Jump to content

February 11-15, 2008


Toups

Recommended Posts

  • Webmaster

GH had a higher percentage of available total viewers watching television during its timeslot than DAYS did. However, more people as a group tuned into DAYS than they did for GH.

Therefore, GH had more HH's, but DAYS had more viewers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 125
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members

Almost all these stories are either up to the eye of the beholder or being really misrepresented by you. For instance, if Ramsey was Spencer he wouldn't be reviled by everyone; he'd also be invincible (whereas even drag queens were able to take Ramsey down) and suck up huge amounts of airtime. He's really not on that much. Also, Hunt Block is a much better actor, and making a dangerous character like Ramsey Commissioner and unseating Bo opens up both the LPD characters and Bo for new storylines. But if you don't like Nora, Jared, Todd and Blair, Rex, whatever, I can't help you. That's just your opinion. And it's not universal any more than mine is. It just happens that we both have many people who agree with either of us, whereas this time last year all anybody agreed on was that the show was miserably bad and had virtually no interesting couples or storylines (including, yes, anything with a certain someone). And that's no longer a universal fact today.

Well, they booked a vaudeville group from the 20s, yes, but instead they had to get Mary J. Blige, what can I say?

You realize you just answered your own question, right?

But to elaborate for your benefit, I think there are at least two or three great, layered umbrella storylines on the show that mix in and intertwine with each other and give many characters, old and new, innovative new material. Rex has been explored in a way he never has been before and is suddenly watchable again to a lot of people who wrote him off last year. Gigi is an appealing new love interest and a great friend for Viki, and Charlie and Viki have been wonderful. Todd and Blair have, for at least some people, been refreshed and made watchable again. Consistency and family has returned. Characterization and three-dimensional storytelling is back. Do I think the Jared scam is incredibly original? No, we've seen a fake Buchanan story before, that's true. However, the way it's been done, the skill of it, and the skill with which they've woven it into other new stories so well and so intelligently, while making it part of the larger umbrella of the Buchanans being forced to come together at BE after Asa's death, or while showing Charlie being tempted to go with the loving fake son (Rex) and forget his true son (Jared), and how that story even plays into the stories of Rex, Roxy, Alison, Jessica, etc., is what makes it so interesting to me. That and the fact that Jared and Natalie are great together, and she, like many other women on the show, has been redefined as her own person again.

Yes, I'd like to see Nora and Lindsay doing something else, but I am very grateful that they have the airtime and the good writing they have. I'll let the story continue to unfold because right now I'm not tired of it. The only big duds for me on the show are Bo/Lindsay (which seems like it is an actor thing) and the continued presence of John, Cole, Vincent and Layla. And even the teens story is compelling when it focuses on the troubled relationship between Starr and Langston and not so much Cole in between them.

Your mileage may vary, but I see a show going forward with the future while still respecting the past. Whereas AMC has Angie and Jesse, yes, and a better series of black characters, definitely, but virtually no good story for anyone or anything, black or white. The story unfolding about Jesse's "death" is passable at best - only DM, DW and Cornelius Smith(?) make it entertaining, and that's when they keep fixing the dialogue. With AMC, I only watch Angie, Jesse and Frankie. With OLTL, I can't miss a thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

