I've seen several people on various boards suggest recently that having AMC as the lead-in is dragging OLTL and GH down.

Up until recently I felt that OLTL and GH would rise or fall on their own merits; if people wanted to watch those shows then they would watch, regardless of the state of AMC.

However I've read many people state that if their TV is on ABC at 1:00 for AMC then chances are they will leave it there and it will be on ABC at 2:00 and 3:00. However if they don't bother tuning into AMC then chances are their TV will not be tuned to ABC at 2:00 and 3:00 for OLTL and GH. If they watched Y&R instead of AMC then chances are they will stick with the CBS line-up for that day.

I'm starting to believe AMC has become a complete liability to the line-up.

I've seen several people on various boards suggest recently that having AMC as the lead-in is dragging OLTL and GH down.

Up until recently I felt that OLTL and GH would rise or fall on their own merits; if people wanted to watch those shows then they would watch, regardless of the state of AMC.

However I've read many people state that if their TV is on ABC at 1:00 for AMC then chances are they will leave it there and it will be on ABC at 2:00 and 3:00. However if they don't bother tuning into AMC then chances are their TV will not be tuned to ABC at 2:00 and 3:00 for OLTL and GH. If they watched Y&R instead of AMC then chances are they will stick with the CBS line-up for that day.

I'm starting to believe AMC has become a complete liability to the line-up.

I don't subscribe to the lead in theory much. Because AMC is now higher than OLTL and GH has always been higher than both but I wholeheartedly agree that AMC has an unusually toxic effect on the whole lineup. AMC was the shining star of daytime and Susan Lucci could arguably be called the queen of soaps. (I said 'arguably' so don't jump on me folks!) She's easily daytime's most recognizable star to people who don't watch soaps. I've often thought of AMC as a "gateway" soap a sort of bridge that could turn non soap watchers into soap watchers. Now unfortunately... you know how certain poisons accumulate in certain organs faster? Like carbon monoxide displaces oxygen and mercury accumulates in the brain, all the garbage at ABC has settled in most acutely at AMC. Everything wrong with ABC can be seen most clearly at AMC. And I think it has "poisoned" the rest of the body. I mean really, what else could we call that pole dancing crap besides poison?

JMHO.

At first I was surprised OLTL had sunk down to last. The show, even under scab writing, is much better than it was under Higley. They were getting tons of publicity for the lead story. However, the whole canvas does have a number of problems, as does that lead story. .

Starr and Cole consumating should have been some type of couple payoff, but it wasn't. Starr and Cole may be getting a 'super-couple' treatment, and they fit the formula almost too nicely, but they just are NOT a super couple. Cole simply just isn't popular enough to carry this story or that load. They've orphaned the character, stuck him with idol Easton and Nora, even teased him with Langston - and he should be a figure tied in Llanview history. Still, my feeling upon hearing this story spoiled was 'does that mean Starr is stuck with Cole for ANOTHER year?' (I know Frons loves Starr and COle, but I'd think even a random sampling of the viewing audience might indicate it's not everything it could and should be.)

The angle that had any appeal for me was Todd vs. Starr, but even that is minimal. Todd running from Ramsey and beating up teens? Sounds more like must-miss than must see. Starr has been watered down for so long, this feud doesn't have the zing it would have four years ago. KA's youthful appearance only adds an ick factor reminiscent of Higley's OLTL. My real issue is that Cole is just so not worth the feud. (Now, Travis might have been...even Markko MIGHT have been, but he's been blanded as well.) Sticking John's nose into it only made certain I would avoid it. It's not like he has a dog in the fight.

I don't mind a good teen story, but the teen stories are creeping up earlier and earlier, and I don't see much of interest in this teen scene -- especially since they've made the character I would have the most sympathy with into a total jerk(Todd). Blair's a dupe, and Nora irrelevant. Not even the BE story could make me tune in these days...so why am I surprised others didn't?

Edited March 14, 200817 yr by ZaraB

Damn! I pulled out one of my best soap box speeches too.

