Jump to content

A soap was actually brought back after cancellation.


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 26
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members

IKR? You have Erica, her new assistant, who'd make Felix DuBois look like Stanley Kowalski; her business manager, who must keep up the illusion that she is eternally "under 40"; and her personal stylist and best friend in all the world, Opal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Guiding Light wasn't actually the continuing story from 1937 that they often advertised.

In 1943, Irna briefly tied three of her radio soaps into The General Mills Hour (the last 15 minutes was apparently un-connected "inspirational" programming). GL, Woman in White (where Agnes started as writer) and Today;'s Children. Characters would cross over between the three soaps--in a way sorta creating a forty-five minute soap (Guiding Light had already created the spin off Right to Happiness in 1939, which ran twenty years, but Irna wasn't head writer long).

Then in 1946 Emmons Carlson, a former writer for Irna, sued her claiming he co-created the soap with her. An irate Irna refused to settle out of court, as she was suggested to, and it cost her $250,000. At around this time soap opera soap operas were moving from their base in Chicago to New York, but General Mills was moving the ones they sponsored to Hollywood. Because it was wrapped up in the court case, they dropped GL and Irna created the short lived Masquerade which moved with the other two to Hollywood. Irna then shut down The Guiding Light in 1946.

Six months later Proctor and Gamble wanted three soaps from Irna, for New York. She sold the ones that she still owned- and ressurected Guiding Light (this was when the change in location for the soap's story happened) which they bought for 50 grand, along with Road of Life for 50 grand, and at the time the top rated Right to Happiness for 75 grand. As part of the deal, Irna stayed with her new fave, Guiding Light and got full story credit on every episode (which was rare back then) as well as $250 per 15 minute episode (again, a good deal at the time). So in a way it was canceled, or dead, and then ressurected...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Given how many of these actors are now doing web series, I think it's possible to manage some expectations. If the material is solid, I think even some decent non-soap actors would be willing to give one "season" a shot

Once that happens all you need is one breakout actor or character to create some buzz and not the "Oh look! The headwriter is losing his [!@#$%^&*] on some blog" kind of buzz but more the "Who's that in your gif?" buzz. One Sofia Vergara from Modern Family, Lafayette from True Blood, Wilson from House, etc... But that means making the most of your small ensemble and it means not trying to force the audience to like a character.

A short run series also offers something that soaps don't have in any way which is a way for new viewers to get involved. If the short run of "Raising Kane...Again" works and the audience is there, there's no reason not to do a second season. Isn't that what the BBC does a la Luther and Sherlock?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Of course, everyone, including actors, needs to make a living. However, most actors go into the business knowing that only a few make superstar salaries. IOW, if you're an actor, you're an actor more for the chance to act than for anything else. I think that's why more and more seem willing these days to work on web series and other series that don't pay much money. (Plus, the added exposure don't hurt none.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Yeah, I scoff when FB friends make jokes about seeing such and such actor in a corny TV commercial. Sure, maybe they aren't starring in a series right now, but do you realize how much they probably got paid for that national commercial? No need to feel sorry for them.

A soap star knows (or should know) that they aren't at a career level where they can make a lot of outrageous demands, especially when dealing with producers outside of or new to the soap biz. Frankly, and we all know this, with the *possible* exception of Susan Lucci, soap actors are only important in the bubble of the soap world. For the ones who break out and get film or primetime careers, their time on the soaps is often looked upon as "fun trivia", not even viewed as a legitimate step in their career trajectory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

One of my favorite pop culture podcasts just did a segment on "second acts" i.e. how someone who was successful in the entertainment industry can go on to find success as a writer, director, etc... One of the things they mentioned is how a lot of TV viewers have the same myopia around the theatre. Some actors who had a nice career on television have moved on to become well-respected names in theatre but if you talk to some TV viewers they would think that actor was eating out of a dumpster. ("I wonder whatever happened to Linda Lavin after Alice went off the air?")

I think quite a few soap actors would be happy to give a worthy project a try for a reasonable wage. Especially if they're no longer being locked down into meaningless 4-year contracts that make it impossible to do anything else while leaving them vulnerable to being dumped every 13 weeks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

If my math is correct GH would be getting around $960,000 an episode if the price is $8,000 for a 30 second ad and considering the show only cost $175-200,000 to produce I'd say they are doing pretty good.

The figures would be:

$960,000 an episode

$4,800,000 a week

$249,600,000 a year

Again that is if my math is correct. lol I'd say GH is doing pretty good. If the show's budget is $40-45 million a year than it is earning well over it's budget and bringing in a pretty good profit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Exactly--and stability (but with options, as you point out) is something a lot of actors desire.

re theatre--that obviously always bugs me too. Someone recently on some tupid blog wrote about how Roseanne's Laurie Metcalf was so great on Roseanne and after that went on to only pop up in smallish roles in movies like Scream 2 or ne episode stints on other shows. While I don't think she ever probably would have become a big movie or tv star, I also don't think she wanted to be. The blogger mentioned in passing some random theatre work--when really she is an extremely well respected theatre actress (in London and New York as well as regional), who finds good work fairly easily in that world, and has said that it's her first love. *That's* what she wants to do, and she's happy with it (and of course she was a longterm member of Chicago's Steppenwolf Theatre pre Roseanne), yet this person seemed to think she was someone who never lived up to her potential. Their are myriads of similar stories I can think of. (Of course soaps used to hold appeal to *some* actors precisely because they were in New York, so they could still make the rounds at theatre auditions).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy