Are Soap Operas Heading for a Tram Crash?

[Rob McCow]

And not a good 'Live Action Millions of Viewers Guaranteed' Tram Crash either.

Interesting article in The Guardian - incredible lack of objectivity, this guy is clearly hammering all the nails sideways to make his point.
http://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-ra...e-bubble-burst

There was a weird interregnum on Coronation Street in 1984. Bernard Youens, the actor who had played Stan Ogden for three decades, died. But the character he played hadn't yet been written out. So Stan carried on regardless, unseen but living, while millions of the show's fans who had read Youens' obituaries knew the truth: the big lug was on borrowed time.

But how and when would the boozy, workshy, adorable slob who had spent 30 years twice a week in millions of British living rooms go? For several episodes his wife Hilda said Stan was sick in bed upstairs at no 13. How we, on the other end of the cathode ray tube, rolled our eyes.

And then, one night in November, Hilda revealed to the nation that her husband had died in his sleep. Alone in her living room, she took her husband's glasses from their case and unfolded them one last time. How we, dragged from mere eye-rolling cynicism into the dark heart of crying-time TV, sobbed.

Perhaps the strange death of Stan Ogden is a metaphor for the British soap opera 2013. We are in a similarly weird interregnum, knowing that Coronation Street, EastEnders, Hollyoaks, Emmerdale and even the longest-running soap in broadcast history, The Archers, are no longer fit for purpose and are waiting for the how and when they get rubbed out.

TV history is littered with the corpses of terminated soaps – Crossroads, Eldorado, Triangle (how could a soap on a North Sea ferry not work?), Family Affairs and Brookside. Now, the whole genre seems spent. Traditional soaps' ratings are calamitously down: in 2010, Corrie could still pull an audience of more than 14 million. Today, it struggles to achieve half that. EastEnders, meanwhile, has been repeatedly beaten in the ratings by Emmerdale – a shocking fact to those used to EastEnders and Corrie perennially vying for the crown of soapland. The most talked about storylines involve the actors rather than the characters they play: Coronation Street's William Roache, who faces charges of rape, and Michael Le Vell , who has been acquitted of rape charges, not to mention Chris Fountain's outing as a misogynist amateur rapper on YouTube.

If Danny Dyer being roped in to become landlord of the Queen Vic is the solution, then British soap's problems are worse than we thought.


Soaps are like printed newspapers or the British monarchy – the only question is when they will do the equivalent of stopping the presses or making the last royal hanger-on live without taxpayer subsidy in a council flat.

Twenty-five years ago, soap operas were delivery systems for melodrama, cliffhangers, women's issues, comedy and social critique, and, best of all, white-knuckle rides on the narrative express. Now? "Soaps are now just seen as something to fill the schedules," says Phil Redmond, the TV producer who brought us Brookside and Hollyoaks. "There's been a loss of vision."

In the early 80s, the most popular soaps – Crossroads and Coronation Street – lost the plot: they had nothing to say about a Britain mired in Thatcher's austerity years. Then, Brookside (1982-2003), set in a Liverpool suburb, and later EastEnders (1985-present), set in a fictionalised east London, gave the British soap a new lease of life by returning the genre to its manifest destiny: right down to the specially built cul-de-sac in suburban Merseyside and the faux-East End Albert Square in Hertfordshire, the new soaps were simulacra that told us about how we really lived. Brookside was, at the time, especially radical since it junked that staple notion of the British soap, that the action must revolve around the local pub. Instead, it depicted an all-too-recognisable, fragmented owner-occupying non-society of the kind for which the then prime minister proselytised.
EASTENDERS June Brown as Dot Cotton in EastEnders, a show that was once watched by more than half of the British population. Photograph: Adam Pensotti/BBC
"With Brookie, we were focusing on the deconstruction of society through the intervention of technology," says Redmond. "Now we're witnessing the deconstruction of society through junk banking – it's just the soaps have nothing to say about it. It's frustrating – there's so much to say about issues like ageing, the influx of different cultures, class tensions. They're losing their souls and, inevitably, ratings."

Of course, soaps have hardly been popular because they have their finger on the pulse of the nation. In their heyday, they were immersive experiences that took their own sweet time developing stories and characters, and thereby made themselves convincing and seductive to mass audiences. "People witter on about The Wire and Mad Men," says soap opera specialist Professor Christine Geraghty of the University of Glasgow. "It drives me mad. British soaps were doing those complicated multi-layered narratives long before HBO was invented. Soaps used to have the confidence to let very little happen sometimes."

