Jump to content

April 21-25, 2008


Toups

Recommended Posts

  • Members

The show has been more balanced than it has been in years since the beginning of March. Meaning at least half of the top 10 has been characters over 45+ who have a long history with the show. The quality of writing has improved slowly since the beginning of March. Maybe it's just going to take time, often improvement doesn't quickly get results. Not that I think AMC is all that great but compared to strike-time and before it's better - though I'd much prefer Hubbard stuff like this week vs. the yelling and creeping in of the past that's been going on before it. And the improvement has to be consistent. These are kin to the numbers from October to mid-December (demos, HH, viewers). In the past 15 weeks since the returns there only been 5 weeks where they went up in viewers. Maybe that 2/25 (-300 grand) week turned off people long-term (awful, awful sextet week)?

2/25/08.....*6.....2.0.....07...*7) 1.3/08.....4) 1.0/06.....8) 15,000.....8) 2,588,000 (-308,000/-779,000)

3/3/08.......*6.....2.0.....07...*4) 1.3/08...*5) 0.7/05.....8) 11,000.....7) 2,559,000 (-029,000/-612,000)

3/10/08.....*5.....2.0.....07...*3) 1.3/08...*4) 0.8/05.....8) 18,000.....7) 2,546,000 (-013,000/-615,000)

3/17/08.....*6.....2.0.....06.....8) 1.2/07...*5) 0.8/05.....5) 38,000.....8) 2,515,000 (-031,000/-518,000)

3/24/08.....*6.....1.9.....06...*6) 1.2/08...*4) 0.8/05.....8) 20,000.....7) 2,461,000 (-054,000/-512,000)

3/31/08.....*6.....1.9.....06...*5) 1.2/07.....5) 0.7/05.....8) 16,000.....7) 2,413,000 (-048,000/-596,000)

4/7/08.........6.....2.0.....07...*5) 1.3/08...*5) 0.7/05.....8) 14,000.....6) 2,555,000 (+142,000/-514,000)

4/14/08.....*6.....1.9.....07.....7) 1.2/08...*6) 0.7/04.....5) 24,000.....7) 2,408,000 (-147,000/-710,000)

4/21/08.......7.....2.0.....07...*6) 1.1/08.....5) 0.7/05...*7) 20,000.....7) 2,466,000 (+058,000/-747,000)

ETA:

MONDAY, APRIL 21

1.(1) Y&R: Monday: 4.0/5,541,000 (+570,000)

2.(2) B&B: Monday: 2.8/4,020,000 (+553,000)

3.(3) ATWT: Monday: 2.1/3,052,000 (+218,000)

4.(4) DAYS: Monday: 2.2/2,961,000 (+232,000)

5.(5) GH: Monday: 2.3/2,940,000 (+333,000)

6.(7) OLTL: Monday: 2.1/2,613,000 (+478,000)

7.(8) AMC: Monday: 2.1/2,575,000 (+517,000)

8.(6) GL: Monday: 1.7/2,414,000 (-91,000)

TUESDAY, APRIL 22

1.(1) Y&R: Tuesday: 3.8/5,266,000 (-275,000)

2.(2) B&B: Tuesday: 2.8/3,788,000 (-232,000)

3.(5) GH: Tuesday: 2.4/3,144,000 (+204,000)

4.(4) DAYS: Tuesday: 2.2/3,036,000 (+75,000)

5.(3) ATWT: Tuesday: 2.2/2,909,000 (-143,000)

6.(6) OLTL: Tuesday: 2.1/2,806,000 (+193,000)

7.(7) AMC: Tuesday: 2.0/2,529,000 (-46,000)

8.(8) GL: Tuesday: 1.8/2,393,000 (-21,000)

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 23

1.(1) Y&R: Wednesday: 3.6/5,175,000 (-91,000)

2.(2) B&B: Wednesday: 2.6/3,549,000 (-239,000)

3.(3) GH: Wednesday: 2.4/3,213,000 (+69,000)

4.(4) DAYS: Wednesday: 2.1/2,965,000 (-71,000)

5.(5) ATWT: Wednesday: 2.1/2,855,000 (-54,000)

6.(6) OLTL: Wednesday: 2.1/2,658,000 (-148,000)

7.(7) AMC: Wednesday: 2.0/2,497,000 (-32,000)

8.(8) GL: Wednesday: 1.7/2,361,000 (-32,000)

THURSDAY, APRIL 24

1.(1) Y&R: Thursday: 4.0/5,534,000 (+359,000)

2.(2) B&B: Thursday: 2.8/3,931,000 (+382,000)

3.(5) ATWT: Thursday: 2.1/3,038,000 (+183,000)

4.(3) GH: Thursday: 2.2/2,844,000 (-369,000)

5.(4) DAYS: Thursday: 2.0/2,777,000 (-188,000)

