I thought this would be a good topic to start where there could be a more general discussion of the genre/format, its current trends, and its future, rather than the more specific comparisons between soaps of the Comparative Soaps thread.

To start off, I’d like to ask a general question for all soap fans. What do you think is most missing from today’s soaps and/or what could be the cause of the loss of interest in soaps (as evidenced by ratings drops) character-wise and story-wise? Imagine you were in a room with all the soaps’ head writers and they asked you that question (not that these all-knowings would ever do such a thing). What would you say?

Poor acting?
Too many recycled storylines?
Too much or too little sex?
Pace too fast or slow?
Too campy or not campy enough?
Not serious or not funny enough?
Lack of story/character continuity?
Too much or too little cast diversity (ethnicity, age, region, personality, etc.)?
Stories not “smart” or complex enough – like in say Veronica Mars or Day Break?
A lack of realness or contemporary relevance?
Is there too much similarity between most soaps, giving way to a "seen one, seen them all" feeling amongst audiences?
Are there certain issues that you think should be addressed on soaps but aren’t?

What would be your top 3 answers?

Good topic! Here's my three pet peeves:

1. Stop bringing characters back from the dead. It makes it impossible to care when a character dies - you know that they'll be brought back to life again in the near future (See DOOL).

2. Stop glamorizing/deifying antisocial/violent criminals. Bad boys are one thing - hit men, serial murderers and mob leaders are another. It's like the media in general constantly trying to make me care about Paris Hilton - it isn't going to happen, and the relentless attempts bug the hell out of me (See GH, AMC).

3. Supercouples happen organically, and are rare. Stop throwing random "flavor of the week" starlets and himbos together and shoving them at the audience daily as the next big thing. We aren't buying it. Besides, we know they'll be broken up in a few weeks, whenever one of the pair gets too uppity in contract talks.

Nice topic! Here are my top three:

1. Motives, motives, motives! I may not support every action that's adequetly explained, but if I can understand it, chances are I'll be interested. Why oh why did Olivia cancel her wedding with Buzz? To hook up with her rapist? What? And the only groundwork this "couple" has are a few coy looks. Gah.

2. I am so tired of romantic!relationship drama. It so old. Give me some sibling/parent/mentor/enemy storylines please! Complexity = good. If it affects a romantic relationship as a realistic byproduct, that's fine, but I don't want the *entire* show revolving wholly around romance. I know, I know - this is not the genre for me.

3. I wish the villians would stop being caricatures. Do I need to develop this further? ;)

Turn characters over more - don't let a few actors hog the screen, make them move on instead.

That would avoid the recycled storylines and the constant triangles.

I'd rather see, say Jack and Carly leave to live happily ever after and move on to a new set of characters than third party interference version 3,233,432.

Great idea for a thread. Let's just hope TPTB at some (or all) of the shows actually read this. So many problems I can think of, but if I had to limit it to just three:

Excessive, to the point of screwing up many many timelines, SORASing. My best example would be Leah on GL. She is now years older than her two "older" brothers Zach and Jude.

Having so few families that every member ends up dating/sleeping with/or married to the same few people over and over again. See pretty much every show for that, but Reva and Cassie on GL are prime examples, as well as pretty much everyone on B&B (from what I hear).

Actors who are hired for their looks instead of their ability to actually, you know, act.

1. Give characters back their jobs. Jobs provide built-in storylines and conflict and make characters, and the show as a whole, more realistic.

2. Stop making every single character ginormously rich. Again, when money is no object and everyone can just take their private jet to Downtown Europe to rescue [insert character], it completely eliminates the thrill of the hunt. Some characters can be uber-rich but I'd like to see more class striation on soaps.

3. Enough with the rape. It's been done so many times that it's lost all meaning. And when the show skims over the fallout, it's a slap in the face to real rape victims everywhere. These days, it's either used to "redeem" bad girls or to turn male characters into irredeemable villains. No one wants to watch the constant victimization of women. If they insist on employing this convention, why not be groundbreaking and have a male being raped. It's a silent, oft-unreported crime that deserves to be showcased.

Oh fun!

I agree with everything that has already been said. I'll add...

(1) Pacing. Pacing. Pacing. Sometimes I feel like it's like "location" in Real Estate. When I was a kid, soaps knew how to start a story while another one was heating up, and yet another was ending. I think that ties into featuring different actors as well, if stories are beginning/building/climaxing then more actors are getting screen time and there is a greater chance for cast & character integration.

(2) Chemistry. It's fine to have a plan for a show. Knowing that you want certain characters to hit certain beats is good, but show runners shouldn't do it at the expense of characters/actors who unintentionally spark. Some of my favourite couples have happened solely because of their unplanned chemistry. Go with it!