Soaps, then, were like Greek drama. What was important was not splashy plot twists – be it car crash, baby swap, lesbian snog or corpse under the patio – but how characters processed such incidents through the medium of gossip. "They don't have the confidence to do that now," says Geraghty. "There's a relentless intensity of plotting that makes soaps often seem daft." Why are they doing that? "Because the big stories capture the intermittent viewer, often at the expense of the regular viewer. The logic is that the more stories you have and the bigger they are, the better you compete with other formats. But that relentlessness eats up people and stories in an effort to counteract what's going on elsewhere in TV. The risk is they look soulless and cynical. It's also a vexed question as to whether those big stories help ratings in the long run."

But what is going on elsewhere in TV? One key development is the rise of reality TV. When Big Brother was launched on Channel 4 in 2000, it may have been conceived as a niche sociological experiment tracking what happened when a group of strangers were locked in a house in Hertfordshire; but it became the defining genre of our age, plundered and bastardised, endlessly mutating until nothing real, nothing but fatuous incident is tolerable. Faced with this mutant telly genre masquerading as reality, soaps have become unreal just when we needed them to be otherwise. In particular, that most perverse mutation in the genre, the scripted reality show, has been aped by the worst soaps. In a word: Hollyoaks has become Geordie Shore and The Only Way Is Essex – as unreal as its purported reality show counterparts.

Traditional soaps now look like British Leyland in the 70s faced with the looming German automobile invasion. Out-thought, outperformed and underdone. None of this would matter much so long as our existing soaps were running smoothly. But they are not. The leading ones are in crisis at the very moment they need to be at the top of their game.

That failure of nerve is evident on EastEnders, whose last executive producer has quit after only 16 months in the post. Yes, Lorraine Newman won Baftas for the show during her oddly brief tenure but she also presided over one of the soap's most disastrous ratings debacles since its inception. Newman wouldn't speak to the Guardian, but one ex-EastEnders producer who declined to be named said: "The pressures on writers to deliver big stories and on producers to deliver ratings are more intense and more unreasonable than ever. No wonder she went. It's a poisoned chalice if ever there was one. A lot of people are now hoping that her replacement [Dominic Treadwell-Collins, a former story producer who left EastEnders three years ago] can steady the ship – whatever that means."

Where did EastEnders go wrong? "If you're asking me if there was a story or a character that tipped EastEnders over from being sensible to silly, I don't think I could give you an answer. But certainly some characters have become more pantomimey than we would have stooped to make them in the early days. Kat and Alfie, for instance, have become more lurid and their stories more unconvincing to my mind."

EastEnders was once watched by more than half of the British population. Yes, you say, but 1986 had a very different telly ecology, compared with that of today. There were only four channels then. But today's soaps are no longer nationally unifying entertainments. Instead they are niche formats competing against each other for dwindling demographics.

Soaps ruled during the era of terrestrial channels, not the audience-fractured, multi-channel, on-demand, increasingly net-based viewing milieu we have had since the millennium. But here is the corollary of that argument: once it would have mattered if soaps died. They were so popular that what happened in Albert Square or Brookside Close could provoke questions in parliament; today they are so marginal to British TV and national life that it is difficult to imagine that happening again.

But if things are bad in Walford, they are worse in Weatherfield. While EastEnders is slowly fading into irrelevance, Coronation Street is raging against the dying of its light. The latter's main problem is that its best narratives aren't the ones that spool from scriptwriters' laptops but the ones howled in caps-lock hysteria from the red tops. Stars have been caught tweeting about useless beauty products given to them by a bogus company. Producers have been mired in bizarre product placement rows. Morale is reportedly low on set. In such promisingly dismal circumstances, the Daily Mail dispatched a journalist to find that something was rotten in the state of Weatherfield. "Fans are ditching the soap in their millions," Christopher Stevens duly reported. "Almost half its audience has switched off in the past three years."