1.(1) Y&R: Monday, 2/11: 4.4/6,006,000

2.(2) B&B: Monday, 2/11: 3.0/3,983,000

3.(3) ATWT: Monday, 2/11: 2.4/3,253,000

4.(6) GL: Monday, 2/11: 2,0/2,963,000

5.(5) DAYS: Monday, 2/11: 2.2/2,947,000

6.(7) AMC: Monday, 2/11: 2.2/2,825,000

7.(4) GH: Monday, 2/11: 2.2/2,752,000

8.(8) OLTL: Monday, 2/11: 2.1/2,636,000

1.(1) Y&R: Tuesday, 2/12: 4.3/6,075,000

2.(2) B&B: Tuesday, 2/12: 3.1/4,299,000

3.(3) ATWT: Tuesday, 2/12: 2.6/3,512,000

4.(7) GH: Tuesday, 2/12: 2.4/3,103,000

5.(5) DAYS: Tuesday, 2/12: 2.3/3,032,000

6.(4) GL: Tuesday, 2/12: 2,1/2,796,000

7.(8) OLTL: Tuesday, 2/12: 2.2/2,765,000

8.(6) AMC: Tuesday, 2/12: 2.1/2,732,000

1.(1) Y&R: Wednesday, 2/13: 4.1/5,751,000

2.(2) B&B: Wednesday, 2/13: 2.9/3,821,000

3.(3) ATWT: Wednesday, 2/13: 2.3/3,119,000

4.(5) DAYS: Wednesday, 2/13: 2.2/3,064,000

5.(4) GH: Wednesday, 2/13: 2.2/3,017,000

6.(8) AMC: Wednesday, 2/13: 2.2/2,757,000

7.(6) GL: Wednesday, 2/13: 2.0/2,724,000

8.(7) OLTL: Wednesday, 2/13: 2.0/2,566,000

1.(1) Y&R: Thursday, 2/14: 4.0/5,435,000

2.(2) B&B: Thursday, 2/14: 2.8/3,711,000

3.(4) DAYS: Thursday, 2/14: 2.1/2,882,000

4.(3) ATWT: Thursday, 2/14: 2.2/2,877,000

5.(5) GH: Thursday, 2/14: 2.3/2,808,000

6.(7) GL: Thursday, 2/14: 1.9/2,611,000

7.(8) OLTL: Thursday, 2/14: 2.1/2,547,000

8.(6) AMC: Thursday, 2/14: 2.0/2,512,000

1.(1) Y&R: Friday, 2/15: 4.1/5,946,000

2.(2) B&B: Friday, 2/15: 2.9/4,217,000

3.(4) ATWT: Friday, 2/15: 2.2/3,269,000

4.(3) DAYS: Friday, 2/15: 2.1/2,887,000

5.(5) GH: Friday, 2/15: 2.2/2,729,000

6.(6) GL: Friday, 2/15: 1.8/2,690,000

7.(8) AMC: Friday, 2/15: 2.1/2,653,000

8.(7) OLTL: Friday, 2/15: 2.1/2,575,000

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Webmaster

I should correct myself,

A household ratings is a percentage on average of how many households were watching a program at any given moment in time. The share is a percentage of all televisions in use during the airing of a program.

This means that there could be 2.3 million households watching GH, but 7 percent of all televisions in use during GH were tuned to ABC for the show. There can be 5 TV's in a household tuned to GH, but only once will the household be counted. This is where Total Viewers comes in.

The share does not deem a show as better quality than another. It just shows what viewers find more interest in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Now I see the problem! You seem to be operating under the impression that I'm submitting my opinion for some kind of approval or validation. Let me be clearer. You asked me what makes RC's writing out of date other than the fact that I'd rather see someone else writing. I turned the question back on you to make a point. My opinion is no more valid than yours. And yours is no more valid than mine.

I don't like Ron's writing. I find it boring, trite and irrelevant. I think he's been skating by on the fact that Higley was a nightmare. And no matter how many publicist-planted stories show up in the mags touting him as the messiah of daytime, my opinion won't change. You seem to have taken an unusual level of offense at my disdain for the show. I know a lot of people hated it last year (and BTW I have no idea who a "certain someone" is. I'm guessing John? I like the guy but the character like many under Ron's pen has become a bore. I'm desperately hoping ME leaves this sinking ship.) but a lot of people hate it now too. And a lot more people just aren't watching anymore.

You obviously enjoy Ron's writing. Wonderful. Kudos. Celebrate! I only hope you can find enough flowers to fill all the crystal vases! I don't need you to "help" me, elaborate for my "benefit" or discuss my varying "mileage."

We disagree. So be it. Why the drama?

I stand by my original comment. ABC needs a clean sweep and that includes RC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

My guess is that Frons is actually quite pleased with the ratings for AMC for last week. They did well in the 18-49 demo and that is the only one that matters to him. Who cares if they were almost in last place in total viewers and households. Those other age groups don't matter. :rolleyes:

It is pretty sad that Days is doing better than the ABC soaps and that is the one most likely going to be canceled. I think other than the loss of 3 million viewers for ABC daytime, Frons is doing one heck of good job!!!!!! :blink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Thank you for a very fair and balanced post. LML is very unfairly criticized, and I often see on boards folks get into almost a feeding frenzy of LML criticism... even going after things that occured before her tenure on y/r. IOW, if it's bad, it must be LML's fault.

the ratings ROSE under her hand, at least at first. Then they dropped. and in the end, it was (almost) a wash. I came from the horrible Fronzified ABC soaps over to Y/R and was sooo delighted to see, UNDER LML, a more balanced cast than I had seen on ABC for years... VETS having front burner stories... I could enjoy soaps again. I no longer felt like the genre was doomed.

Any writer has their problems... but LML had some victories as well was some misses. Let's hope CBS/SONY doesn't toss the baby with the bathwater.

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

    • BTG: A-  DAYS: B+  Eastenders: C
    • There was a rumor that Jean will die and that’s probably why she’s back then
    • 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.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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