(3) Don't insult your audience. Even though soaps are campy fun it doesn't mean I don't like a challenge. Respect your audience and write characters, stories, dialogue and relationships that people can (at least somewhat) relate to and enjoy. If you're going to write a murder mystery or a trial - write a complex, sophisticated arc that includes realistic motivations and doesn't assume the audience is comprised of illiterate morons.

Actually this was done on one soap. The problem with the storyline was that it was played like a comedy. Big mistake, the reality of it is serious, horrible crime. Not something to laugh about.

I think these are all wonderful ideas.

So here is my top three which sort of encompasses all your suggestions:

1. Family: I love adore couples, I really do. But I want layers, I want relationships that aren't based on sex and triangles. Revenge is great, in small doses. But where is the love? Where is the hate?
2. Deep characters: Not a new character every year, use the veterans wisely and add development if you are going to have new characters. Equal time for all.
3. Reality: It's nice to have some realism in the soap but lets not get carried away. I hate ripped from the headlines stories. We need originality and freshness.

Great topic... Here are my five:

1) We have too many characters that resemble cardboard. Give them more traits, quirks, vulnerabilities...
2) We need new core families. I know it's tough to see a new power family, but I miss the familial relationships at the core of a strong brood.
3) We need more diversity. For example, roughly 8% of the population is gay and 12% is African-American, yet their depictions on daytime (according to one report) are 0.2% and 4.4%, respectively.
4) We need significantly more fun and escapism (adventure, romance on location, etc.,)
5) We don't want to see "forced" romances. One of my least favorite things is reading that new character so-and-so has been brought on as a love interest for so-and-so. Let's see them interact and get to know each other first.

Excellent topic, rabal. I think the subheading for this thread title is more than a little ironic- it seems like the best way to improve soaps is to go "back to basics" like they did a generation or so ago.

To me, a soap opera is one of the most, if not the most difficult genre to write for. You have to churn out more episodes in a year than the longest running prime time shows turn out their entire runs. More dauntingly though, you are essentially writing a story that has no end so unless you master that soap wheel tactic of A-story beginning, B-story heating up, and C-story winding down, writing good soap is pretty impossible. That being said, my two cents would be this:

1) Character continuity. There is nothing that takes me out of a story faster than incoherent characters, no matter the genre. With the constant turnover in writers and actors plus the constant battle between attracting new viewers and keeping the old, it must be quite difficult. However soaps are at their core about characters that we let into our living rooms every day and get to know almost as real people. When the characters just become plot devices for the latest set pieces (GH does 24 anyone?), we get confused. Then we stop caring.

2) Objectivity. You know what the two worst things a writer can do in regards to his/her characters? It's either a) violently hate them or b) be blinded by love for them. Soaps by their nature are a large canvas, but each viewer has a particular set of stories they are the most invested in. To use the GH example again, it is blatantly obvious that the head writers think Jason is the bees knees. They are so blinded by love for that character that he gets stuck into stories he has no business being in and becomes the one who gets to suffer most nobly and get rewarded most handsomely and be the moral center of the show. But he's not the whole show; he's just one member of an ensemble who may be compelling to some fans, but not all. But instead of GH, we're getting Port Charles According to Jason. Instead of GH, we're getting Bob Guza writing a Marty Stu fanfic. Instead of a complex show, we're getting a writer so blinded by love for his fantasy character that everything else in the universe gets warped.

Ultimately good writers, no matter the genre, realize that while they may have affections and biases for certain characters and story elements, they have to be able to pull themselves away enough to ask a) would this character actually say or do this and b) am I being as objective as I can, or are my fevered daydreams so interfering with the story process that I can't write anything more than a narrowly focused distorted ode/anti-ode to my favorite character.

Here's my tip sheet for Future Soap Writers of America. The genre needs:

1.) Intelligence! This isn't the same thing as asking for realism--you can have fantasy (let's say, The Princess Bride) and it can still be sharp, funny, and entertaining. I want programming that doesn't insult my intelligence as the current soaps too frequently do, with absurd situations that aren't played for their absurdity, terrible writing, one-dimensional characters, and no sense of the richness of peoples' lives.

2.) Adult humor and themes. Because the soaps are on during the day, they're written in a way that children could watch them and not really pick up anything naughty. That should change. I want to talk openly about subject matter fit for adults.

3.) Quit tolerating bad actors just because they are pretty people! Case in point: Austin Peck. The man ruined the character of Austin Reed for *years* on DOOL without being sacked. His line delivery was so awful that words fail me, to describe it. I hated myself for every second I watched Austin Peck on DOOL. Why should I, the viewer, be driven away from my show because of such lousy actors? I don't care how hard his abs are, if he acts like a block of wood!