Significantly, Coronation Street was born in 1960 in the aftermath of the kitchen-sink revolution in British drama and during the rise of British cinema's social realist new wave. "That's true," says Geraghty, "but even when Coronation Street was launched, it was, for all its claims to realism, self-consciously recreating a Britain that was on its way out – where the social hub was the pub, for instance." Reality on British soaps has to some extent always been a fantasy.
Emmerdale The Emmerdale air crash of 1993 marked a turning point for soaps. Photograph: YTV
By the mid-1980s, the British soap tackled social issues – racism, sexism, industrial collapse, class politics, HIV, violence against women, child abuse, cot death, Down's syndrome – in ways scarcely conceivable across the Atlantic.

But not for long. I remember one of Brookside's leading writers, Jimmy McGovern, telling me in 1996 how the problem for the show began when, as he put it, "inflation set in". More episodes per week, more focus on ratings, more demand for high-octane and frequently implausible storylines.


If one moment demonstrates how the British soap sold its soul for ratings, it is the 1993 Christmas special of Emmerdale. In this episode a plane crashed into Beckindale, previously a place of safely grazing sheep and whiskery Yorkshiremen supping pints.

What happened to social and political relevance? Nowadays, when a British soap tackles a social issue, more often than not it does so ineptly. Take the recent racism storyline in Coronation Street. During a darts game at the Rovers, a white character, firefighter Paul Kershaw (Tony Hirst) said: "Play the white man!" to Steve McDonald (Simon Gregson), at the very moment a black character, cabbie Lloyd Mullaney (Craig Charles) came into the pub.

Lloyd called Paul a racist, most of the overwhelmingly white pub's customers agreed, but Paul refused to apologise, saying the remark was not a slur. The story went on for – customary eye roll – ages before Paul eventually apologised properly. "I think it's one of those modern stories that will get everyone talking," said producer Stuart Blackburn at the time. It did, but not as Blackburn intended: it got many of us wondering if Corrie really had a handle on what racism is and, more importantly, despair over its writers' abililty to dramatise the issue.

Remaining hardcore fans doubtless hope traditional soaps are not on the way out. But they are a conservative bunch. Typical of the resistance to change is the furore over ex-EastEnders producer John Yorke's stewardship of The Archers. The Radio 4 drama is now being attacked for losing its rustic soul à la Emmerdale.

It is clear that traditional soap operas must reinvent themselves. But how? "The mass soap is over," says Redmond. "You'll never get a family to sit together and watch the same thing. That said, you might get the parents watching the flat screen, the kids on their tablets , and the teenagers watching on their phones."

"Broadcasters aren't thinking creatively," says Redmond. "They should forget about mass-audience soaps and have an over-55 soap. That's where the money and viewers are."

So, is the future for soaps really so bleak? "They're not what they were but I don't think soaps will wither away," says Geraghty. But if they did, would it matter? "Of course it would! They have traditionally been seedbeds for talent – for the great writers, directors and actors of tomorrow. Without soaps a great deal of the best of British TV simply wouldn't exist, so we need to nurture them." Whether they will be remains to be seen.

Are the big soaps still giving you satisfaction? Or are the likes of 'Stenders, Corrie and 'Dale all doomed to die?

And what would drag you back into Soap-Watching?

[Nyder]

My solution would be to trim soaps down to 2 eps a week and concentrate on character development rather then outrageous plots

[Jonno]

I watched Enders from the beginning pretty much all the way through to February of this year, but stopped watching then. It had long since become habit viewing rather than watching it because I wanted to/enjoyed it. It was good for doing the ironing to, but then so is listening to/watching music channels or the radio!

The biggest issue was definitely going to 4 episodes per week, 3 was just about OK but 2 was ideal. Next problem was losing so many iconic characters, and particularly the older ones such as Pat and Peggy, and not having good replacements. Stories just became recycled way too often, and characters would go from one affair to another, unlikely pairings would appear such as Ian and Denise, who for so long had been more or less enemies? Way too many unlikeable characters, or just having them shout at each other constantly - no thanks! And now I see Danny Dyer is going to be the new landlord of the Vic! Bottom line is, I don't miss it at all.

[Alex]

I watched Eastenders from the beginning to, but gave it up in 2006. I just found it so actively depressing and bleak that it made me miserable watching it, and once I kicked the habit I found I didn't miss it at all.

Despite rarely watching it I do have a soft spot for Corrie, certainly the interactions of the older characters was often written with warmth and affection, and could be quite funny too. But there's too much filler / ridiculously silly plotlines, and I can't be bothered with it these days.

