"Soap opera for guys"

[Deleted]

Isn't this a pretty lame criticism of pro wrestling? What would you call shows like Breaking Bad or The Walking Dead? All based on cool characters and cliff-hanger/episodic storytelling. I'm not saying the term is inaccurate, but it's usually used in a snobby, dismissive way when it comes to wrestling.

[MrBRulzOK]

I've watched both Breaking Bad and Walking Dead, and they absolutely crush WWE in terms of storytelling and evoking emotion through their writing. Comparing either of them to WWE is like comparing a best-selling novel to a piece of really bad fan-fiction.

As for calling it a soap opera, I do agree that is lazy when you use it as a negative connotation. When you do that you're basically saying that all soap operas are bad. I haven't watched many of those myself, but I'm sure there are some decent ones out there. It's not fair to cast them all in the same light.

Personally I've always considered WWE more some sort of bizarre amalgamation between a cartoon, a soap opera, a sport, and a variety show.

[Zaq "That Guy" Buzzkill]

WWE is a shirtless soap opera for men. That's why I love it.

[CATCH_US IS the Conversation]

The only time that the soap opera for guys thing ever really rang true was during the Attitude Era.

[Deleted]

Oct 15, 2013 23:46:55 GMT -5 MrBRulzOK said:

I've watched both Breaking Bad and Walking Dead, and they absolutely crush WWE in terms of storytelling and evoking emotion through their writing. Comparing either of them to WWE is like comparing a best-selling novel to a piece of really bad fan-fiction.

As for calling it a soap opera, I do agree that is lazy when you use it as a negative connotation. When you do that you're basically saying that all soap operas are bad. I haven't watched many of those myself, but I'm sure there are some decent ones out there. It's not fair to cast them all in the same light.

Personally I've always considered WWE more some sort of bizarre amalgamation between a cartoon, a soap opera, a sport, and a variety show.

Good point, maybe they meant it more in that it's lightweight and schlocky and based on stock twists, that I can get with. Maybe there's a certain level of writing quality where it gets out of "soap opera" and becomes drama.

["Cane Dewey" Johnson]

Oct 15, 2013 23:31:24 GMT -5 @lovehater said:

Isn't this a pretty lame criticism of pro wrestling? What would you call shows like Breaking Bad or The Walking Dead? All based on cool characters and cliff-hanger/episodic storytelling. I'm not saying the term is inaccurate, but it's usually used in a snobby, dismissive way when it comes to wrestling.

If anything, the term is appropriate, to say nothing about complex, serialized narrative.

The origin of the term 'soap opera' is one where the narrative of the story was interrupted by commercial advertisements aimed at women listeners, the ones to be at home to listen or watch these advertisements while men were out of the home to work, to purchase soap products for domestic use.

WWE often interrupts the narrative of the action of the story to advertise its own products (PPVs, DVDS, other TV shows, merchandise) and the products of other companies (in the past few years, characters interacting with fast food product placement comes to mind). Given that the male demographic tends to be the gendered majority when it comes to the WWE product, if not perhaps professional wrestling as a whole, then the term 'soap opera for guys' when considering the history of commercial advertisement is entirely apt.

[Cranjis McBasketball]

Oct 16, 2013 0:11:42 GMT -5 "Cane Dewey" Johnson said:

Oct 15, 2013 23:31:24 GMT -5 @lovehater said:

Isn't this a pretty lame criticism of pro wrestling? What would you call shows like Breaking Bad or The Walking Dead? All based on cool characters and cliff-hanger/episodic storytelling. I'm not saying the term is inaccurate, but it's usually used in a snobby, dismissive way when it comes to wrestling.

If anything, the term is appropriate, to say nothing about complex, serialized narrative.

The origin of the term 'soap opera' is one where the narrative of the story was interrupted by commercial advertisements aimed at women listeners, the ones to be at home to listen or watch these advertisements while men were out of the home to work, to purchase soap products for domestic use.

WWE often interrupts the narrative of the action of the story to advertise its own products (PPVs, DVDS, other TV shows, merchandise) and the products of other companies (in the past few years, characters interacting with fast food product placement comes to mind). Given that the male demographic tends to be the gendered majority when it comes to the WWE product, if not perhaps professional wrestling as a whole, then the term 'soap opera for guys' when considering the history of commercial advertisement is entirely apt.

OK, you know what the OP was really asking, but you decided to show off you knew where the term soap opera came from instead.

[molson5]

I never thought of that term as a criticism, it was more something that helped non-fans understand why wrestling fans would watch a show they knew was "fake". I remember that term being used regularly in the 90s and it was actually kind of vindicating, in that non-fans finally kind of "got" what pro wrestling was all about.

And wrestling is a lot more similar to soap operas than TV dramas like Breaking Bad. For starters, imagine if Breaking Bad had to put out 100+ episodes every year. They couldn't do the same kind of narrative.

[Urethra Franklin]

I always thought that argument was based on the serial nature of wrestling programming, as well as the generally poor writing and acting (hallmarks of soap operas over the years.)