Faboulous topic here! These are the things that I would like to see:

1. Enough with the victim falling for her rapist! I have yet to meet one woman that was raped and waxed poetic about how she was in love with him or justify that maybe it was her fault so she should give him a chance (I'm looking at you GL!). I don't care how hard you try to shove it down my throat about how they will make a great couple or have wonderful chemistry, as far as I'm concerned that was all ruined the moment I watched said character take advantage of other said character.

2. Thinking that you can just throw two people together and call them "the next supercouple". It has been said many times before and it needs to be said again, YOU CAN'T WRITE CHEMISTRY! There has got to be something there that gets the viewers interested and make them want to invest their time into watching this couple grow and get to know them. Tossing a couple together just because they look good is stupid. And speaking of looking good......

3. Enough with the pretty faces that can't act. Yes, the eye candy makes for a good time but at the end of the day, there has got to be some substance. Because eventually, the only thing I'm going to care about is the day the character is finally written off the canvas.

4. Stop neglecting the veterans. For many of us, they were the main reasons why we got involved in the show in the first place. They have to stongest ties to the show and should be used for more than propping some stupid newbie that was shoved down my throat or merely around to give advice. Old doesn't necessarily mean dead.

Can't help but add my thoughts...

1) Plot balance -- Right now, I'm mostly watching ATWT where a couple plots dominate while others just fizzle in the background. I probably wouldn't have an issue with that but the main plots are so tiring in comparison to the smaller ones. Too often I feel like there's this formula that says the A plot gets this much script time, even if there's not enough in the A plot to justify that much time. While, ATWT is the worst, I've seen many soaps do this in the past few years.

2) Character balance -- It seems like every show has a few actors TPTB think the audience wants to see in 75% of the scenes every day. I don't, I watch soaps for the large casts, not for 2 -5 stars and their dozens of supporting players.

3) Coffee -- nowadays it seems everything is plot, plot, plot. Weren't soaps partly built on the scenes where two friends who had no reason to spend time together except for their friendship sitting down to coffee and chatting about their current problems? I'd find that a lot more interesting than the upteenth confrontation about the same thing as last week.

4) I hate supercouples -- well, sorta, I like a good iconic couple but some writers seem to expect me to cheer on a supercouple just because they're the supercouple. Even Reva Shane grates on the nerves if we don't get a few scenes reminding us why we liked her, and when a supercouple breaks up to get back together again, I want that to be convincing not just because it's supposed to happen anyway.

5) Spend a few hours watching Hollyoaks on BBC America, right now, as far as pacing, characterization and plotting that show is almost perfect. The plotting and character balance are so perfectly handled I barely notice it when characters disappear for weeks.

One or two thoughts (maybe more):

1) Make sure all the writers are in touch with each other's writing. A recent article revealed that some shows are being written remotely where not everyone is in the same room. It's not helping. Writing can't be phoned in. Writing can't take place in isolation.

2) The whole point of the genre of soap operas is escape. I can't imagine anyone wanting to escape to the world of the Mob. I can't imagine anyone wanting to escape to a rape, male or female. I can imagine wanting to escape to a world that involves some intrigue, some money. The glory days of the soaps were when these ideas were central stories.

3) I second, third and fourth using more of the canvas in writing the shows. 48 weeks of the same three characters when twelve or more are in the opening sequence is kind of, well, stupid.

4) Viewers aren't stupid - we don't need storylines that take a year or more to tell us the same information over and over. It is true that a good storyline should take time to tell, but viewers don't need circular dialogue in place of advancement of the storyline. When the viewers are asking 'get on with it, already', the pace of the story is too slow. Move on, already.

Great topic.

1) Have a bible (little 'b') -- If shows are going to have multiple script writers (and they are) and have different head writers over time, then they need to compensate for that... because fans hate it when characters suddenly have personality transplants or are inexplicably involved in things they really shouldn't be involved in. There should be a reference bible somewhere that all writers can look to that list the salient points of a character and that character's history, thus making it slightly less likely that we have a woman who stole multiple babies self-righteously lecturing another woman who stole a baby (I'm looking at you AMC), or having an uncle dating multiple neices (I'm looking at you Days of Our Lives). The writers should have a handy-dandy reference to remind them of... oh... the fact that Adrienne Kiriakis is married and has four kids that Days has completely forgotten about or the fact that skeezy Jonathan is living (and giving self-righteous lectures) within the halls of the house of the man he murdered. There should be a desk reference on every writers desk that the show updates so that there's no excuse for writers not knowing these things.

2) Have a goal: Writers That applies to both characters and writers. It sometimes become painfully obvious that writers are just tossing things on the wall to see what -- if anything -- sticks. They don't have to have all the details worked out, but it would be nice if when starting a story we could believe that there is a point that will be reached or illustrated somewhere along the line.

