No-Angst vs. Drama

[lolaruns]

There has been some talk for example in regards to Ollian what is better, a happy, solid, no-angst or low angst relationship (at the risk of not getting much screentime or dramatic scenes, doing stuff like supporting other characters in their storylines rather than having your own, dealing only with insiginificant issues in the relationship) vs high drama (angst, pain and sorrow for the characters, the couples potentially being damaged due to cheating, lack of trust or lack of support, but usually comes with screentime, good acting performances and dramatic scenes (like sex and torrid kissing scenes)).

Ollian supporting Judith and Gregor vs. DeRo Vanessa/drug/modelling drama can be seen of extreme cases of the two directions.

So, which side are you on?

(I realize that we all probably desire a healthy combination, lots of happiness with some drama, screentime and emotional scenes; but for the sake of this poll, let's say you can pick only one or the other or have to decide *tendencially* which way you lean to more)

[ivaniv]

I do not mind drama, but I do not want the writers to split the couples over first serious trouble to get even more drama. I want the couples to work through their problems and stay together. Example. There's just too much bed-hopping in HO, they seem to have a chart where they keep track who did not sleep with whom yet. That's just ridiculous and a lazy way to generate drama. I'll vote for drama, but not for any cost.

[aldebaran]

I'm always for balanced things, but if I have to choose one out of the two, well knowing how soaps work I pick drama. Let's hope that should the writers ever read this poll, they'll be clement! ;D

[lolaruns]

I picked drama. Well for one I'm a drama queen. And maybe I've been brainwashed too much by soaps but to me there really is no alternative to drama. Maybe it's because the show I usually watch, Bold and The Beautiful is the cruelest mistress in this regard where pretty much everybody who isn't in the thick of things immediately gets written off. Besides, I'm a huge fan of payoff, the love scenes, the location shoots, the big dramatic declarations, you usually get that only in connection with drama.

Drama without payoff is about the worst thing that can happen, but when there is payoff it is amazing. Besides, the sort of torrid feeling is what draws me to soaps or rather what keeps one addicted. You really want to feel with the characters and you usually get more of the characters getting to express themselves in drama rather than when they are just waiting on the other characters who have drama

And on yetg another shallow level, drama means something to talk about, even if you rage at the writers, the interloper, even the actions of the couple. It's just a much more interactive experience ;D

[sheepiefarm]

Yay Lola - you do like to be difficult

I want balance - good drama doesn't always have to represent bad things.
For example say with Ollian - a storyline whereby some crisis nearly rips the couple apart but is eventually overcome coz true love for each other pulls them back together in the end. Given the strength of feeling Ollian fans have for this couple, I reckon something like that would have us gripped rather than just aimless cuddles, kisses and background knowing looks.
Jo & Thore are such good actors when it comes to intensity and emotion the scripwriters could really get their teeth into it & as long as it had a happy ending we'd all be carried along with the ride.

Edit
The problem seems to be - scriptwriters + gay storylines = unhappy or disastrously cheesy endings.

[lolaruns]

But that's the thing. To me all drama is like that. If either of them slept with somebody else but they eventually get together. If something else broke them up and they tried to be with other people for a while that's drama too. If one of them I dunno, got heavily injured or started taking drugs that's drama. Even Noah marrying Ameera is drama (and it's even relatively relationship friendly drama because neither of them is cheating, the show makes it abudantly clear that there are no feelings from Noah to Ameera and so on).

Heck, the whole Ameera storyline seems pretty much typical "Couple gets tested but overcomes it with the strenght of their love".

Of course it can still be bad drama. Just like there can be bad anything (including bad blissfully together).

Though I would say that "drama that breaks up the characters" isn't even the worst category. The worst category is cheesy, badly written out of character drama. (like in theory a well written story where the characters break up for compelling, relatable in character reasons can be better than a couple writing for stupid reasons and then reuniting even though it makes no sense considering what happened or who they are as characters)

I guess on a very basic level a soap couple without any discernable drama just makes me twitchy. To me it always feels like a flashing "BadsignBadsignBadsign" over their heads. I guess because to be a on a soap characters need stories and to have no drama means to have no story, just hanging in limbo.

