RDM - not the answer

[jimbtnp2]

24 is not the same - its is designed to be a non-soapish show with different paced show with a logical step by step beginning to end

the nuBSG example does not fit that at all

NuBSG doesn't, it's obvious they are just making it all up as they go on and they had no idea where the story would end. But it's not the same with all arc shows.

I'm all in favor of arc shows, provided that it meets a few standards.

First, I hate it when missing a single episode of a show makes the rest of the season jibberish. If you're going to do that, recap. I don't want to buy season sets just to follow the story.

Second, if you can possibly tell the whole story in a one off episode, do that. I don't think it's particularly dramatic to have a single short storyline streched out to three weeks. Padding isn't good.

In a nutshell, that's my point exactly

 

[jimbtnp2]

24 is not the same - its is designed to be a non-soapish show with different paced show with a logical step by step beginning to end

Could someone give me an operating definition of "soapish"? I'm not quite sure what this is supposed to mean, beyond a type of programming that jimbtnp2 doesn't like. I'd guess that it means shows that aren't really about how the characters solve the problem-of-the-week, but that's just a guess.

I think jimbtnp2 is referring to a show whose sole plot is "life problems" situations between characters, and watching them talk about those situations, usually through conflict. The sort of show where each storyline could genuinely be happening, but the culmination of all the storylines together in one place to one set of people tend to make the show unwatchably naff.
No mainstream science fiction today or recently fits this, to my recollection. Having character interaction and depicting lives beyond the alien menace of the week is not the same thing as beign a 'soap'.

no i mean its like a soapopera

 

[Brutal Strudel]

24 is not the same - its is designed to be a non-soapish show with different paced show with a logical step by step beginning to end

Could someone give me an operating definition of "soapish"? I'm not quite sure what this is supposed to mean, beyond a type of programming that jimbtnp2 doesn't like. I'd guess that it means shows that aren't really about how the characters solve the problem-of-the-week, but that's just a guess.

Objectively, it would mean any show which carries its story forth from week to week. It would also include shows which focus on interpersonal relationships. BSG is very soapish by the first definition, somewhat soapish by the second ("Unfinished Business" suffered mightily for it).

However, the way most sci-fi fans use it in reference to BSG, it is simply a put-down, a way of equating the dramatic form and tropes of soap operas (as delineated above) with the overwhelmingly poor quality of most soap operas. It's a poor argument--tv drama improved vastly when serious dramatic shows (Hill Street Blues and, to a lesser extent, St. Elsewhere) adopted the objective definition of soap opera while largely jettisoning the craptacularly bad elements. By contrast, the true nighttime soaps of roughly the same period--Dallas, Dynasty--did not. As such, they are remembered as campy, dumb fun by those who liked them, garbage by those (like me) who did not.

This hybrid form of serious drama has been the genre of the vast majority of critically praised dramatic shows that have come since: The Sopranos, Six Feet Under, The Wire, The West Wing and, yes, BSG, to name but a very few.

Of course, it's not so hard to see another layer to the "soap opera" put-down: the original BSG was straight up boy's adventure, where two dashing heroes (three, if you count Boomer--it's a stretch) swashed and buckled to their hearts content, father knew best and women existed to either be two-timed or die. NuBSG has literally feminized Starbuck and Boomer and, in Laura Roslin, given us a mother who often knows better than father (as he often knows better than she), not to mention the Sixes, Threes and Eights among the Cylons. When people deride BSG as a soap opera, they are really calling it "womanish." By implied extension, they are calling its male fans "sissies."

Gotta go, Evita's coming on.

 

[KayArr]

Nu Starbuck was really fascinating once, but that only lasted a couple seasons. She was a crashing bore in season 3, nu Apollo took a powder, too, and I haven't watched since. Just because it's got character development and arcs doesn't mean it's any good, and just because it uses a reset button in the old fashioned style doesn't make it bad. There are good and bad shows of both types.

 

[jimbtnp2]

24 is not the same - its is designed to be a non-soapish show with different paced show with a logical step by step beginning to end

Could someone give me an operating definition of "soapish"? I'm not quite sure what this is supposed to mean, beyond a type of programming that jimbtnp2 doesn't like. I'd guess that it means shows that aren't really about how the characters solve the problem-of-the-week, but that's just a guess.

Objectively, it would mean any show which carries its story forth from week to week. It would also include shows which focus on interpersonal relationships. BSG is very soapish by the first definition, somewhat soapish by the second ("Unfinished Business" suffered mightily for it).

However, the way most sci-fi fans use it in reference to BSG, it is simply a put-down, a way of equating the dramatic form and tropes of soap operas (as delineated above) with the overwhelmingly poor quality of most soap operas. It's a poor argument--tv drama improved vastly when serious dramatic shows (Hill Street Blues and, to a lesser extent, St. Elsewhere) adopted the objective definition of soap opera while largely jettisoning the craptacularly bad elements. By contrast, the true nighttime soaps of roughly the same period--Dallas, Dynasty--did not. As such, they are remembered as campy, dumb fun by those who liked them, garbage by those (like me) who did not.