3) Have a goal: Characters You can tell when a character has gone off the rails writing-wise when you cannot figure out what in the hell is actually important to a character or what that character is about. In order for a character to gel, the writers really need to pin down what the characters desires are. For example: Kate on Days, is her desire to protect her offspring or is it to hate Sami? Knowing which is most important to her can and should inform the character. If it's her children, then you wouldn't have the inanity of her vengeful of Sami for having allowed herself to be raped in order to rescue Lucas. If it's hate of Sami, then the point should be clear that Kate's willing to sacrifice her son for revenge, and that too is a plot point. But when we cannot figure out what the character's goal or deepest desire is, the story becomes muddled instead of being as sharp as it could have been Figuring out what a characters real goal/desire is, helps make some definitive plot decisions (in a character based plot) and can lead to interesting (in character) decisions. I'm not saying that the character has to understand themselves or even to realize what criterea they are basing their decisions upon, but the writer should know. A writer should be objective enough and focused enough to actually decide on what the primary goal/desire for a character is, such that it informs both the character and the story in a resonant way.

Actually, Adrienne mentioned her children on Thursday’s episode, laward. We just haven’t seen them. Or Justin, for that matter.

I agree with much that has been said. In addition to things like characer continuity, character and storyline balance, intelligence and objectivity I think the writers should know and respect the history of the show and it's characters. AMC has been damaged by the writers ignoring and desroying it's history.

I don't think retconning in and of itself is such a bad thing, but it has to be used judiciously. I can deal with random family members suddenly appearing, because that's a soap convention and new characters usually need some sort of tie to the canvas. However, when it's used as badly as it was on GH, in the case of Mr. Craig/Jerry, it's an insult to everyone. An entire life story has been radically altered, and certainly not for the better. Besides ruining the character of Jerry, it's totally messed up a bunch of other story lines.

I don't think a little bit of retconning is a bad thing but I think it is currently done too often. The unabortion on AMC is an good example of a horrible retcon. Erica's abortion was a big groundbreaking storyline and an important part of her history and TPTB thought nothing of undoing it. It makes it harder to take storylines seriously when retconning is done so often and pretty much anything can be undone or changed.

Some of my suggestions:

1. Stop recasting!!! When an actor leaves a role, get rid of the character. Either ship him off somewhere or kill him off. Nothing is more disconcerting than having one of your favorite characters looking and talking differently.

2. No more back from the dead! If death is meaningless, why should we care if characters are in perilous situations? They'll only come back.

3. Stop hiring models! Please hire actors that look like real people, not plastic surgeries gone awry.

4. No more rapes and miscarriages! Tired plot devices, distasteful and lewd, enough said.

I actually don't mind characters coming back from the dead as long as we didn't see that character dead and buried. With the rate at which some soaps have been killing off regular characters recently I don't think bringing back characters is necessarily always bad.

I don't always mind recasts, especially when the character being recasted isn't an important one, but I do think many shows recast too often and too soon. When an adult character has been played by 3 or 4 different people in less than a decade it does make it much harder to feel attached to them.

But she's been around how many months now? And she just up and moved from Texas away from husband and kids for multiple months with no mention of her family and no other character mentioning it for months, so I feel the issue still stands.

I do agree that there's been a lack of consistency with Adrienne's return but you specifically said "completely forgotten" which obviously isn't the case if they've been mentioned.

My 3:

1. Base the show in reality at all times.

2. Focus on CHARACTER!CHARACTER!CHARACTER!

3. Respect the intelligence of your audience.

I remember when they did this on Hollyoaks years ago. They had Luke Morgan being raped by three of the lads in the football team. It was really well done. I still remember that storyline really well even though it was on years back.

Most of you have stated my points, to expand on laward's point about goals, I'll add stick to your goals (to a point). Focus groups do not make good soap, they make disjointed, choppy soap. Plans don't always work, but neither do quick whiplash re-writes.

Remember that all good stories have a beginning, a middle and an end. GH is famous for the beginning and middle, but failing to remember an ending.

1. Characters should have some connection to real life, preferably by having jobs, doing chores around the house, occasionally expressing money concerns (and actually abiding by a budget), and not looking as though a professional hair stylist and makeup artist has been to the house every morning. I'm ok with some fantasy aspects of soaps, but it should be the exception rather than the rule. Most people aren't fabulously wealthy and do in fact need to work to support themselves.

2. Anybody we see die and who there has actually been a funeral for should stay dead; therefore, the writers need to keep this in mind when considering killing off a favorite.

3. The big felonies--rape, kidnapping, murder--should be kept to a minimum. They lose their impact when used as casual plot points.

1. Characters should have intertwining plots. Fair enough if various members of a family have their own storylines but surely members of the family should all be involved in each others storylines. Quite often it seems one member of the family is on deaths door in the hospital and at the same time another member of the family is off getting involved in some love triangle seemingly oblivious to his/her dying relative. It makes no sense.

