Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Daniel Avery" data-source="post: 330237" data-attributes="member: 27">I&#039;d also heard the story about Don Briscoe and the LSD, but didn&#039;t see it in his &quot;official&quot; bios so I wasn&#039;t sure.&nbsp; But it makes the most sense.Soaps, like most TV programs of that era, were considered &quot;morality plays&quot;.&nbsp; The good guys always won, and the bad guys always faced punishment.&nbsp; On a soap, it did not take long to figure out who was the &quot;good&quot; character and who was the &quot;bad&quot; character.&nbsp;&nbsp; Soaps got to depict such struggles in a deeper way, often getting to examine the thought processes of the villains and have the viewer more involved in the debate over reward-versus-punishment.&nbsp; But like I said, scripted TV had a very healthy dose of &quot;morality play&quot; throughout the process.&nbsp; So it would have been impossible for DS to have continued with Barnabas leading his un-lifestyle without punishing him for killing young ladies on the docks and trying to turn Maggie or Vicky into his ersatz-Josette.&nbsp; The short plot arc where he attempted to drive Julia insane also seemed to have been written to reinforce his unredeemable nature, even as the show seemed settled on the idea that he was going to stick around rather than face the typical fate of villains (killed off after thirteen weeks of mayhem).&nbsp;&nbsp; The lead character of early DS was the good-hearted heroine, Victoria Winters, just as other soaps had equally good-hearted heroes or heroines.&nbsp; They were expected to be the role models for viewers.&nbsp; The network, the viewers, and maybe even the writers themselves would not have pushed for Barnabas to become the main focus of the series because he was the bad guy--at least in the original form.&nbsp; They had to write what is commonly referred to as his &quot;redemption arc&quot;--a story that attempts to justify a villain&#039;s bad behavior, and in many cases convinces the viewer that he or she isn&#039;t totally bad and ought to be forgiven.&nbsp; The funny part (to me) is that many times, the explanation of the villain&#039;s bad behavior is that another, even more villainous figure had made them do those things.&nbsp; Blame is basically shifted to someone else and leaving the original bad guy somehow absolved of his or her bad behavior rather than a simple situation where the bad guy repents and tries to become a better person.&nbsp; In DS&#039;s case, Barn was said to be a victim of Angelique the &quot;real&quot; evil villain of the piece, and later Angelique got something of a similar plot where Nicholas Blair was made to be her tormentor.It&#039;s actually rather common these days to have TV shows, movies, etc. where the main character or characters are not heroes, and in fact many cases where the lead is outright evil.&nbsp; Writers have not totally abandoned the idea of good always triumphing over evil, but they often seem convinced that villains are more interesting to write for and to watch.&nbsp; Tastes in TV and movies simply shifted over time.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Daniel Avery, post: 330237, member: 27"] I'd also heard the story about Don Briscoe and the LSD, but didn't see it in his "official" bios so I wasn't sure. But it makes the most sense. Soaps, like most TV programs of that era, were considered "morality plays". The good guys always won, and the bad guys always faced punishment. On a soap, it did not take long to figure out who was the "good" character and who was the "bad" character. Soaps got to depict such struggles in a deeper way, often getting to examine the thought processes of the villains and have the viewer more involved in the debate over reward-versus-punishment. But like I said, scripted TV had a very healthy dose of "morality play" throughout the process. So it would have been impossible for DS to have continued with Barnabas leading his [I]un-lifestyle[/I] without punishing him for killing young ladies on the docks and trying to turn Maggie or Vicky into his ersatz-Josette. The short plot arc where he attempted to drive Julia insane also seemed to have been written to reinforce his unredeemable nature, even as the show seemed settled on the idea that he was going to stick around rather than face the typical fate of villains (killed off after thirteen weeks of mayhem). The lead character of early DS was the good-hearted heroine, Victoria Winters, just as other soaps had equally good-hearted heroes or heroines. They were expected to be the role models for viewers. The network, the viewers, and maybe even the writers themselves would not have pushed for Barnabas to become the main focus of the series because [I]he was the bad guy--[/I]at least in the original form. They had to write what is commonly referred to as his "redemption arc"--a story that attempts to justify a villain's bad behavior, and in many cases convinces the viewer that he or she isn't totally bad and ought to be forgiven. The funny part (to me) is that many times, the explanation of the villain's bad behavior is that another, even more villainous figure had made them do those things. Blame is basically shifted to someone else and leaving the original bad guy somehow absolved of his or her bad behavior rather than a simple situation where the bad guy repents and tries to become a better person. In DS's case, Barn was said to be a victim of Angelique the "real" evil villain of the piece, and later Angelique got something of a similar plot where Nicholas Blair was made to be her tormentor. It's actually rather common these days to have TV shows, movies, etc. where the main character or characters are not heroes, and in fact many cases where the lead is outright evil. Writers have not totally abandoned the idea of good always triumphing over evil, but they often seem convinced that villains are more interesting to write for and to watch. Tastes in TV and movies simply shifted over time. [/QUOTE]

Verification

6 + 4 =