This hybrid form of serious drama has been the genre of the vast majority of critically praised dramatic shows that have come since: The Sopranos, Six Feet Under, The Wire, The West Wing and, yes, BSG, to name but a very few.

Of course, it's not so hard to see another layer to the "soap opera" put-down: the original BSG was straight up boy's adventure, where two dashing heroes (three, if you count Boomer--it's a stretch) swashed and buckled to their hearts content, father knew best and women existed to either be two-timed or die. NuBSG has literally feminized Starbuck and Boomer and, in Laura Roslin, given us a mother who often knows better than father (as he often knows better than she), not to mention the Sixes, Threes and Eights among the Cylons. When people deride BSG as a soap opera, they are really calling it "womanish." By implied extension, they are calling its male fans "sissies."

Gotta go, Evita's coming on.

I've heard more women call it soapish than men - called it a guys soap opera

soap opera to me is a high level of over dramatizing minutia, over reacting to everything, narcistic, whining, and basically boring not doing anything

and I didn't like HSB or ST elsewhere either

Then again u may be right

http://trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=57798

 

[Brutal Strudel]

I've heard more women call it soapish than men - called it a guys soap opera

soap opera to me is a high level of over dramatizing minutia, over reacting to everything, narcistic, whining, and basically boring not doing anything

and I didn't like HSB or ST elsewhere either

Then again u may be right

http://trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=57798

Good point. Women never denigrate men by questioning their masculinity.

And I'm sorry to hear that you didn't like Hill Street. But I think it absolves us BSG defenders of having to do anymore defending.

 

[Eric Cheung]

NuBSG has literally feminized Starbuck and Boomer and, in Laura Roslin, given us a mother who often knows better than father (as he often knows better than she), not to mention the Sixes, Threes and Eights among the Cylons. When people deride BSG as a soap opera, they are really calling it "womanish." By implied extension, they are calling its male fans "sissies."

Good points. I think another dichotomy between character dramas and plot-driven dramas, besides the perceived gendered connotations, is that character dramas focus on the emotional impact whereas plot-driven dramas focus on eliciting an intellectual response, it's a crossword puzzle.

For me going to see a play or film or TV show or reading a novel is all about tapping into a visceral emotional response. There's supposed to be a cathartic element to it. There is undoubtedly some kind of emotional response when we see a plot-driven show but it's from a more detached place. It's usually with arms folded and a remark such as, "Hmmm, that was clever." That's fine for some, but to me it's just a crossword puzzle.

But to satisfy that emotional response is sort of a prerequisite. If it does that, and commits to its premise, then it can be any kind of show it wants to be, but know that even in an episodic show the characters go through arcs. Characters generally change and grow over the course of a story. No matter what the series is like, it must still be viewed as a whole as well as the sum of its parts.

 

[jimbtnp2]

NuBSG has literally feminized Starbuck and Boomer and, in Laura Roslin, given us a mother who often knows better than father (as he often knows better than she), not to mention the Sixes, Threes and Eights among the Cylons. When people deride BSG as a soap opera, they are really calling it "womanish." By implied extension, they are calling its male fans "sissies."

Good points. I think another dichotomy between character dramas and plot-driven dramas, besides the perceived gendered connotations, is that character dramas focus on the emotional impact whereas plot-driven dramas focus on eliciting an intellectual response, it's a crossword puzzle.

For me going to see a play or film or TV show or reading a novel is all about tapping into a visceral emotional response. There's supposed to be a cathartic element to it. There is undoubtedly some kind of emotional response when we see a plot-driven show but it's from a more detached place. It's usually with arms folded and a remark such as, "Hmmm, that was clever." That's fine for some, but to me it's just a crossword puzzle.

But to satisfy that emotional response is sort of a prerequisite. If it does that, and commits to its premise, then it can be any kind of show it wants to be, but know that even in an episodic show the characters go through arcs. Characters generally change and grow over the course of a story. No matter what the series is like, it must still be viewed as a whole as well as the sum of its parts.

Not to me a all, TOS got much more of an emoption response from me than MT- look at episodes like AMok time, Tholian Web, Doomsday machine, Obsession
Real emotion about things people can relate to - not soapish

 

[stj]

Technically a soap opera is a daytime serial aimed primarily at women, which means heavy on the romance. Soaps have done serious drama, and can also do mystery, suspense, fantasy, scifi or horror. Anyone heard of Dark Shadows?

Soaps are not about anything other than the characters. They are the purest form of character driven drama. All the storylines aim at putting the characters into melodramatic scenes. The scenes commonly take the form of confrontations between characters where they talk a lot about their feelings but don't actually do anything of significance (because there isn't really a story to advance.)

