The best part was when she goaded him Into violently attacking her, to ensure that she could gain full control over her son, the divorce and the sympathy of all their shared acquaintances.

Yes, God damn EE this is what I want my female characters to be like!

For some reason they prefer their women to be victims, they generally either make them victims of abuse or unable to have children/have had a child taken away from them or sometimes both.

It's why I was annoyed that Shirley's backstory was that she had a baby taken from her, we've seen that before so it was nothing new and it mean you struggled to care, especially as Cora had a similar storyline not that long prior to it.

This is why I want Queen Janine of Walford to return. She took no crap from anyone.

There's a difference between box sets or set length dramas and soaps - box sets and set length dramas either come to a conclusion or end on a cliffhanger and are never seen again. With soaps, there are several strands of different stories within them and each might conclude, but others are still running.

It's a totally different type of watch and I want both types.

As much as we all complain about the over-sensationalized plots in soaps - and their increasing nature - the soaps are fighting a losing battle. In their eyes, they have to keep up the shocks, the twists and the stunts to hook viewers and entice them into watching four/five days a week. It's a commitment for a viewer, not like binging a boxset whenever you want or a once-a-week show. To follow soaps storylines you've got to want to watch every episode and if they're on every day you've got to make room for that. And if you're watching something four or five times a week then the view would be that you need to be enticed and hooked into doing so. You NEED to watch the next episode because you NEED to know the outcome. For a soap this is much harder because of its nature and long running storylines.

Slower paced character led drama worked in a quieter media market - when there were only four channels and no internet - now there is much more competition and soaps feel they have to be "louder" in order to attract the viewers. If soaps reverted back to how they used to be then they'd lose viewers.

A happy balance is the dream and I think the producers still aspire to it, it's more likely the channels themselves pushing the big event episodes and shock twists purely for headlines, hype and ratings.

But in perspective the soaps are still huge draws even in the current TV world so it's not the end of days yet.

Perhaps soaps need to adopt shorter storylines in order to make short-term/irreuglar viewing more possible. Also, a reduced number of eps per week would give the writers more time to plan bettter plots.

However the UK soaps we are talking about (the big 2) are in primetime and not daytime. The only big success in daytime is the excellent BBC Soap Doctors. The US soaps i believe were all daytime, so there is a difference. You would expect the commercial networks to spend more money on primetime than daytime. However with the two main channels in the UK clogging up their schedule with continuing drama of one sort or another, perhaps it would not be such a bad thing if we were to lose one of the soaps. I imagine there is more variety on the US networks? Also you can't really compare shares with US Shows to UK Shows. Not when you compare the size of the States to our Kingdom.

I was comparing ratings of Empire a prime time soap to the British soaps not the daytime soaps and I was basing it off ratings share not actual numbers which would be very different. But the main reason why you shouldn't worry is the networks are committed to the soaps and aren't afraid to spend money on them. Even in the 80's when the US soaps were at their peak, ABC was using money brought in by General Hospital to produce Dynasty that money should have been reinvested into the GH and the other soaps instead of prime time shows. IMHO the British networks seem to realize the value of their soaps while the US networks don't.

sorry I stand corrected. I didn't read your post properly.

I agree with the article as I simply enjoy the soaps more when they focus on hard hitting issue based everyday scenarios, instead of sensationalism. I thought the episodes where Kat visited the convent, Shabnam had her stillborn son and Pam met Christine were fantastically done and I'd take those episodes over last night anytime. Similarly I think some of the best episodes of the Blackburn Reign on Corrie have been those character led ones like Roy and Hayley in Blackpool, Hayley's Death and the episode after Deirdre's funeral with Ken, Tracy and Peter.

I'm not saying that big twists and stunts are not enjoyable, depending on the writing and acting they can be Brilliant. But they have recently been overdone by the soaps over the everyday situation drama.



I loved Doctor Foster, I thought it was excellently written and acted throughout and was a great example of drama where dramatic twists were balanced with solid character writing, realistic situations and hard hitting emotional scenes. Different background stories were interwoven into the main affair story well, just like different stories should be woven together in Soap. I thought the final episode was absolutely brilliant and I was rooting for Dr Foster throughout. My favorite part was the dinner table scene.

No worries man. But that is why I think this article is BS, the broadcast networks here would kill to get ratings like Corrie, East Enders and Emmerdale. I think the only thing that gets ratings like that here is the Super Bowl.

But very possibly the shift /trend is away from that and people like yourself who want both are becoming less and less?

