j swift

It is remarkable that 88% of the Y&R and B&B audience is outside the desired demographic. Of the 3,119,000 people who watched Y&R, only 369,920 were women 18-49 (if according to Nielson every rating point represent 1.15 million viewers, and they got a .32 rating in the demo). At that rate, a drop in ratings is just as likely to be because of the mortality of their viewership rather than disapproval of any storyline.🫠😉

Agreed, @Paul Raven saying Passions was the #1 soap for girls 12-17 is like saying Santa Barbara was the #1 soap for men over 55, sadly no sponsor would care. That's why anytime I think that a story is too immature or superficial, I have to remind myself, that this was not written for me, and they don't care if I like it or not. Of course, many of us were drawn to stories about mature women, but history tells us that network executives rarely believed that was the case. And advertisers want to see their desired consumer on screen, influencing women to look youthful and keep a clean home. Which explains why even a poorly rated news program is currently more desirable than DAYS to NBC, because in their final year before moving to Peacock, 92% of the audience was over 49 years old.

Thanks, that's why in cancelled soap thread we were discussing Passions from 24 years ago...

With all due, I don't think that's how it works. Kleenex wants to sell tissues today, not twenty years from now. NBC can't sell ads hoping to influence the next generation.

Do we think these pictures of Bobby were created by The Enquirer (who had a history of doctored photos) or CBS/Lorimar?

I know this information was widely reported in the soap press and marketing for Passions. However, I wonder if the tween demographic was actually the focus of the development of the soap or an unforeseen outcome? Because, one assumes that typical daytime advertisers (household and beauty product companies) would not seek that demographic, since they don't typically do the grocery shopping. Let's never forget that the entire genre was built on selling soap, so it stands to reason that the networks would only want to develop entertainment for that audience. Which makes me question if part of the cancellation was because it was not attracting the audience that advertisers wanted, despite whatever popularity it had among the after school crowd.

I honestly don't understand how they can cancel a show and pretend it is different from firing people due to the strike. https://www.tvinsider.com/1102680/a-league-of-their-own-amazon-prime-video-cancellation-abbi-jacobson-comments/

Download.mp4 These days, Kevin Bacon does ads for the International House of Pancakes on TikTok, so I don't know that he qualifies as an arbiter of good taste.

I'm assuming she was in her early 20s because she trained as a dancer for a while, and I think she was old enough to go to the VideoDisco (even with a fake ID), before she went to Wellington.

It's an excellent point. Given the successful ratings for Jan 6th hearings, I'm sure the networks would want to broadcast the live testimony. However, while it has been reported that the state trial in Georgia might be televised, I don't believe the federal trials in New York will allow cameras, based on the fact that they weren't allowed during the pre-trial hearing. https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2023-08-04/explainer-why-trumps-trials-arent-likely-to-be-televised Under the Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 53, electronic media coverage of criminal proceedings, including taking photographs and broadcasting the proceedings, is prohibited in federal courtrooms and has been since the rule was adopted in 1946.

The demographic mandate is an interesting issue. If you think about it, Jody toward the end of 1984 was probably supposed to be around the same age as April when she started in the show in 1977. But, April was an aspirational fantasy, so she married an attorney, and they lived in a cottage in Oakdale, until she inherited mother's penthouse. Jody never had her own home and, after her dance career, she was never focused on a job. She was just exalted for her youth and beauty. If I was selling liquid Prell, I would rather pair it with the image of an upwardly mobile young mother in her own penthouse than a girl in love with a motorcycle enthusiast living in her step-brother-in-law's apartment (or was Miles her half-brother-in-law?) Although both Jodys had great hair, the desire of advertisers to attract a young audience continues to defy logic. Especially because the research that defined the mandate, initially published in 1971, has never been validated or replicated.

I'll never doubt your expertise. @Broderick How long was SG's maternity leave? I recall it was close to the end of the show, and I would imagine that would influence the emphasis on Jody. Also, remarkable that Shelly made it into the opening, but no sign of Liz or Beth. Either they spent too much on that greenscreen of Preacher & Jody, or the production had given up on new openings by the time they were introduced?

Gosh, forty years later, that opening is still thrilling! Although, in my memory this clip is missing the announcer at the end saying, "The Edge of Night, brought to you by Liquid Prell" with the image of the pearl being dropped into the bottle of shampoo. I agree that Raven's placement was luck, but I'd be eager for some confirmation.

