Jump to content

April 9-13, 2007


Toups

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 151
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members

I posted this elsewhere: Has early daylight savings time harmed the soaps?

In recent weeks, some of us have puzzled about declining ratings for the soaps...not the general decline, but a specific, all-show plummet that almost every show had. Y&R's average, for example, fell below 4.0 (3.9 or 3.8)..but all the shows died in March :-).

I got the idea from Matt Roush (TV Guide columnist), who blamed early DST for the recent decline in NBC Thursday night sitcom ratings.

Could this also be true for soaps? Assuming many viewers watch at night, could it be that earlier DST has them outside with the kids longer...and not tuning into their soaps? Would this affect the network ratings (or do they only count real-time audience).

I'd love to know...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Honey, why is that a big if?! Jeff Zucker(Presdient of NBC) has already told the press they probably won't renew DAYS past 2009! PASSIONS is gone and that leaves DAYS, the sole survivor on the daypart. NBC is gearing up for FRESH SQUEEZED(or whatever the hell the name of that live entertainment show is)...they've already registered a website for it.

I know you love DAYS(I mean, from 1995-2000, DAYS was my *SHOW*), but look at what the show is stacked against, in addition to its Nielsen Numbers?!

NBC has already lost alot of its viewers. Pretty soon NBC will be behind CW in Total Viewers at the rate they are going.

The ABC talk was in 1998...DAYS on ABC at that time would have been awesome because the show was then #2 in the Nielsens and I think consistently #1 in Women 18-49. A winning lineup for sure. During the Higley era(when NBC almost cancelled DAYS), there was no existing negotiation(that I am aware of) involving DAYS/ABC.

NBC is already dead honey! And Jeff Zucker has no problem cancelling a show that is one of the lowest-rated soaps in daytime right now. NBC won't be dead because of DAYS's cancellation, NBC will be dead because of NBC.

This board needs your optimism. I don't mean to shoot you down or anything, but the writing is on the wall.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

That quote from Frons tells me something else. He implies that the 'success' of ABC soaps is one thing preventing him from picking up DOOL. AMC may be on a small upswing, but OLTL also hit a demo low, and falling (and will until they take far more drastic action than they seem willing to.) ABC soaps cannot exactly be termed successful at the moment, despite the 'NightShift' spinoff (which sounds suspiciously like GH's ORIGINAL storyline intent). OLTL is falling into many of the same issues that plague DOOL.

It cuts both ways. If Frons can make a go of ABC soaps, they stay, and there's no room for DOOL, but if they fail, there's no reason to pick up DOOL either. There's little in Fron's business model that gives me any hope.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I'm not all that broken up about the declining possibility of DAYS moving to ABC, personally. I don't want MY show, the show that's been a big part of my life for the past 14 years anywhere near the destructive clutches of Brian Satan-Spawn Frons.

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.



  • Recent Posts

    • There has been some confusion about Michael & facial burns. Please see this post: https://bsky.app/profile/shallotpeel.bsky.social/post/3lqkrryu54226 I've chosen to put this here instead of the Classic Thread because it is now with the appearance of recast Michael that this has come up. Different places online, including at least one podcast, remarks have been made about how remarkable it is that he is without facial scarring. Other fans say it was clear from the first that he did not have facial burns. What is included in this post is 2 screengrabs where you can see his face at the hospital & a very quick edit of that day in the hospital. 
    • Put me in the LOVE KMH camp. As a poster alluded to above, her detractors seem to come from people who first experienced the 80s Emily actress. And that's often the case with soaps, myself included. I enjoy the original actor so much that I just never take to the recast. However, KMH played Emily far longer than the original - for almost 20 years - and when she had great material, she was great. I get the sense she didn't like playing the whiny oh-woe-is-me Emily which was all the material she got from about 1996 until she took over the Intruder in late '99/early '00 and got to play a stronger kiss-ass woman who didn't care what anyone thought of her. (Some would call that a bitch but, if a man was in that role, he'd just be called a smart and savvy businessman.) Her relationship with Hal was great. The transformation was done realistically and I thoroughly enjoyed those years the best out of all. Once the writers decided to break up those two, they went back to writing Emily half the time as whiny and pathetic. I preferred when the writers made her stronger.
    • Hahaha - I do. I've always been the type, though, that can't miss anything. I get FOMO, so I'll not skip episodes or fast forward anything. There are only a few TV shows I've dropped because they got so bad vs. sticking it out to the end.  The promise that GL 1997 is better is what keeps me going. I especially want to see the fallout of Blake's lie about her twins and then Annie's descent which I believe won Watros's Emmy.
    • Rita's rape is an episode i constantly search on YouTube hoping one day that it will show up. I always feel like I may have seen it, but I was only 6 at the time and can never figure any of the things I have vague recollection of 
    • FROM THE VAULT: NON-SOAP DAYTIME RATINGS: HIGHLIGHTS FROM FEBRUARY 1973 & MAY 1973:

      Please register in order to view this content

        FROM THE VAULT: NON-SOAP DAYTIME RATINGS: HIGHLIGHTS FROM AUGUST 1973 & NOVEMBER 1973:
    • The rape was in 1979 after they were married. Blake was the result of Holly cheating with him while she was married to Ed. I believe she was born in 1975. 
    • No. Ed and Holly were married and having problems. She had an affair with Roger and that's when Christina--Blake--was conceived. The rape happened much later, after Holly and Roger were married.
    • Was Blake the product of Roger raping Holly, or did that come after when they were a couple?
    • I really wish we could see that episode...absolutely, my memory could be faulty, it was a very long time ago. I'm not going to contradict what the actors said--there has to be a reason it made them so uncomfortable that they talked about it in the press and complained to TPTB. I think that was the first one where they made the point that they wanted to educate the audience about the subject.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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