The problem seems to be - scriptwriters + gay storylines = unhappy or disastrously cheesy endings.

See, I'm more afraid of:
scriptwriter+gay storylines => lack of ideas once the couple is together => either token gays or invisible or written off or getting really, really, really lame storylines

I actually long for some scriptwriters to truly embrace drama WITH gay characters *beyond* the getting together phase. To write them just as dramatic as the straight supercouples that break up and make up. (and stuff like the Ulli/Tom/Olli triangle actually strikes me as a step in the right direction even if it includes cheating; because it is drama and drama with gay characters and that's a good thing to me)

[gastLXXXIV]

I agree with sheepie.

The poll is frustrating because it's like political elections: you want neither but you're given no better choice.

In the case of C&O's 'future', there's a wide spectrum of gripping, yet optimistic possibilities. Just requires a little imagination and nuance--a deeper 'level' than is usually associated with the genre--but that's all the more reason for attempting it!

[lolaruns]

Maybe people just visualize very different things when they hear drama. Stuff like "Judith knows the secret of Fabian's mom, doesn't know whether to tell Fabian, eventually tells him and they deal with it" is drama too. As is "Sarah is taking drugs, being pressured by Tanja and Olivia and Leonard tries to get her off it". As is "Natalie is torn between Ansgar who treated her badly and is kind of an asshole and Lars who is nice but boring and eventually she is framed by the evil Tanja and both Lars and Ansgar try to rescue her". As is "Sarah and Leonard love each other, yet Leonard is supposed to marry Jana and Sara is supposed to marry Gregor and then Jana suggests a double wedding and it's all very painful and awkward".

Drama comes in all shades and degrees too. Which is why my gut reaction is that there is no alternative to drama. That on a soap to have no drama/be free from drama is to not exist.

(note that doesn't mean that my POV exist. Just because I can't imagine an alternative doesn't mean that I wouldn't love hearing about it)

To me drama is 100% up to the writing. You can have a storyline that sounds dreadful and horrible on paper and good writing can turn it into the most amazing, gripping, heart wrenching and ultimately rewarding storyline. Or something that sounds great and paper and bad writing turns it into the most horrible, boring or offensive crap. Drama can be horrible or it can be everything. But absence of drama? I have still trouble seeing how that would even work. Or specifically, how that would work without reworking the format of the show into a sitcom.

Lets not forget, even if one could restructure the whole show, VL is a show with many characters and a lot of fans that care more about other storylines in whose eyes Ollian really isn't anything special and who would probably quickly wonder what exactly Ollian has done and why they should be deserving of special treatment when in their eyes there are countless (lesbian and gay and straight) couples who would be much more deserving.

[gastLXXXIV]

Well, the 'boxing predicament'--however appealing or unappealing one might find that storyline per se--is an example.
The difficulties of 'coming out' is another--so the two that the writers are already embarked upon are of the sort I mean.

And there are lots of other possibilities, from all aspects of life, personal, professional, political . . . as someone said earlier, various 'adversities' / difficulties, challenges that they can face together, as a committed couple--and that, yes, can cause strain between them at times, but that do not 'damage' -- as you crucially put it, Lola--their mutual trust, their 'soul-matedness' . . .

I think the question ultimately is: is there something about C&O that makes us want them to be truly special among couples, or not?

[lolaruns]

I guess to me it's a all a very double edged sword thing. If a storyline doesn't "get" emotionally to the characters (because they just coast through it with their love unharmed) that also means that they stay aloof and less interesting.

Of course we don't want our characters and to break up, but at the same time, how interesting is the story if both Christian and Olli stay completely unaffected by it? If Olli doesn't worry that Christian might leave him eventually, if they don't argue at all about what the right way is, if neither of them is ever suggested that they might feel any temptation of anything (whether it is Christian being tempted by fame only, or Olli being tempted by how much easier it would be with a different boyfriend or even Christian being tempted by women or just either of them worrying that the other might be tempted; if Chrisitan never questions what exactly he is now, sexually or where his relationship with Olli stands or what his environment thinks of him) then what is the storyline worth anyway? What's the point if there is no drama in it? (drama can also come in different forms, like an injury or violence from the other boxers or whatever)

The whole point of soaps are getting to see the emotions of the characters and their personalities, strenghts and weaknesses, just them getting to show themselves.