I enjoyed Ava and Austin in February when they conspired to hide the "death" of Nikolas. I like the dynamic when two smart, outcast, desperate, neer-do-wells team up in a scheme. But, I'm still stuck on Roger Howarth from OLTL, so it is difficult not to think of him as having malicious intent as Austin. For whatever reason, I can separate from Maura West from ATWT Carly, but Roger's role as Todd made such a strong impression, that I can't imagine him as a romantic, well-meaning, doctor. I know he's played many other character since then, and it may be unfair, but he is typecast in my mind. So, I am always waiting for the shoe to drop and Austin is found to be just as evil as his cousin. @AbcNbc247 I enjoyed the pacing of this week, but I wonder if we'll begin to feel like the show is trading water within the next month or so if the scabs feel as if they aren't able to resolve any mysteries or begin any new plots until the strike is over?

I remember that there were many iterations of the opening that ended with Raven's portrait, but did anyone else ever get final position in the opening? I recall Jody had a portrait, but I don't know that she was ever in the final position in an alternate opening like Y&R used. I think when Nicole or Nancy were the leading lady, the opening was just the name of the show, with no pictures of the characters, correct? This whole discussion of credits makes me wonder if Sharon Gabet had her position in the opening in her contract, or if it was beyond her control? I would not be surprised if Susan Lucci and Tony Geary negotiated their placement in the openings of their respective shows, but I don't know if Ms Gabet had the same bargaining power.

Thanks, but I was referencing that it was remarkable that Marlena was missing from Maggie's 50th anniversary episode (obviously, there's a lot of rumored behind the scenes BS, but it was especially noticeable on Friday).

Marlena's absence was both remarkable and understandable. On the one hand, the scene where Maggie was murdered during Marlena's serial killer era was iconic. On the other hand, Marlena did not share a lot of memorable stories with Victor, and the episode focused on him, so it made sense that she wasn't there. I mean, Julie and Victor actually had much more of a history than Marlena and him. Hidden for those trying to avoid spoilers

To clarify what I meant about movement, it is not just about the size of the set but the static placement of the camera. Look at Shawn's scene with the mayor. First, when the mayor sits, he pops into the shot, the camera can't pan down to follow him sitting. Then, (I assume because they don't do takes for coverage), the entire conversation is a back and forth between close up, with no wide shot to establish their place in the room or their reactions to each other while they talk. So, they wind up looking like puppets because they can only use their upper body and their hands to express themselves. I'm not asking them to walk and talk like they're in an episode of the West Wing, but it would be nice to see some camera movement within an entire episode. That being said, I am glad that at least it is brighter in Salem than it used to be. We still never know what time of day it is, but 2020 looked like every episode took place at dusk. And the sound mixing is much clearer.

Just in case anyone was wondering, their interview style has not improved over the course of five years. It is still a banal career retrospective with the typical questions about how an actor got their role (spoiler alert: they auditioned). There's no preparation. Steve clearly had not even bothered to look at Brandon's IMDB to know the chronology of his roles in daytime. There's no insight into any interesting takes on acting, like what it is like to age as a man in daytime, or suddenly play the father to a twentysomething child. They haven't even developed a consistent set of questions to ask every interview so that there is something unique about the experience. The sound quality is awful. There is zero production value or editing. And neither host can just rely on their looks (or questionable charm) any longer. They only prove that practice doesn't make perfect, if you weren't that talented in the first place...

Something I noticed that now I cannot get out of mind is how little the actors are allowed to move in a scene. I was watching a scene from the 1980s when Megan met with Stefano. He greets her at the door, and then they walk through the sitting room into his office, with the camera following them the whole time. Today, they barely walk around the room. I assume it is because they no longer use human camera operators, and it is expensive to reset the camera position. But, it makes me have empathic claustrophobia, that these characters are so immobile within an episode. I mean, I celebrated that Belle showed up in more than one set because Kate seems chained to the bar of the Brady Pub.

Is she still married to John Viscardi (Father Tony)? One imagines that he is even more charismatic off-screen. It was interesting to note on his IMDB that he has a writing credit for Guiding Light.

Totally, it is just remarkable how the sexuality of women gets less speculation

Every time we come back to this discussion, there's always a lot more speculation about men than women. Sure, the usual actresses are mentioned, but it is a small percentage compared to the men that are discussed. Obviously, some of that is because this topic is dominated by male posters. However, practically, I wonder if it was "easier" for women in the 1970s and 1980s to stay closeted? I would hypothesize that unmarried women were considered more common because it was easy to imagine that a lead actress wouldn't have the time for a husband and children. I mean, one never reads a profile of Joanna Johnson or Maureen Garrett where they asked about dating. Just food for thought...

Victoria Newman McNeil Howard Carlton Hellstron Abbott Abbott Locke

I don't know how Leon Russom identifies his sexuality, but he was married to Karen Grassle (Ma on Little House on the Prairie) for many years, and there are easily google-able stories about him marrying a second time to a woman who is the "love of his life."