The favorite characters may also be rammed into melodramatic situations, such as false accusation of murder or life threatening disease/injury. In daytime serials, because there an hour a day to fill, these scenarios might even be repeated! And various character arcs are written---Unresolved Sexual Tension is a favorite, tragic falls and/or redemption arcs are also extremely popular.

In the long run, because all the innumerable changes to the characters give them an unreal plasticity, they tend to become more archetypes than real people, despite the many hours devoted to character development. There are various incarnations of Bitch, Vamp, Patriarch, Mother, Suffering Heroine, etc. The stories are arbitrary, with no thematic unity nor any organic connection to life. They are basically daydreams for the fans, with each fan's favorites enacting vicarious fantasies.

The melodramatic confrontations on BSG often involve people pointing guns at each other but that's not a significant change. The character of Starbuck alone is enough to make BSG a soap. She is a classic Queen of Misery. The bizarre romance between Roslin and Adama is also a classic soap maneuver---beloved characters have to ship in a soap! The repeated reconciliations between Adama and Apollo are also very soapish, relishing the melodrama despite the absurdity of it happening over and over. Adama's five minute nervous breakdown over Tigh's revelation is an example of over the top emoting at the expense of all critical judgment, soap at its purest.

In the passage of daily life, people don't change very much. It is not at all clear why anyone thinks it is more realistic to write silly stories where some melodramatic epiphany somehow changes everything---particularly when even very often even in the series itself, nothing really changes at all. It is also strange to think that stories with actual plots (as opposed to badly linked chains of histrionic scenes,) do not engage the emotions. It is true that engaging the mind interferes with daydreaming.

 

[jimbtnp2]

Technically a soap opera is a daytime serial aimed primarily at women, which means heavy on the romance. Soaps have done serious drama, and can also do mystery, suspense, fantasy, scifi or horror. Anyone heard of Dark Shadows?

Soaps are not about anything other than the characters. They are the purest form of character driven drama. All the storylines aim at putting the characters into melodramatic scenes. The scenes commonly take the form of confrontations between characters where they talk a lot about their feelings but don't actually do anything of significance (because there isn't really a story to advance.)

The favorite characters may also be rammed into melodramatic situations, such as false accusation of murder or life threatening disease/injury. In daytime serials, because there an hour a day to fill, these scenarios might even be repeated! And various character arcs are written---Unresolved Sexual Tension is a favorite, tragic falls and/or redemption arcs are also extremely popular.

In the long run, because all the innumerable changes to the characters give them an unreal plasticity, they tend to become more archetypes than real people, despite the many hours devoted to character development. There are various incarnations of Bitch, Vamp, Patriarch, Mother, Suffering Heroine, etc. The stories are arbitrary, with no thematic unity nor any organic connection to life. They are basically daydreams for the fans, with each fan's favorites enacting vicarious fantasies.

The melodramatic confrontations on BSG often involve people pointing guns at each other but that's not a significant change. The character of Starbuck alone is enough to make BSG a soap. She is a classic Queen of Misery. The bizarre romance between Roslin and Adama is also a classic soap maneuver---beloved characters have to ship in a soap! The repeated reconciliations between Adama and Apollo are also very soapish, relishing the melodrama despite the absurdity of it happening over and over. Adama's five minute nervous breakdown over Tigh's revelation is an example of over the top emoting at the expense of all critical judgment, soap at its purest.

In the passage of daily life, people don't change very much. It is not at all clear why anyone thinks it is more realistic to write silly stories where some melodramatic epiphany somehow changes everything---particularly when even very often even in the series itself, nothing really changes at all. It is also strange to think that stories with actual plots (as opposed to badly linked chains of histrionic scenes,) do not engage the emotions. It is true that engaging the mind interferes with daydreaming.

Well - thanks for putting in words so well what I've been discussing - the definition is very clear - have you studied film / media?

there are so many points you make that strike home - in particular that people don;t change very much - a friend of mind use the analogy that a Leopard doesn't change its spots

I guess the next question - how do we break this cycle of soapish Sci-fi?

 

[Anwar]

Easy, just have a good enough plot and story that the "soapish" stuff can still be used and tolerated without it taking over the story.

 

[jimbtnp2]

Easy, just have a good enough plot and story that the "soapish" stuff can still be used and tolerated without it taking over the story.

Wouldn't be better just to leave it out?

 

[Sci]

Easy, just have a good enough plot and story that the "soapish" stuff can still be used and tolerated without it taking over the story.

Wouldn't be better just to leave it out?

Some of us think that the things you claim are "soapish" are things that enhance the quality of a story.