I think the question ultimately is: is there something about C&O that makes us want them to be truly special among couples, or not?

But that's the problem. This wanting to see a couple experience truly special things is something that is "earned" by experiencing drama. Even more so for all fans who aren't already rabid Ollian fans/causal soap viewers.

If characters experience a lot of drama, spend a lot of time yearning to be with each other, had to go through a lot then fans, even if they weren't that inclined towards the couple initially, are more likely to say "Okay, let them be together, they've earned it".

(of course it can't go over the top; if a character experiences too much pain then you have the reverse reaction to the characters if it seems that all they do is make each other miserable or just whine around)

[gastLXXXIV]

Lola,
Your intuition is that satisfying drama can be produced only if certain risks are run, and mine is that there are other ways, as well. (This probably reflects a profound difference in the way we experience life, our appetites for it.)

To take the discussion further, it seems I'd have to come up with some specific 'situations', see if I can convince you that they would 'work' . . . actually, I'd like to try, except that just now--and for the near future--I'm working on a manuscript that demands pretty much all of my creative faculties, so I daren't risk any competing engagement!

But maybe that's the problem: I'm essentially a coward, too risk-averse!

[lolaruns]

Well, I'm very much a no risk no gain storyline. If a character is standing on the edge of a cliff and you firmly know that there is no chance that he will fall off and die, why bother being afraid for him? If all you are thinking is bah, it's not even two feet high and I can see the plastic rocks and I know he has a secure contract, why even bother?

If there is nothing on the table you are afraid to lose then there is no dramatic tension.

Not to mention, a dramatic storyline is like an insurance for screentime. The Ameera storyline might be stupid but from the moment I looked at it I knew that it was an insurance for so and so many weeks/months of screentime and exploration of these characters at least in some form (even if potentially in an unsatisfying form). Meanwhile seeing no discernable storyline for a character or couple? Much worse news and makes it incredibly more likely that the characters and their emotions won't get explored but that they will function only as window dressing.

If I see no storyline, or only a storyline with little dramatic potential/no obvious dangers, I automatically get worried. Because on a soap it's among the worst things that could happen to a character, as it frequently implies that the writers don't really have any plan or ideas for them.

(for record, I don't think that Ollian is there yet; I'm just speaking in an hypthetical kind of way)

[gastLXXXIV]

But Lola, dear, I'm not proposing no drama. Rather, drama of a different sort than the same old Sturm-und-Drang.

Why are you so sure you prefer C&O embroiled in troubled situations you've seen, likely literally, a thousand times before to them exploring something a little different--and possibly even spiritually uplifting?!?!?!?!?!? (For instance, Christian crusading for gay acceptance in the world of boxing?)

As for ATWT, what's been done with Luke and Noah is at once laughable and contemptible. The story, dialogue, acting, everything is so bad that, truly, there's nothing to sustain interest (unless you're just a connoisseur of terrific badness) except the personal appeal of Van and Jake. I can't imagine anyone would argue that their preposterous ordeal makes us appreciate them more as a couple!

[sheepiefarm]

May 23, 2008 8:05:08 GMT -5 lolaruns said:

See, I'm more afraid of:
scriptwriter+gay storylines => lack of ideas once the couple is together => either token gays or invisible or written off or getting really, really, really lame storylines

Yeah Lola - have to agree that is much worse (and I suppose kinda where I was going)

Queer as folk (UK version) was brilliant in that respect because the fact that the characters were gay wasn't the driving force behind their story - still had a stupid ending though!

[gastLXXXIV]

Sheepie! Your 100th post!

[lolaruns]

Why are you so sure you prefer C&O embroiled in troubled situations you've seen, likely literally, a thousand times before to them exploring something a little different--and possibly even spiritually uplifting?!?!?!?!?!? (For instance, Christian crusading for gay acceptance in the world of boxing?)

Oh I'm all for getting in involved with stories that don't have much to do with being gay (incidentally that is one of my few issues with the boxing storyline, because it is about hiding you are gay or succeeding despite the fact that you are gay).

I'd be all for a fun soapy boxing storyline that is all about who wins what fight, who blackmails whom, who takes amphetamines or what not.

Incidentally my biggest gripe with Christian's current boxing storyline is that it's not big enough; it's not present enough in the current storylines&interactions, it doesn't involve enough characters [like, maybe have Leonard and Constantin work out at the same place where Christian trains [of Leonard we know that he used to box at least for fun], or write in some sort of a darstardly deal with the devil between the gym and Tanja and Olivia's modelling company; increase the stakes by having Christian be the one representing the gym in promotion so that outing him might actually disappoint a lot of people; write in a rivalry between Christian's workout gym and the gym where Christian and Olli sorta met and where Timo works; Instead at the moment it's just a place Christian occasionally works out and mostly interacts with people that mean nothing to the viewers of VL (like Wolle the promoter or the other boxers who were created just for this storyline) and they are regularly drafted back into storylines that are completely removed from their own.

(Aside from VL probably not having the skills and background to do a quality boxing storyline (at least based on how crappily shot any of their normal fight scenes are). Compared to that AWZ at least has an intentional, deliberate and researched skating angle. That said, I'm fully counting on Christian to eventually get injured in some invisible way that will force him to give up his boxing career because it's just not useful for the show to keep the storyline around for so long. Just like it was with Gregor's career as a helicopter pilot.)

Incidentally if gay character enter soaps with the sole intention of revamping a tried and true formula, it will just make people resent them. You can't just walk into something that has existed for decades and declare "Now revamp it to MY tastes even though they might be different from what you want from the show" and asking for certain characters to be surrounded by an impenetrable bubble.

And I just don't think that "uplifting" works as a strategy on a soap. Of course soaps have uplifting moments, children get abducted and found again, people get together despite obstacles that would keep people apart forever in real life (siblings, priests), people overcome addiction, have babies when they thought themselves infertile etc, etc. But uplifting doesn't work if it's an ensured strategy. If you know that every episode will end up with every complication being dispelled and everything wrapped up in a neat little bow. It's like watching a race where the winners have already been announced before it started. Of course you still root for your couple to win the race and be happy in the end. But if it's ensured beforehand for all couples there is no point at all in having the show. At least it doesn't work for soaps where you have to crank out thousands and thousands of episodes over many years. Characters need to let the things they experience affect them, otherwise, if they just coast it without ever having a scratch the whole thing is just empty. They don't need to be irrevocably damaged by what they experience, but if they are never affected by it, not even short term, what is the point of watching?

Soaps have couples that end up with a happily ever after. VL has had a whole bunch of them. But to justify getting screentime on the show they have to produce something watchable, namely drama. And to me drama doesn't just mean cheating (though I think cheating storylines are fully valid storylines), it means anything that makes the characters laugh and cry and suffer and fear and scheme and love and hate. To me that is the purpose of drama, to extract emotions, extreme emotions and let characters play off each other.

Take Olli and Christian advising Judith on her love life. There might be some cute scenes and it's screentime, but ultimately most of the time it's meaningless screentime. Because Ollian don't have any deep personal stakes in who Judith picks. The story doesn't allow them to show much of their own lives and emotions and it doesn't tell us anything about them as people. For that they need their own drama object/topic so they can express their emotions about it.

[Princess Ollian]

I have picked drama, BUT, why not drama that involves them as a couple??

Examples
Christian & Olli getting found out and Chritian getting pressure from his coach to lose Olli.
Gregor freaking out when they tell him.
Oooh, a car accident...
Gay bashing (not nice and may have to skip that episode...)
Armed robbery in No Limits or Schneiders.

Doesn't always need to be split worthy to be dramatic... (Though looking at these, may have been watching Hollyoaks for too long).

[amber80]

I voted for the drama too... No comments about it yet, you all talked a lot about it already... ;D I'm gonna absorb that in for now.

[sheepiefarm]

May 23, 2008 11:28:55 GMT -5 amber80 said:

I voted for the drama too... No comments about it yet, you all talked a lot about it already... ;D I'm gonna absorb that in for now.