2. Don't change a characters personality to fit a storyline. It insults longer term viewers who have gotten to know a character when that character suddenly has a personality transplant!

3. If an actor/actress has been terrible for more than two months, get rid. There are pleanty of actors and very few roles so why give airtime to those who don't deserve it?

Sorry double post

Many people clamor for "proper pacing" in current soaps, myself included. Agnes Nixon's famous quote about writing good soaps--"Make 'em laugh, make 'em cry, make 'em wait! resonates with me. But in order to have proper pacing, soap writers, producers, etc. will have to stop caving in to the vocal fan minorities who demand certain events ASAP and instead follow the instinct of a writer who knows when to provide the best "pay-off". Many soap fans would never admit to this, but some of us are part of the problem with soaps today. Many of us lack the patience to sit through the build-up, the "heating-up" period of the story. The people in charge hear people bitch and moan about having to wait, and since they are all so scared we will stop watching, most of them try to cut the "build-up" out of the story. They also end up cutting the character-building scenes in favor of "cutting to the chase".

I've always felt that modern soap fans (the ones the networks are trying to lure) just are not patient enough to sit through a properly-paced story. Demanding instant gratification in a soap (a genre that thrives on long-term story and character development) is ridiculous, and demonstrates a lack of understanding of what makes soaps unique. Patience pays off. Too bad none of the current people in charge want to honor Ms. Nixon's quote.

One of the biggest problems with soaps is the incestuous relationships the networks have with EP's and head writers. Hacks who ruin one show are fired and then are then hired at another and inevitably ruin it as well (Jean Passanante, Jill Faren Phelps etc). There must be talent in the lower ranks of the writing pools. Why not take a risk and at least give one of them a co-Head Writer role and bring them on line. Also look at people who did well in night time jobs but had a show that wasn't given much of a chance by the networks (Fox has lots of good shows that were cancelled too early). Hire some of these people to write soaps. They couldn't be any worse than who are in charge right now.

So, much WORD to all of this. I remember the days when a good love story could take more than a year to build to intimacy. And, it generally built in an organic and natural way with the two people growing closer bit by bit. Nowadays, it's "instalove" and then the couple is given a series of plot contrivances as obstacles. If I don't get the chance to care if they are truly in love, why will I care if they are split apart?

Also, you are so very right about the impatience of viewers. How many times have we (and I use we because I know I've done it) seen one day of a new character or one episode of a new story and declared it a complete failure, utter waste of time, etc. Heck, I've seen fanbases throw tizzy fits over spoilers about a new story and declare it dreck before the first scene has ever aired.

When the writers cater to these fanbases or us as fans and our impatiences we get the worst of both worlds. Stories that never really get off the ground, or that are suddenly abandoned just when they start getting interesting. And, for those of us actually willing to stick through a difficult story, only to have it wrapped up early and neatly because of the vocal opposition of some fans, we've basically been robbed of the emotional payoff that has kept us watching in the first place.

Pick your stories, commit to them, let them play out, and let the chips fall where they may. Some will be good, some not so good. But, if the full arc is there, and the payoff is there, even the not so good ones will work.

I agree you shouldn't dump a story simply because of initial fan outcry, but I think you need to be willing to cut your losses when a story is clearly not working out, as well as be open to changing it because of something like unexpected character chemistry, for example.

Agreed dubbel zout. If you need to change the story, try to avoid those 90 degree changes. You can make changes gradually, and avoid giving the audience whiplash.

L&L are probably the best example of chemistry changing the path of a storyline, given that Luke was to be killed after 13 weeks.

I don't disagree necessarily, but it should be a rare thing, not a common action. When you are changing almost every story (or at least it seems that way) because some portion of the fanbase is upset, then you need to take a step back and evaluate the type of stories you're trying to tell.

I have no problem with a story going another direction because something isn't working or because an unexpected couple comes together (or an expected couple doesn't work). But as bpeck points out, those changes need to be worked in gradually, and you'd best have a plan for the resolution of the story. I've just seen too many stories that were simply cut off with no emotional payoff at all and that's not any better than sticking with a bad story all the way through -- at least in my opinion.

The one thing that bugs me on soaps more than anything else is off-again-on-again relationships. In particular, Jack/Carly from ATWT and Brooke/Ridge on B&B (Which has become the cornerstone for that particular show, unfortunately). If two characters need to keep splitting up, maybe it's time to--um, I dunno, put the kibosh on it? Especially when the audience knows full well how the SL will play out, which makes the show become stale and predictable, which in turn equals lowered ratings and eventual cancellation.