[Old Jack Burton]

Oct 16, 2013 0:41:43 GMT -5 Urethra Franklin said:

I always thought that argument was based on the serial nature of wrestling programming, as well as the generally poor writing and acting (hallmarks of soap operas over the years.)

This is right. In the late 90s when this phrase caught on it was the best way to describe the idea that the story continues from show to show. There weren't nearly as many shows on television at the time with a continuing story.

My mother still refers to shows like Breaking Bad, The Sopranos, and Mad Men as soap operas, because that's the only kind of show she knows of with a serial story.

[Raskovnik]

It's a good thing to me.

[Glitch]

I prefer to call it an Action show,

[Clash, Never a Meter Maid]

That's a criticism?

[Cranjis McBasketball]

Oct 16, 2013 1:15:25 GMT -5 Clash, Never a Meter Maid said:

That's a criticism?

Hell yeah, a sexy, sexy criticism. Where like, 3/4 naked oiled up dudes pretend to fight. The only thing to make it better were if I were gay.

[salsashark]

"Soap opera for guys" is absolutely on the mark. I'm a dude that's been watching the medium for close to 20 years and I have no misgivings that this is the truth. If you doubt that it is accurate, you're in denial.

What are the general hallmarks of soap opera storytelling? I'll use WWE for my examples since it's the most famous "soap opera."

1. Storytelling with no definitive end point: This is totally WWE. Considering that characters have been overlapping in story lines for ages and ages, it fits. I'd consider the Hogan era "the start" of this soap opera, and it has not ended yet. Who knows what capacity it'll end in?

2. Over-the-top story lines and storytelling: That's WWE to a T. Think about how many stupid as f*** things have happened on the shows over the years--so many contrived romances, so many angles that could solved with a single conversation, so many rivalries and turns that make little sense if you think about them even for a minute. Look at this Big Show firing angle. It's so silly and it has loads of holes, but it's been a focal point of the show for weeks and weeks now. Also, people solve workable problems with violence and big gestures instead of rational dialogue or using their wits, which seems like a pretty soap-opera-ey thing to do.

3. Storytelling that is generally without serious consequences and nuance: Tying into point #2, you can do all kinds of shit in the WWE universe and do all kinds of betrayals yet still turn into a face, which makes zero sense in real life. (To use an extreme example, would the US have forgiven and accepted Osama if one day he decided that after being a bad guy for ages, he wanted to join the US' side and turn on his peeps? Hell no.) In wrestling, people are kicked to the curb by ones they once trusted, given personality makeovers, fired, made victims of serious crimes (Attempted murder is one of wrestling's favorite things), etc. and there is generally no serious consequence. I absolutely understand for storytelling's sake that some of these things have to happen sometimes, but doing it over and over again makes it meaningless and dumb.

4. The terrible acting and dialogue: WWE has nailed this point many, many times. How many awful sequences have we seen in a GM's office that end with broad, silly dialogue and a character standing, staring off "thoughtfully" into the distance as the camera cuts to break? Great wrestling actors are very rare--especially nowadays where loads of people up and down the roster generally have to act (for vignettes, backstage convos, in-ring segments, etc.) instead of just the top guys--which hurts the business' perception in its own way.

5. The lightweight quality of the whole thing: This is more of a general feel issue, but wrestling feels lightweight and inconsequential so often, based on the strict formatting of the show, the lack of unpredictability in sequence setups or shots, the very made-up and glamorized look and lighting, the fact that everyone is generally very good-looking or in top-notch shape, etc. There is a manufactured feel to the programming, like you wouldn't necessarily believe these people would interact in real life and in this way if it wasn't to forward the show's plots.

I still adore wrestling but not enough to see its faults and know that it fits this criteria very well. I am not saying all wrestling storytelling is bad--I love a ton of it myself--but I'm also sure that there have been soap opera story lines that are transcendentally good. Thing is, they are so rare that people don't generally associate those with the medium or know that they existed and instead first think of the rotten stuff that shapes their perception.

Breaking Bad, for one, is not a soap opera because it doesn't meet any of the above criteria.

[mrbananagrabber]

A soap opera is usually known for bad acting and silly storylines. If that's not pro wrestling I don't know what is.

[Deleted]

Damn, salsashark. Awesome post.

[CATCH_US IS the Conversation]

Oct 16, 2013 4:11:22 GMT -5 mrbananagrabber said:

A soap opera is usually known for bad acting and silly storylines. If that's not pro wrestling I don't know what is.

And voluptuous women and hunky guys all around.

I sometimes wish WWE were still doing the Guest Host thing just to get some soap stars on RAW. I

[KobashiChop]

I and quite a few other wrestling fans around the web have used the term "soap opera for men" as a positive term for wrestling. In the RAW TV era i think it fits.

[celticjobber]

As a fan of both soaps and wrestling, I would say that they have many things in common.

Both are looked down upon by much of American society (I'm not sure if soaps have such a negative stigma in other countries). Both have diehard fans, including some who can't separate the real people from the characters they play. And both run all year, without any significant breaks in airing (though soaps have the luxury of taping months in advance).

And there's tons of backstage drama and bickering amongst talent and writers, in both soaps and wrestling.

But the porn industry and pro wrestling also have alot in common (aside from the obvious jokes...).