;D
So much been said - wow Lola - glad I don't live with you
Need to digest for a while

[sheepiefarm]

May 23, 2008 5:29:50 GMT -5 lolaruns said:

There has been some talk for example in regards to Ollian what is better, a happy, solid, no-angst or low angst relationship (at the risk of not getting much screentime or dramatic scenes, doing stuff like supporting other characters in their storylines rather than having your own, dealing only with insiginificant issues in the relationship) vs high drama (angst, pain and sorrow for the characters, the couples potentially being damaged due to cheating, lack of trust or lack of support, but usually comes with screentime, good acting performances and dramatic scenes (like sex and torrid kissing scenes)).

Ollian supporting Judith and Gregor vs. DeRo Vanessa/drug/modelling drama can be seen of extreme cases of the two directions.

So, which side are you on?

(I realize that we all probably desire a healthy combination, lots of happiness with some drama, screentime and emotional scenes; but for the sake of this poll, let's say you can pick only one or the other or have to decide *tendencially* which way you lean to more)

Want to make a quick point here -
I think you've overweighted the choice

Current poll stands at 14 for drama - 0 for no-angst
Doesn't that kinda negate any debate?
Yet there has actually been a very healthy debate but that debate has been about what kind of drama we want to see. I think in your initial question you've oversimplified it - possibly weighted the question to lean towards your view or misunderstood people's comments on no or low-angst?

[lolaruns]

I'm still confused why people seem to think that drama means third parties. Or splitting up.

That said, I don't consider being split up the worst option as long as they are still working towards getting back together or can't move on with other people. In fact, one of the worst (couple-wise) drama storylines had the couple together the entire time. Ansgar and Natalie were married and he basically treated her like crap the entire time, belittling her, eventually blaming her for the death/abduction of his son, driving her to alcholism, mental breakdown and running Charlie over with a car.

Now that is a devastating storyline for a couple.

I tend to think the only thing that is important in a good drama storyline is that the entire time it is clear that A is the one for B and vice versa and that there are certain lines that they won't cross (none of them seriously falling in love with another person; no being deliberately mean and cruel to the person you are supposed to love or being inconsiderate of their feelings and to me, not acting like a dumbass).

That said, I dislike most of the popular reasons for couples breaking up that soaps use. Among my most hated:

- I'm breaking up (and have to act like I don't love you) with you to protect you/because some evil villain is threatening your life/for your own good
- BIG!MIS!UNDER!STANDING!

Basically, I really hate all break ups/being kept apart issues that could be solved or could have been with a simple conversation. Nothing kills my sympathy for characters more than problems that are unecessary. If a couple has to break up I would prefer it being over something meaningful that makes sense.

To me the core issue is retaining the integrity of the characters. And that integrity (and A loves B as part of that integrity) can be preserved even when a couple is apart. And it can be ruined even if they are together and even if nobody does anything at all and the story is just asinine and stupid.

Yet there has actually been a very healthy debate but that debate has been about what kind of drama we want to see. I think in your initial question you've oversimplified it - possibly weighted the question to lean towards your view or misunderstood people's comments on no or low-angst?

But how can you phrase it otherwise. Do you want drama that leaves the couple happy in the end? That's a no brainer. Even people who want drama of course want the couple to win out. It's as much as a non-discussion as this. And like I said, I wanted to hear from people AND I gave examples of the situations (current DeRo vs. current Ollian) that are current and I gave a fair assessment of the upsides and downsides of either options (and if I didn't in the poll itself it's because it restricts how long the poll options can be).

And I wanted this question to be a hard choice. No point in making a poll about no brainer/obvious questions/on things everybody agrees on. If this poll ended up as that, it certainly wasn't my intention.

[Bonobochick]

May 23, 2008 15:32:31 GMT -5 lolaruns said:

I'm still confused why people seem to think that drama means third parties. Or splitting up.

I know speaking for the Americans on here - hope y'all don't mind - that it's a trite and true staple of soaps & tv shows in the states to either do repetative breakups/makeups or bring in 3rd (sometimes 4th!) parties to add drama to a pairing. I think we are just sadly used to that being done instead of writers having a couple face adversity together. (zusammen oder gemeinsam??)