Another is revisionist history for the sake of story. ATWT has done this a lot to make their current whipping boy Craig seem more evil that he really is (And I say that as someone with no particular love for this character). Just today, one of his ex-wives was blaming him for getting burned nearly eight years ago, even though it's been established that 1)He had nothing to do with that fire and 2) Said ex-wife wasn't the intended target and the woman who did it didn't care a flying fig about her.

Lastly, I loath fast-past relationships. The ones that have been dubbed "instalove" and rightfully so, since many characters can't wait to hit the six-month mark before getting married.

Wow, this is a great topic.

I don't have much to add, except to reiterate that networks need to respect the vets and, by extension, respect a show's history.

Come on, the majority of the current crop of characters wouldn't exist were it not for their parents, their grandparents and their heroes. Just because an actor hits 40 it doesn't mean they've lost their spark, their talent. Stop selling out the vets for the babies. Stop shoving teen stories down the viewers throats. You would be surprised how many teens adore the vets. (Take me, 17. I love Monica&Alan, Luke&Laura, Lesley&Rick Webber.) They're insulted when the writers stick two "hot" people who can't act on screen together and expect them to swoon. Then again, most people would be surprised at how many do.

The point is, you can't cover any new ground until you remember what you've already done. That way you don't do any storyline more than once, and if you do, it's for a reason.

Great responses from you all! And because I have entirely too much time on my hands, I’m compiling a list of all the replies and ranking the suggestions and/or gripes by popularity.

Just glancing at IMDb I notice the recycled writers and producers. I give props to those who’ve achieved professional longevity, but in the long run I wonder if the genre hasn’t progressed with the times because of there being a lack of new blood. Perhaps there wouldn’t be as many recycled storylines and outdated conventions.

I see your point, but I also think nowadays it’s harder for many people to devote too much time to anything that drags, especially when it’s optional entertainment. In a fast-food, cell-phone, e-mail, txt msg, IM, crackberry, downloading, “don’t wait in line, apply online” society with multitudes of entertainment content options via cable and satellite TV, DVD, internet streaming, etc., one could say “be patient” but most people would respond “why?”. Things were much different in the 70s/80s heyday, but today it’s a whole new ballgame.

That leads to my next question:
(1) Have TPTB adapted the genre to contend with modern media such as the Internet – where spoilers, insider information, and negative opinions abound? Are TPTB helpless in the tide of audience empowerment or have they just failed to respond and adjust properly? What if, for example, TPTB actively solicited viewer feedback online to affect the outcome of specific future storylines? Sort of like American Idol for the soap world.

Regarding my original post, I guess I should list my own suggestions.
Lack of compelling storylines. This is a result of three things: poor pacing, rehashed stories, and dumb-down stories. I’d like to see story complexity go beyond love triangles and “we are family” secrets. I’m home a lot during the day, and frankly I get bored with watching most soaps.

Lack of clear motivation, concept or purpose. The titles “Young and the Restless”, “General Hospital”, “Guiding Light”, and “All My Children” weren’t just pulled out of a hat. When these shows were created, there was some underlying concept upon which to build the drama. Such is the case for primetime and cable drama, whether it’s Prison Break, Grey’s Anatomy, The Sopranos, Desperate Housewives, Boston Public, Lost, Six Feet Under, etc. Though having ensemble casts with differing character personalities, there is some unifying want or goal for all the main characters, with supporting characters either assisting in or being a hindrance to those wants and goals. Keeping the family together, keep the family business afloat, escaping, keeping an institution afloat, etc. Relationship drama, scandals, crimes (rape, murder), confrontations, etc. can be devices that illuminate the struggle in fulfilling goals or purpose. Yet most soaps seem to rely on these as conventions or contrivances for the sake of drama, aka drama for drama’s sake. Drama is driving character (and often running him/her off the road) rather than character driving the drama. This often leads to confused character motivation, overdone storylines, and plots where I can barely suspend my disbelief. I mainly watch Passions so I’m seeing a lot of that now (and yes I should be able to suspend disbelief even in the Passions universe).

Lack of diversity. The U.S. is approximately 13.5% African-American and 14% Hispanic (another almost 10% is Asian-Am/Native-AM/PI/Mutliracial). If you look at the population between 18 and 49 years old those percentages are higher. If you look at television audiences those percentages are even higher (as both groups watch TV at a higher rate than average). The US is mainly a middle-class country. Most of the country’s population and population growth is in the Sunbelt states. The demographic picture was different 30 years ago, but again things have changed. Because of soap history, most soaps have a wealthy, WASPish, Midwestern/Northern small or medium town focus. Drama can come from all kinds of people. It really shouldn’t matter what the characters look like; truth be told you can take an all-“minority” cast and give them boring, aimless, dumbed-down stories and it would be pointless. Yet in trying to connect with audiences (and being socially responsible IMO) all kinds of diversity should be sought when appropriate and possible.