I KNOW (LOL)! When I was reading it, I was like, "Damn, she just cut a bitch," lol.

It was fierce - and again, I apologize.

I mean really, what else could we call that pole dancing crap besides poison?

A serious cry for alcohol counseling? 'Cuz, you know, B&E have to be hitting the bottle hard to think that was compelling entertainment.

I don't think AMC is a liability to the ABCD lineup. I think Brian Frons is the liability.

Edited March 14, 200817 yr by Khan

A serious cry for alcohol counseling? 'Cuz, you know, B&E have to be hitting the bottle hard to think that was compelling entertainment.

I don't think AMC is a liability to the ABCD lineup. I think Brian Frons is the liability.

Did Frons wear out his video of Antonio stripping?

Frons is the liability.

Did Frons wear out his video of Antonio stripping?

Frons is the liability.

He could probably use KDLR's bumper. It may not have the explicit content, but it does have the same attitude.

I mean really, what else could we call that pole dancing crap besides poison?

I completely agree!!

A serious cry for alcohol counseling? 'Cuz, you know, B&E have to be hitting the bottle hard to think that was compelling entertainment.

I don't think AMC is a liability to the ABCD lineup. I think Brian Frons is the liability.

I'm just sick of Frons' pets and bringing stuff that his pets do in real life to the show. Rebecca Bugid mentions in an interview she pole dances, suddenly GREENLEE suggests pole dancing. Koinkydink? I think not

Cameron Mathison was on Dancing with the Stars, and suddenly we get Maksim from DWTS on the show.

Yet they wouldn't even let Lucci off a year or so ago when she wanted to do DWTS(but they pretty much gave Cam, the sun, the moon and the stars)

So you're right, Frons is the liability. Doesn't help he keeps hiring hacks for AMC. I fear if they're not gone soon AMC will be cancelled in less than a year

While it's true , damn true that CM&RB are Frons pets so are TK&AM.

IMO La Lucci would have really done some good for AMC if she had done DWTS.

ALL ABC NEEDS TO DO IS FIRE FRONS!

As for the Vegas, I like their stories now a lot, and I used to like them much more (I loved Antonio in the 90s) but I don't think you can deny that Antonio was widely despised by a great many fans from 2000 until maybe a year ago. I don't think you'll find a huge hue and cry for more frontburner time for the Vegas after that. I like Antonio/Talia a lot, and I like the rapport with the brothers, but after he tanked story after story I think Tonio's airtime is just right. The point to all this is, I think major storyline for Latino and AA characters is an essential component of the show, and there needs to be more of it, but just because Vincent, Layla and Antonio are what we have right now, that doesn't mean they're what we should use. There is almost no interest in Vincent and Layla, and we've already established the problem with Antonio (which I don't think can be disputed after six or seven years of hatred from fans). So why not add better AA/Latino characters, promote RJ as well, and keep Antonio where he is, mid-burner? Do you really think fans have the patience for another frontburner storyline with Antonio Vega? After Tess, the Santis, Java and Keri?

And as for RC, I don't remember him being hailed as a savior by fans until after he got into the job. Most of us expected more of the same old crap and that Asa's funeral would be just a temporary stunt. I think people were quite surprised when there turned out to be a real increase in the show's quality and writing. I know I was. Now not everyone may feel this way, but the fact is that the way I remember it, the praise came after his work started airing. You can't blame every fan's feelings on a couple overzealous soap columnists. And you can't say that just because you didn't enjoy it that nobody else could've.

I think the reason people were willing to respond to Andrew, Marty, etc then and are sometimes more reluctant to respond to Gigi, Jared, Charlie now - aside from the fact that, obviously, Bob Krimmer and Susan Haskell were brilliant actors - is because of the atmosphere of daytime today. Back then people hadn't been fucked with for years with bad stories, overpropped pets, newbies, etc. In the intervening years, fans have been jerked around, are often downtrodden and angry, waiting to see how the new character will cost someone else they love a place on the canvas. Any new character out of the gate now has to fight to make it a mile with any fan goodwill - and that's even if, like the new characters I mentioned (at least IMO), they have good actors in the roles.

