primetime largely because networks ignored them as long as they did well. Also, when the best (my opinion) soap operas shot in New York they took advantage of the talky nature by often hiring the best actors (and directors) from that theatre community--which is why among the rushed acting, or poor acting by pretty models who can't memorize forty pages a day, you really did get some classic acting (back when soaps still had budgets and would have full rehearsals--a long gone tradition.)
But I think the best point you do bring up is how we get our serialized storytelling fix now through other TV shows--which tend to all be serialized to varying degrees, have better production values, have lower episodes which are easier to watch on our own time, etc. One thing I will say that defines daytime soap operas that only *some* primetime (or streaming or cable) shows now have though is they were *open* serializations, meant to never have an actual end point. Agnes Nixon used to defend her medium by pointing out it comes from the tradition of Victorian serialized novels by Wilkie Collins and Charles Dickens and she's right, but though those sometimes were extended if they were popular, they always had an end story point.
I can't really think of a major form of open serialized storytelling, at least on a huge mainstream level, until radio soap operas and serialized adventure and soap opera newspaper comic strips which originated in the US around the same time (a form that is even deader than soap operas but still has some hanger-ons--Mary Worth, etc.)
(Oh I'll also pick on you for saying that soap operas came from the most unlikely of places, the radio. Nearly every initial genre of TV came out of TV--the sitcom, Lucille Ball having a radio sitcom before TV for example, the game show, the drama anthology... and the soap opera. Maybe it's just unlikely to people who aren't weird like me and have never heard of radio shows, but... And even there, now we have a number of popular serialized narrative podcasts...)
(It's also worth pointing out that I agree Twin Peaks in many ways created prestige serials, but the way viewer drop off happened *so* quickly with that show when it aired is interesting to examine. The 80s, known for their primetime soap operas like Dallas and Dynasty, which one daytime soap writer called "soap operas on speed, with an emphasis on the glamour, and craziness but not on family or quieter moments," also had started to have their share of highly regarded dramas that were loosely serialized--Hill Street Blues added a serialized/soap element to the police procedural, thirtysomething added that to the domestic drama, etc.)
Hmmm...I'm wondering if soap operas, of old, aren't ready for a soft comeback. I pick up so much chatter for SPs like "Passions" that were so uncontrollably nutty that today's present day viewers see much of Passions ticks in reality tv. People are hoping Pluto TV creates more soap opera channels. I think people also want campy humor that's been missing lately or completely. It's safe and fun and always combines elements of glamour that have been thrown by the wayside.
Hmmm...I'm wondering if soap operas, of old, aren't ready for a soft comeback. I pick up so much chatter for SPs like "Passions" that were so uncontrollably nutty that today's present day viewers see much of Passions ticks in reality tv. People are hoping Pluto TV creates more soap opera channels. I think people also want campy humor that's been missing lately or completely. It's safe and fun and always combines elements of glamour that have been thrown by the wayside.
Big All My Children fan here! I recently discovered some clips and scenes on YouTube that brought back a lot of memories!
The classiest of the soaps IMHO. See my post above.
Great analysis. The other dominant & popular daytime programs (as I was growing up) were talk shows and game shows. I can't help but wonder if these genres had similar downward trends?
To some extent, they certainly have--especially network ones (as opposed to syndicated.) I know when ABC got rid of All My Children and One Life to Live they replaced them with two much cheaper talk type shows, the food based The Chew and the health based The Revolution. The Chew lasted 6 or so years though never with good numbers, The Revolution only lasted 6 months. The Chew was replaced with a third hour of Good Morning America and The Revolution ultimately gave its hour back to affiliates to do with what they wanted (it had record low daytime numbers.) In general network daytime programming has been having issues for a long time, with affiliates wanting the time for themselves, etc.
CBS is the only network with their own daytime game shows--The Price is Right, and since Guiding Light went off the air, the reboot of Let's Make a Deal but otherwise game shows seem now to only be in primetime or a few syndicated successes (including the Wheel of Fortune/Jeopardy pairing which airs nearly everywhere in early primetime.)
I've been watching General Hospital since I was a baby. In high school and college I stopped following but when James Franco came in as stunt casting in 2009 I got hooked again. I hope it's not over. Being a fan of these shows is a lot of fun, there's always ridiculous twists to gossip about with other fans. One element that you missed that separates GH from other shows is that you get to watch characters grow and change over a *very* long period of time. More than any other show, I feel like I know these characters. In many cases I've watched them grow up from either little kids or young 20 somethings into middle or old aged adults. My hope is that they can make it through this period of shows splintering into a million outlets and cheaper content because I think, over time, there is real value in having comfort shows. People still watch Cheers and Friends and a lot of the old sitcoms not just because they are funny, but because they are so familiar. I hope that consistency and feelings of stability keeps GH on the air. I'm curious if it's place on Hulu as often the number 1 in popularity will help it grow back an audience.
That's a great point. Soap creator/headwriter Agnes Nixon used to be asked about the ridiculous plot twists and cliffhangers required to hook viewers, and she pointed out that often they would get the new fans, but what created long term fans was the continuity with the characters (and the actors--all the recasts not withstanding.) When you see these people five times a week in your house, living parallel lives, and aging along with you, it's just something you can't get in any other fictional medium, including all the current primetime serialized dramas.