Here are my next questions:
(2) How committed are you to the genre versus specific shows? For instance, let say you’re a DOOL* viewer. NBC decides to gut DOOL* to replace it with another soap. This new soap is set in San Francisco, Miami, or a fictional Sunbelt major city. It has character diversity in age, ethnicity, economic status, profession, looks, etc. Initial pacing is great, stories look promising and original. Would you welcome the new soap or lament the loss of DOOL* feeling that effort should have been made to improve (and respect) the long-term soap?

Soaps have many die-hard and long-term fans, so I’m sure TPTB are afraid of losing them, especially if those fans were to leave because of any drastic changes (or not take to any new options). Do you think it's worth them taking a chance, especially if the soap is low-rated and/or on tap to be cancelled anyway?

(3) If you have a strong commitment to or liking of a particular show, would you accept the following sudden, noticeable changes in that show:

a) Increased and ongoing turnover of characters, including the veterans.

b) Relocation of half of cast to another setting and replacing half the cast with new characters in the new setting. Say for instance Newman Enterprises decide to move its headquarters to Dallas or New York (or a similar fictional city). Most of the employees and their family members would follow. New setting, new characters, new stories, but still maintaining some of the traditional Y&R flavor.

c) Change in tone. What if AMC’s* writing suddenly made it similar to an Ugly Betty/DH-styled dramedy? (Or a “Soadramedy” I guess)

* or any other current soap

I second this. I'll be turning 16 in a few days, and I am beyond annoyed that GL is taking Josh/Cassie seriously. And why Billy and Vanessa haven't had a scene together in months, when Vanessa's marriage is dead in the water, is beyond me. And I'm tired of the show attempting to pump out new heriones when there is nothing wrong with the old ones.

I couldn't agree more about the stale couples. Either write them off to live happily ever after and bring them back for holidays and special occasions or break them up for real. The main offenders are Bo and Hope; Lily and Holden, Jack and Carly. Enough already!

I also totally agree with the comments about the writers having a love for a character and making them the bestest and most suffering and the one everyone loves. The worst offender is Brooke Logan. Even the woman's daughter loses out to her and no man is allowed to get over her. Her siblings have no lives; they just live to defend and coddle her. Everyone else is after poor little Brooke and victimizing her.

Sometimes I think that though the actors are popular, they need to move on rather than dominating and sucking the life out of a soap. How can there be any storylines left for Brooke Logan?

Such a great topic that I felt the need to crawl out of lurkerdom to reply.

So many good points have been made, but I have a few others:

1. Stop the Bait & Switch. Don't advertise that a certain actor/character is returning to the canvas, feature them a few weeks (or just long enough to suck me back in) and then backburner them for the next 2 years. Or destroy that character. Or both.

2. Stop dropping story lines in the middle of the story. Soaps need to finish what they start - even small things. For example, when a recovering alcoholic has a drink at the end of the episode, show us what happens next. Did he spit it out when no one was looking? Did he proceed to get wasted? Don't make us wait a week to see him again and then don't mention it as if it never happened.

3. Enough with shoving new characters down our throats so you don't have to write for the vets and all those backburnered characters we love and keep hoping to see. Yeah, I get that it's easier to write for a character when you don't have to worry about little things like who they're related to and how they've reacted to situations in the past, but most of the time those are the characters I want to see, not a bunch of newbies who were only hired for their looks or because they're the hottest thing in the free world.

4. Don't change the core of a character to fit a recast actor. For example, Lucky on GH was originally a soulful, sweet, clever computer genius when played by JJ, who later became a loud, insecure & unlikeable photographer when played by JY, and is now a sweet, hot, but very dumb drug addicted cop as played by GV. This can't be considered character development as each Lucky has such fundamental differences.

5. Bring back the suspense. It's hard to sell suspense when the audience knows the outcome, but it can be done with twists and turns along the way. It just takes a little work (and not retraining the audience as some believe). And on the rare occasion when we do get suspense, give us the pay-off. If I've waited six months to find out if a character has a life-threatening disease, don't just give me the results in a throw-away line in a throw-away scene and then continue on like nothing ever happened. Give me a celebration or something. It makes me feel foolish for wasting that time sticking with the story when obviously it meant nothing at all to TIIC.

My thoughts:

1. Respect your history. You can follow your history and still create entertaining storylines. You can bring in younger viewers without throwing away your past. But your bread and butter is, and always will be, long-term viewers - and you will drive them crazy if you keep rewriting history.
2. Entertain. Have some humor in your shows. Life is not all drama and tragedy. Humor comes from everyday life. Don't be afraid to let your characters make the jokes your viewers are making (assuming your actors aren't the joke - Austin Peck, I'm looking at you). Characters like Henry on ATWT, Bart on DOOL (RIP), or going back in time to the days of Floyd and Katie Parker on GL back in it's heyday are fan favorites. People will watch some bad storylines if they think these characters will appear.
3. Suspense. Bring it on. Let your stories unfold. But don't let them drag. Not the easiest thing to do, but that's why the show runners are (theoretically) professionals.
4. Don't pee on our heads and tell us it's raining. If you are bored with writing for a couple, don't write some random retcon into the script to break them up. Real couples hit problems all the time - is it too much to ask that you write one of these for your couples. If you want to put two characters together but they happen to be blood relatives, don't just write in two lines about retconned parentage and have them in bed by the end of the week. Give your audience credit for some intelligence.