I think we often have a right to be angry nowadays, but I think sometimes we're too trigger-happy. I think Carlivati's newbies have been introduced almost perfectly, and maybe with less of a heavy hand than some of Malone's introductions - but that was 1991-1996. This is 2008. People change, the atmosphere has changed.

As for Todd, the question is how many times can you tell the same story. Almost all his storylines feature him as an antagonist, with romance as a sidestory. I think that's totally appropriate for his nasty character, and that he should always be the antihero and not the Romeo, but Todd has revisited the rape over and over and over. I thought his material last week was brilliant, and did unveil another facet of his neuroses, but there's only so many places that can go that Todd hasn't gone to before. He can be a continuing antihero, but not every story should be about his psychosexual hang-ups. He's quite frankly starting to run out of them.

Vee will you marry me?

Well written posts. I couldn't agree more.

I actually prefer BW in the role now than ET. I also agree that Clint Ritchie and Roger Howarth are not the solutions to what ails the show or the characters of Clint and Todd. I also think that as a general rule any character can be played by multiple actors. However, I don't think the replacements are working like they once did. CC's Marty was not a case of an ES taking over a prior role and making it hers. Somehow there has to be a middle ground between viewing an actor as a fungible unit and a sacred cow.

True, I think OLTL is hiring pretty people now instead of actors who will take control of the part. ET, Clint Ritchie, Roger Howarth, REG, all left for their own reasons. They were not fired. REG may be different but it sounds like it was contract. That one is iffy though.

Now, I will say that I am pissed about Dan G. It's no because the part could not be recast, it is because it reflects so much about what is wrong with OLTL. Dan G. got canned by Frank because he told the truth. Now we can all points fingers at Frons, and he is a huge huge problem, but canning Dan was Frank. So why does that stink? Because it had nothing to do with viewers -- in fact viewers loved him in the part; it had nothing to do with the character; it really had nothing to do with the actor -- from everything I read he was a great cast member and is sorely missed. It was entirely Frank getting his little panties in a knot.

That is what is wrong with OLTL. That show does not give one flip about the viewers and that attitude has not changed one bit. I don't blame RC, but I also don't think the show has improved under his pen and it won't because it has fundamental flaws that one writer can not fix.

While it's true , damn true that CM&RB are Frons pets so are TK&AM.

Thanks I so needed that laugh. They're not even close to being his pets. Frons has said he doesn't get AM's appeal(probably cause she's not a blonde with big boobs), and it's obvious he doesn't get TK's popularity or appeal either

That is what is wrong with OLTL. That show does not give one flip about the viewers and that attitude has not changed one bit. I don't blame RC, but I also don't think the show has improved under his pen and it won't because it has fundamental flaws that one writer can not fix.

This I agree with

Edited March 18, 200817 yr by Zendall Fan

If you're not the one that tried to explain to me why Vincent and Layla deserved to be frontburner because they're sooo talented, then I sincerely apologize. I would love to see TDS/RJ frontburner myself, and I simply do not find Tika Sumpter and TT remotely worthy of my attention or interest simply by virtue of the fact that they happen to be African-American (and either boring as hell or completely untalented in the case of Truvillion). I would prefer to say better black characters/actors brought on, as well as see RJ get their airtime x 100.

As for the Vegas, I like their stories now a lot, and I used to like them much more (I loved Antonio in the 90s) but I don't think you can deny that Antonio was widely despised by a great many fans from 2000 until maybe a year ago. I don't think you'll find a huge hue and cry for more frontburner time for the Vegas after that. I like Antonio/Talia a lot, and I like the rapport with the brothers, but after he tanked story after story I think Tonio's airtime is just right. The point to all this is, I think major storyline for Latino and AA characters is an essential component of the show, and there needs to be more of it, but just because Vincent, Layla and Antonio are what we have right now, that doesn't mean they're what we should use. There is almost no interest in Vincent and Layla, and we've already established the problem with Antonio (which I don't think can be disputed after six or seven years of hatred from fans). So why not add better AA/Latino characters, promote RJ as well, and keep Antonio where he is, mid-burner? Do you really think fans have the patience for another frontburner storyline with Antonio Vega? After Tess, the Santis, Java and Keri?