 

[Rhaenys]

I had watched a few episodes of BSG before, and I disliked it.
But many people like it, and I decided give it a chance again and I have started watching it again, from the beginning. a few days ago.
I liked some episodes that Moore wrote on TNG, although they are not my favorites in entire series. I don't like DS9 and his work on it. And after watching BSG, I can say that RDM is definitely not the answer for anything, at least not for me.

 

[cultcross]

Easy, just have a good enough plot and story that the "soapish" stuff can still be used and tolerated without it taking over the story.

Wouldn't be better just to leave it out?

No. A story is meaningless unless the characters involved in it resonate with the audience in some way - the audience must 'care' at least a bit about them or any jeopardy within the story will fail to capture the audience. In a long running series, this is done by giving the characters lives beyond fighting the villain of the week. Quirks, relationships, interactions with each other.

 

[Rhaenys]

Easy, just have a good enough plot and story that the "soapish" stuff can still be used and tolerated without it taking over the story.

And the problem is, that in Moore's writing, characters, their reactions and relations are more important than the story, and I dislike that.

 

[jimbtnp2]

Easy, just have a good enough plot and story that the "soapish" stuff can still be used and tolerated without it taking over the story.

Wouldn't be better just to leave it out?

Some of us think that the things you claim are "soapish" are things that enhance the quality of a story.

well then Read STJ's explanation for soapish

Technically a soap opera is a daytime serial aimed primarily at women, which means heavy on the romance. Soaps have done serious drama, and can also do mystery, suspense, fantasy, scifi or horror. Anyone heard of Dark Shadows?

Soaps are not about anything other than the characters. They are the purest form of character driven drama. All the storylines aim at putting the characters into melodramatic scenes. The scenes commonly take the form of confrontations between characters where they talk a lot about their feelings but don't actually do anything of significance (because there isn't really a story to advance.)

The favorite characters may also be rammed into melodramatic situations, such as false accusation of murder or life threatening disease/injury. In daytime serials, because there an hour a day to fill, these scenarios might even be repeated! And various character arcs are written---Unresolved Sexual Tension is a favorite, tragic falls and/or redemption arcs are also extremely popular.

In the long run, because all the innumerable changes to the characters give them an unreal plasticity, they tend to become more archetypes than real people, despite the many hours devoted to character development. There are various incarnations of Bitch, Vamp, Patriarch, Mother, Suffering Heroine, etc. The stories are arbitrary, with no thematic unity nor any organic connection to life. They are basically daydreams for the fans, with each fan's favorites enacting vicarious fantasies.

The melodramatic confrontations on BSG often involve people pointing guns at each other but that's not a significant change. The character of Starbuck alone is enough to make BSG a soap. She is a classic Queen of Misery. The bizarre romance between Roslin and Adama is also a classic soap maneuver---beloved characters have to ship in a soap! The repeated reconciliations between Adama and Apollo are also very soapish, relishing the melodrama despite the absurdity of it happening over and over. Adama's five minute nervous breakdown over Tigh's revelation is an example of over the top emoting at the expense of all critical judgment, soap at its purest.

In the passage of daily life, people don't change very much. It is not at all clear why anyone thinks it is more realistic to write silly stories where some melodramatic epiphany somehow changes everything---particularly when even very often even in the series itself, nothing really changes at all. It is also strange to think that stories with actual plots (as opposed to badly linked chains of histrionic scenes,) do not engage the emotions. It is true that engaging the mind interferes with daydreaming.

 

[jimbtnp2]

Easy, just have a good enough plot and story that the "soapish" stuff can still be used and tolerated without it taking over the story.

And the problem is, that in Moore's writing, characters, their reactions and relations are more important than the story, and I dislike that.

agreed

 

[jimbtnp2]

Easy, just have a good enough plot and story that the "soapish" stuff can still be used and tolerated without it taking over the story.

Wouldn't be better just to leave it out?

No. A story is meaningless unless the characters involved in it resonate with the audience in some way - the audience must 'care' at least a bit about them or any jeopardy within the story will fail to capture the audience. In a long running series, this is done by giving the characters lives beyond fighting the villain of the week. Quirks, relationships, interactions with each other.

you have very likable strong persoanlity characters on TOS - with no soap

 

[AlanC9]

In the long run, because all the innumerable changes to the characters give them an unreal plasticity, they tend to become more archetypes than real people, despite the many hours devoted to character development. There are various incarnations of Bitch, Vamp, Patriarch, Mother, Suffering Heroine, etc.

Wait a minute. The characters become archetypal because they change? I thought the point of being archetypal is that you don't change; you're still representing your archetype. Or are you implying that the continual plots sort of pull the curtain back, since the specifics can mask the archetype the character was built around?

The bizarre romance between Roslin and Adama is also a classic soap maneuver---beloved characters have to ship in a soap!

Could you clarify "bizarre"? Those two always made sense to me. Since season 2, anyway; Adama isn't the same man he was in S1.