To my mind US television drama and such is an infinitely more creative and risk taking environment than in the UK TV industry, so much so that even some film directors are keen to get into the business of making tv shows as to them that's were creativity is increasingly more available.

I agree, I think soap audiences are generally dying out because there is a greater selection of choice on TV nowadays compared to 'back in the day'. However, soap fans will remain in part as long as there is a balance between light and dark IMO. Some soaps are better at that concept than others, CS (traditionally), ED and Neighbours for example. HO seems to be so far fetched and fanatical sensation it's beyond belief these days, EE just isn't my cup of tea anymore and hasn't been for a while the style is too dreary , writing is isn't as good and is predictable IMO, plus it's got too much shouting in it. Give me Home and Away anyday

Like many other creators of long running TV content, I expect soap producers will soon have to make a decision about who their main target group really is, rather than continue to please all and sundry.

They can either try to focus on their (mostly older) core audiences, who have been watching for 30+ years. This would probably mean reducing the gimmicks and sensationalism, and a return to the type of storytelling soaps were known for back in the 1980s. Of course such a step would most likely cost them viewers, especially in the long run, but the ones who remain would probably be highly faithful to their favourite shows.

Alternatively, soaps can continue to fight for larger and younger audiences, which would require everything from higher production quality to more online content (I actually don't think sensationalism and fantasy-world stories are a requirement).
I'm not sure this could work without significantly bigger budgets though. Maybe with less episodes per week, and a gap in the summer like US shows there's a chance.

Either way, a decision has to be made, because right now, soaps are losing viewers from both groups, and if they continue down that road, they will likely become obsolete in a few years.

delete

The TV channels only have themselves to blame for the decline in soaps. They are on far too often, two or three episodes of interesting scenes a week would be far preferable to five or six episodes of repetitive bunkum. There would be no room for pointless filler, stories going around in circles for weeks, or needless rubbish to pass the time, they wouldn't run out of storylines so quickly, and with more time to actually rehearse, the acting would increase. The live ep of Corrie proved that. TV channels would do well to remember that less is more.

I have always been a huge fan of soaps, loving them all but my love has waned in recent years.

I really struggle now and find that my benchmark for what is a good story or character has lowered.

Despite what the article says I do feel a soap would work today but one along the lines of early Brookside. A soap that feels real, with real people having real issues. Brookside built a following and reputation on this. Sadly it seems that Producers are terrified of loosing their audience so feel the need to be fast, furious and over the top.

Sad days really. I know people loved how Deidre's death was marked in Corrie but all the reality of it was ripped out. I had watched her for over 20 years and should have been completely upset by it but wasn't, I guess neither were Ken or Tracey. Unforgivable.

I could go on.

I would love something very brave to be done - both ITV and BBC agree to cut at least an episode a week from their top soaps. It's been proven beyond doubt that quantity is not quality. While radical in the short term, I think in the long term both EE and Corrie will benefit. The time and budget saved could be spend on improving quality.

For EE I would like to go even further. Make it a post watershed show where they can go as gritty as they like to reflect real life. Pre watershed, they can show a 'lite' version with bad language etc cut out for younger viewers, maybe on BBC3. And have regular breaks, eg over Easter or summer, so people are left wanting more.

IMHO the soaps aren't on that long, but then again I grew up on the US soaps which had all but but The Bold and The Beautiful had expanded to an hour before I was born. They were able to thrive for years at 1hr episodes 5x a week, so I don't see a problem with 30min episodes 5x a week. I think people need to realize people aren't watching tv as much as they used to because of other ways of viewing shows and that probably won't change. Just like I'm sure before tv a lot more people listened to the radio, but radio was able to survive and so will tv and the soaps, the audience just won't be as big.

Brilliant analysis -Soaps made for soap lovers /fans rather than trying to everyone's cup of tea ☕.

I'd compare it to successful genre books -a Sci Fi writer or tartan noir author of a long running series of novels knows who their audience is and doesn't try to appeal to every kind of reader.

Excellent post. We can't have someone so measured and sensible on here it doesn't feel right

BBC3 ends next year on broadcast tv and is going online only, so they aren't going to just have a 'lite' version of EE online. If people were going online to watch EE, they may as well watch the post watershed version.

Thanks

And one other thing I noticed about the article the OP posted was that the author seems to think Corrie is out of touch with reality, with stunts and violence and that Kate Oates is going to bring it back down to earth. Clearly the writer has not watched an episode of Emmerdale since Kate's been in charge, they at times i think they have more violence and stunts than Hollyoaks.