[Andrew Curnow]

Although the article is rather strangely-written, I think the general gist is probably right. There's too many episodes, and too much reliance on big things happening. I watched EE avidly, fanatically even, from the start through till about 96 (I gave up not long after Arthur Fowler went); I had a big phase of Corrie watching for about the same period; and we used to watch Emmerdale when it was (a) a Farm; and (b) by far the best 'soap' on the screen; but which was sadly (c) before it became 'mainstream'.

It probably says it all that the only time I've watched any of them since have been the Big Events - the Live Episodes, the Train Crash, Peggy's Departure (although let's be honest, that was rubbish) and none of those has ever inspired me to keep watching.

So will soaps disappear? No. Will they have a renaissance, and become more genuinely popular viewing... Maybe, but they do need to change. While the viewing figures are respectable in comparison to other shows (which they are) I can't see many TV supremos suggesting a reduction in episodes.

[Rob McCow]

Well Doctor Who certainly managed to cut back to less episodes a year.

With so many demands on people's time these days, what with bitching on Twitter and downloading movies illegally, who has time to sit at home and watch a soap five nights a week?

Perhaps time-shifting has a negative effect too. Although Si Hart is very good at keeping up with Neighbours, a lot of people might start stockpiling episodes of Eastenders to watch, then find that they are running out of time to watch them. If you miss three episodes in a week and can't find time to catch up, it's very easy to fall behind. Then you might think 'Why am I bothering?' and stop watching altogether.

No matter how good a show is, I think that if there's too much of it, it becomes a turn-off. Who still watches The Simpsons, for example?

[Simon R]

I wish they'd take a six week break in the summer and go down to three nights a week. The quality would rocket.

[Jonno]

Having a break every now and again would be sensible - don't the Aussie soaps do that? However, one thing I always noticed was that if EE missed an episode for something like Children In Need, it would always compensate with an extra episode in the schedule, a day or two earlier or in the following week. Same if any live sport interrupts it. They just can't do without the same excess quantity one way or the other!

[Alex]

No matter how good a show is, I think that if there's too much of it, it becomes a turn-off. Who still watches The Simpsons, for example?

Me! Though only the new US episodes, and they tend to air 2 or 3 a month at best, and sometimes have breaks of a couple of weeks before airing two in a row, and then have another break, etc, such is the madness of US tv scheduling.

[Stuart Wallis]

My solution would be to trim soaps down to 2 eps a week and concentrate on character development rather then outrageous plots

Which is what they were doing when they were still watchable. Give themselves time to write something decent!

[Perry Vale]

What a (predictably) dreadful article, what has happened to journalism?!

EastEnders was once watched by more than half of the British population.

He says it twice, perhaps to hide the fact he means just that, once. For one episode.

I couldn't get much further than that. Personally speaking, I think Corrie is the greatest drama on television still. Been watching it for 35 years now, and I'd argue it's better than ever.

[Simon R]

I find Corrie so dragged out. It doesn't need to be on twice on a Monday and Friday. I wish it would go back to one on Monday, Weds, Friday and maybe Sunday. They can do 5 nights when it's a big storyline.

[Perry Vale]

I disagree fundamentally with his argument (and am not really sure what his point is).

Faced with this mutant telly genre masquerading as reality, soaps have become unreal just when we needed them to be otherwise. In particular, that most perverse mutation in the genre, the scripted reality show, has been aped by the worst soaps. In a word: Hollyoaks has become Geordie Shore and The Only Way Is Essex – as unreal as its purported reality show counterparts.

Geordie Shore and TOWIE are soaps. The X-Factor is a soap.

This is Wiki's definition....

A soap opera, often referred to simply as a soap, is a serial drama, on television or radio, that features multiple related story lines dealing with the lives of multiple characters. The stories in these series typically focus heavily on emotional relationships to the point of melodrama.[1] The name soap opera stems from the fact that many of the sponsors and producers of the original dramatic serials' broadcast on radio were soap manufacturers, such as Dial Corporation, Procter & Gamble, Colgate-Palmolive and Lever Brothers.

That describes all those shows perfectly. The programme makers and channels can try as hard as they like to convince otherwise, but they're soaps. They call them 'reality' to make them sound trendier, and because of snobbery in society towards the term 'soap'. IMO.