Robbie, you beat me to my number 1 gripe: The incestuous relationship between writers and EPs. Only on daytime is getting FIRED an inducement to a new employer. The pool of writers and EPs is small and growing smaller yet instead of bringing new blood, tptb continue to pull from the polluted pool. It's like the difference between wild and farmed salmon. The wild salmon has more nutrients and brings something exciting to the table -- farmed salmon is fish that swims in it's own poop. Writers are swimming in their own poop and it's showing in regurgitated stories, and ideosyncracies. NEW BLOOD is vital.

I don't have a problem with soaps showcasing rich, glamourous people. That's why Dallas, and a host of other soaps were so popular. I think people like to see how the other half lives and dream of living in that world. Diversity should be more of a focus but I don't trust the writers to showcase a diverse pool of actors. Billie Dee Williams is a fricking JANITOR on Night Shift? This is Billie Dee Fricking Lando Calrisian Williams. They could have made him chief of surgery at the very least. The only soap that handles diversity well is Y&R and nearly all of their characters are wealthy. I also don't mind some real-life issues (I would have liked to see Elizabeth Spencer showcased as a single-mom because I think they could have shown the struggle without degenerating into a cliche. I'd like some struggle with dignity please.) However, I hate the way most soaps address topical issues -- it's preachy, simplistic and insulting. OLTL is especially heavyhanded with their moralizing. Didactic storytelling is boring and a sure-fire way to get the audience to FF.

Last, I'll echo those who don't like the teen storylines. Yes, we need some of them because that's how adult vets are created -- by being on the show and building viewer loyalty. But this over-emphasis on teens every year is boring because 1) the stories are cliche and repetitive, 2) the actors are rarely good and 3) the balance of teen vs. vets is so lopsided. When I started watching as a teen, I liked the vet stories, not the teens. I hear that from younger viewers all the time but TPTB just don't seem to catch a clue.

I would definitely accept (a). It would really help to develop newbies rather than just bringing them on to spark version #23,345,343 of the same story for the characters played by actors who want to make a career out of being on the same soap. It's really dragging the genre down.

Even if the actors are wonderful, blah, blah, they need to move on. If they are that good, they'd want the challenge of another role.

GH needs to move on from Sonny. GL needs to move on from Reva. DOOL needs to move on from Bo and Hope. ATWT is really saddled down with these types of characters. B & B has to move on from Brooke.

Soaps are about the town, about PC not Sonny, the families of Salem, not Bo and Hope.

They can get rid of the sudden relative plots if they build new families and let them develop for a few years, and then let them fade graciously.

As far as being interactive with the fans, I wonder how feasible this really would be. I think the lead time on most soaps is around three weeks, and scripts are probably a week or two ahead of shooting, so any changes would take at least two months to show up. I don't know if the process could be sped up any more than it already is.

It's a really interesting idea, though I'd be afraid the crazy fan bases would take over the shows and we'd be stuck with Sonny & Carly 4 EVAH!!1 stories.

But, for me, the reason I respond like that is because of lack of trust. When I trust a story and trust writers I'm less likely to look at spoilers or get worked up. But, after being let down time and time again, I watch soaps differently than I did back then. Usually, you would sit through a bad patch, because you've had previous experience with something that was good and you know it will come again. It's like, so this storyline may be falling flat, but the next one will be good. Or one story may suck, but there are one or two others that keep you believeing. Now, I'm just in a constant state of protecting myself from dissapointment.

I completely understand, because I often feel that way myself. I just think it creates a catch 22. My personal opinion is that I'd rather take a chance on a new storyline and face disappointment then write something off before it ever gets the chance to get off the ground. But, I do understand those that feel differently.

Personally I think the problem with the disjointed, here today gone tomorrow storylines could be easily solved by simply having the writers meet once a month to go through the proposed outlines.

There are several soaps whose writers live all over the country, and have the outline for their scripts sent to them, and that's all. People wonder why storylines jump around and have zip continuity, simple, none of the writers has a clear picture of what everyone else is doing. In other words, the right hand has no clue what the left hand is doing.

Exactly, bpeck, exactly. Have a teleconference if the network is too cheap to fly everyone in for a few days, but make the effort to figure out what's happening and what people are thinking.