I would love to see the latter of a couple facing adversity together for a few shows I watch cause I am getting waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too much of the former.
Enough with the triangles and quads!

[nahuela]

You can use both, but I´d rather go for gemeinsam

[lolaruns]

I think we are just sadly used to that being done instead of writers having a couple face adversity together. (zusammen oder gemeinsam??)

In this case it's definitely gemeinsam

That said, maybe I have just had too many experiences with couples facing adversity together storylines.

They mostly exist in the form of ridiculous adventure storylines of the type Days of Our Lives does with larger than life master mind cartoon villains who have to be brought down. My main issue is that these storylines just don't have anything to do with relatable *human* drama anymore. Or they are really trite. For example Ridge and Taylor had a long period where they were doing mostly facing adversity storylines. It ended up with stuff like "Taylor gets infected with TB from a homeless person and almost dies trying to give birth to her children", "Taylor gets hypnotized by a villain to act weird" and "Taylor and Ridge get stalked by an evil ex of his who abducts Taylor". And like I said, what Nuke are doing now strikes me as a classic *facing adversity together* story. And honestly? Might even be one of the better ones even if it took till now for some payoff to happen.

Some soaps also have the option of doing business related storylines (who gets the contract X, who gets the modelling job, who has the more successful fall line), but to me those are often boring too because they don't showcase the couple. (that said, it grandly depends on the show; I could easily picture AWZ doing an interesting story on Roman's skating career success because AWZ specializes in those kind of stories)

And the other grand category is characters dealing with issues surrounding their kids (either their kids start dating or get abducted or run away or something).

What else is there? Rape storylines (always popular in straight couples when the writers run out of ideas). Health storylines can occasionally be done well, but it depends a lot on the soap. And I still maintain they are boring if everybody knows the character won't die/won't be permanently affected/doesn't let the sickness get him or her down for even a while. Because then it usually just feels like a boring delay till the characters can finally be romantic again.

Basically, I have seen both amazing and terrible drama (including triangle) storylines, yet I only remember terrible getting over adversity (excluding couples get together stories here). Maybe some Jack and Jennifer who I understand had some good humor storylines. Though I'm definitely somebody who prefers drama to humor. To me it's just much more meaty.

But again, it might easily be that what I would classify some things as drama that other people would classify as facing adversity. Let's say, Robin has AIDS and beings a romance with Jason strikes me as pure classic drama. As does "A finds out that he/she has an unknow child" or "A finds his/her real mother/father" or "A has an accident and fears that he/she will never be able to walk/see/dance/sing again".

[sheepiefarm]

May 23, 2008 15:32:31 GMT -5 lolaruns said:

Do you want drama that leaves the couple happy in the end?

And I wanted this question to be a hard choice. Nobody in making a poll about no brainer/obvious questions/on things everybody agrees on. If this poll ended up as that, it certainly wasn't my intention.

To answer the first point - Yes
and I think that is where a lot of the no-angst comments that stirred you to start this poll stem from.
It's quite ironic in a way that nearly all gay storylines born within soap begin with a "coming out". It's like saying "hey you gays" that's the only real dramatic, traumatic, emotional busting story we can give you coz you don't do nuthin else!
But as you said earlier - once they've done that the story ends - be it dissappear into the background or exit stage left heartbroken or some cheesy into the sunset nonsense. You know - we don't have jobs, get married, have kids and boy are really useless at making a relationship work!!!!
As the comment has been made before - we're all gunshy - waiting for the shit to hit the fan - it'll all end in tears, because it bloody well always does - and maybe just once we're hoping that won't happen. It doesn't mean we don't want drama - we just want drama that could exist from a gay couple being a gay couple.

To answer the 2nd point-
You actually made it a very easy choice - see poll result - which leaves me to ask the question...
In what way did you think the question was hard?

I don't disagree with your arguments here at all - you make many agreeable comments - way too many to quote - however, I'm just wondering where the debate is? There has been much debate stemming from within the second choice but none has arisen from between the original two parts of the question.