And as for RC, I don't remember him being hailed as a savior by fans until after he got into the job. Most of us expected more of the same old crap and that Asa's funeral would be just a temporary stunt. I think people were quite surprised when there turned out to be a real increase in the show's quality and writing. I know I was. Now not everyone may feel this way, but the fact is that the way I remember it, the praise came after his work started airing. You can't blame every fan's feelings on a couple overzealous soap columnists. And you can't say that just because you didn't enjoy it that nobody else could've.

Vee, I'm going to respectfully disagree with you on one point, and it is not even a total disagreement. I agree with much of what you said about newbies. I disagree about the introduction of one newby. I think Jared is way overexposed and was introduced poorly, very poorly. Giving him a family, also a newbie family, was a big mistake IMO. I think it hurt the character of Charlie also because instead of it being a sweet love story between Viki and Charlie, the story is now about the Newbie Family and Charlie's relationship to Jared. Jared is the star of the story, not Charlie and not Viki. Also -- and again I admit I don't watch now -- it's seemed Jared was always smarter than other characters. IMO, OLTL blew it with this character. This is another one that I don't blame RC for. OLTL just doesn't learn that you can't create this newbie and cram him down people's throat. Jared had some appeal at first, but I think his overexposure and his Spencer-like brilliance and heroics were a mistake.

By the way, I agree totally with you about overzealous soap columnist. Nelson Bracco has not done RC any favors. LOL.

True, I think OLTL is hiring pretty people now instead of actors who will take control of the part. ET, Clint Ritchie, Roger Howarth, REG, all left for their own reasons. They were not fired. REG may be different but it sounds like it was contract. That one is iffy though.

Now, I will say that I am pissed about Dan G. It's not because the part could not be recast, it is because it reflects so much about what is wrong with OLTL. Dan G. got canned by Frank because he told the truth. Now we can all points fingers at Frons, and he is a huge huge problem, but canning Dan was Frank. So why does that stink? Because it had nothing to do with viewers -- in fact viewers loved him in the part; it had nothing to do with the character; it really had nothing to do with the actor -- from everything I read he was a great cast member and is sorely missed. It was entirely Frank getting his little panties in a knot.

That is what is wrong with OLTL. That show does not give one flip about the viewers and that attitude has not changed one bit. I don't blame RC, but I also don't think the show has improved under his pen and it won't because it has fundamental flaws that one writer can not fix.

Just to add insult to injury where Dan G was concerned. When news of Dan's firing hit and fans started to campaign for him, (at the urging of his castmates) TIIC shoved him out the door SOONER. That's right. They moved up his exit date. Talk about getting panties in a knot. Frank not only took out his anger on Dan, he took it out on Dan's fans for daring to state what we wanted. And after reading how Frank refuses to allow Forbes March to cut his hair, I'm pretty convinced the guy's been taking lessons from Frons on how to be a controlling douchebag.

And I know somebody's going to jump on me for this, but on the subject of contract negotiations I think that Martha Byrne has done her fellow actors and their fans a tremendous services by spilling some of the details of her contract negotiations. How many times have we seen actors slandered for being "demanding" or acting like "divas" during their contract negs after receiving a "generous" offer? How many times do we read rumors that "actor x" was demanding storyline approval or "the sun, the moon and the stars?" Or worse yet, how many actors - like Dan G. - have been kicked to the curb because of "focus group feedback" when really it was managerial spite? I completely understand the need and desire to keep contract negotiations confidential but I hope more actors start speaking out.