Why are US soaps so bad?

2 of 2

albiex

29-11-2016

Originally Posted by Glendarroch:
“Donna was wrong, IMO. I always enjoy the everyday scenes in soaps - conversations, family or work life, rather than the high drama. Look how successful comedies about ordinary people are too - 'Roseanne'being an excellent example. Or things like Gogglebox - a show about everyday people commenting on what they see in telly!”

Me too. American stuff is way OTT and sadly we're going that way now. A soap is a kitchen sink drama, that's where the name came from.

Scorpio2

29-11-2016

Originally Posted by Edward Skylover:
“I used to like a bit of 1993 Days of our Lives but I watched an episode a couple of days ago and it was so bad.

The sets are all so obviously indoors, and in one scene I saw a mic dangling above the characters' heads. Neighbours is slated for its production standards but it looks like a Hollywood movie compared to DOOL. Home and Away in comparison, looks much more slick and realistic, even if the writing is poor a lot of the time.”

Is that the same show where I Mother left with her baby and the baby returned a few years later as a 16 year old?

IWasBored

29-11-2016

Originally Posted by albiex:
“Me too. American stuff is way OTT and sadly we're going that way now. A soap is a kitchen sink drama, that's where the name came from.”

No its not meant to be a kitchen sink drama, it's a soap opera. The clue is in the name, it is supposed to be ott

kitkat1971

29-11-2016

Originally Posted by Glendarroch:
“Donna was wrong, IMO. I always enjoy the everyday scenes in soaps - conversations, family or work life, rather than the high drama. Look how successful comedies about ordinary people are too - 'Roseanne'being an excellent example. Or things like Gogglebox - a show about everyday people commenting on what they see in telly!”

Those everyday scenes didn't stop though, it's just that they were dressed better and in nicer looking offices. The heart of the drama remained the same, human relationships and there were plenty of Val dropping round Karens with dry cleaning, really wanting a heart to heart, breakfast scenes which the characters would have cooked themselves, cleaning out the garages etc. There were never less than 3 of the original houses occupied despite the increased wealth. It was only Greg who really behaved as though he was uber rich and powerful with chauffeurs and servants etc but his relationship with Laura kept hom grounded.

So, on the surface, it became glamarous but scratch the surface it was down to earth and relateable in a way the others weren't.

I think Mills was right and it did need to change to be successful. It started in the 'worthy' 70s but by the mid 80s, Reagan was at his most popular and viewers, at least American viewers, wanted to watch aspirational tv to relax to. I doubt KL would have survived during that era without the 'upgrade', it came close to being cancelled during season 3, the last 'poor' season. But, it remaining fundamentally tge same character driven show madie it easier to tone the glamour down when viewing tastes changed again in the late 80s so it ended up being the longest running of those soaps.

omnidirectional

29-11-2016

Originally Posted by albiex:
“Me too. American stuff is way OTT and sadly we're going that way now. A soap is a kitchen sink drama, that's where the name came from.”

The term 'Soap opera' comes from the US, because many of the original advertisers were companies who made soap powders, targeting housewives who made up most of the audience.

Mark_Washingto1

29-11-2016

Originally Posted by albiex:
“Me too. American stuff is way OTT and sadly we're going that way now. A soap is a kitchen sink drama, that's where the name came from.”

Your comment shows how little you know about American soaps, yes some are over the top but others are down to earth.

Originally Posted by kitkat1971:
“Those everyday scenes didn't stop though, it's just that they were dressed better and in nicer looking offices. The heart of the drama remained the same, human relationships and there were plenty of Val dropping round Karens with dry cleaning, really wanting a heart to heart, breakfast scenes which the characters would have cooked themselves, cleaning out the garages etc. There were never less than 3 of the original houses occupied despite the increased wealth. It was only Greg who really behaved as though he was uber rich and powerful with chauffeurs and servants etc but his relationship with Laura kept hom grounded.

So, on the surface, it became glamarous but scratch the surface it was down to earth and relateable in a way the others weren't.

I think Mills was right and it did need to change to be successful. It started in the 'worthy' 70s but by the mid 80s, Reagan was at his most popular and viewers, at least American viewers, wanted to watch aspirational tv to relax to. I doubt KL would have survived during that era without the 'upgrade', it came close to being cancelled during season 3, the last 'poor' season. But, it remaining fundamentally tge same character driven show madie it easier to tone the glamour down when viewing tastes changed again in the late 80s so it ended up being the longest running of those soaps.”

I agree with you 100%, Knots definitely needed to glam up in the 80's, everyday life on the cul-de-sec wasn't going to cut it when even the daytime soaps were becoming more Dallas and Dynasty like and like you said they were able to tone it down when that stuff became stale. I think what made Knots outlast the others was that it kept up with the times where as Dallas and Dynasty were stuck in their bubble.

2 of 2