6.(6) OLTL: Thursday: 2.0/2,537,000 (-121,000)

7.(8) GL: Thursday: 1.6/2,444,000 (+83,000)

8.(7) AMC: Thursday: 1.8/2,327,000 (-170,000)

FRIDAY, APRIL 25

1.(1) Y&R: Friday: 3.6/5,151,000 (-383,000)

2.(2) B&B: Friday: 2.5/3,609,000 (-322,000)

3.(4) GH: Friday: 2.4/2,999,000 (+155,000)

4.(3) ATWT: Friday: 1.9/2,725,000 (-313,000)

5.(6) OLTL: Friday: 2.1/2,689,000 (+152,000)

6.(5) DAYS: Friday: 2.0/2,681,000 (-96,000)

7.(8) AMC: Friday: 1.9/2,401,000 (+74,000)

8.(7) GL: Friday: 1.6/2,258,000 (-186,000)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 78
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members

I wonder if anyone cares about this thread not-on-a-Thursday.

If yes, I want to advance an alternative proposition to the general refrain of "bad writing is killing soaps" that recurs in this thread.

Maybe you saw the profusion of articles this week about how primetime ratings are awful, and way off from pre-WGA-strike levels. Last week, there was hue and cry about how American Idol's ratings are way off.

Today's USA Today says, in part "Ratings shortfalls for some top series have sparked Hollywood hand-wringing...shows...hit all-time lows in recent weeks...[and] are down sharply from last spring. Some observers blame the writer's strike."

The article goes on to say it is more than the strike...that DVR recording is part of the story. 24% of homes now have DVRs, compared to 16% last Spring.

So, here's the thing:

Entertainment ratings are down across the board. I'm at a conference now, and we're talking about those "millenials"...folks who are now in their 20s and younger. And the truth of the matter is, so the theme goes, this is a much more active and less consumeristic (in the sense of passively watching entertainment) generation.

The eyeballs have fled passive TV (and movies at the theater and video store) across the board. Numbers are down everywhere.

Where are they? Apparently World of Warcraft as 12 million (!) PAID subscribers. Apparently Grand Theft Auto IV did $400 million (!) in sales since its release. These are, as you know, immerse storylines where users control the tools and create the narrative.

Along with Myspace, Facebook and so forth, these are also more inherently social situations than the old sit-and-watch TV.

===

So, if passive entertainment is in decline across the board (books and magazines ain't faring very well either, by the way), then why are we wringing our hands about every soap rating decimal? IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH SOAPS.

I will confess, soaps have an extra disadvantage. Their daytime presentation means the core viewers (women 18-49) are out of the house (as we all know). Soaps are also "uncool" and "products of grandmother's generation", and those are extra disadvantages.

Again, I am personally a lover of the genre...obsessively so...but I'm in the minority. Soaps are considered dreck and dregs outside of our little communities here, and NOTHING has ever changed that.

With grandma-and-mom out of the house, soaps lost their "community" or "social appeal". Many of us started watching WITH our multi-generational families. So that means soaps offered a social component IN ADDITION to their narrative "worlds without end". But those days are over.

Indeed, I think these online soap communities, with SON being Number One (in my book), represent an attempt for "millenials" and those of us who love them to try to bring social community BACK to the soaps.

===

So, here's my question? Why are we all so busily trashing the writers and producers and blaming them for every little decimal-point random walk in the ratings? The whole concept of passive entertainment is dying, and taking soaps with it. On top of that, the daytime time slot and the uncool figure put the final nails in the coffin of a genre that comes from a bygone era (radio, for cryin' out loud).

I really mean the above paragraph as a QUESTION, not a criticism. I trash the writers as much as anyone :-). But why do we do it. What we're seeing in soap ratings HAS NOTHING TO DO with what is being put on screen. It has to do with much larger social and cultural movements that are out of TPTB control.

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

    • These contract guarantees of 1 ep per month are ridiculous. How can you even have a story if your character apprars 4-5 times in a month? It's sad.
    • It's hard to tell with some actors appearing on average 4 times in a month whether they're recurring or just on a low guarantee contract. Someone recurring  like Beth Maitland can be used a lot for several months then disappear. So the monthly tallies aren't enough to go by.
    • Of the so-called "contract" cast members, I'd venture to say these are recurring: Bryton James, Camryn Grimes, and (possibly) Michael Graziadei.  I've suspected since 2018 that Kate Linder and Christian LeBlanc are recurring.  And I believe we all know Miss Ordway is, because she said so. lol.  
    • Dante blaming Gio instead of his dweeb son and the other dweeb was just ridiculous. Gio's paternity story is going in circles with no reveal. I've already started fast forwarding Drew and his stupid ho Willow's story. Kristina's story is beyond dumb with no great payoff.
    • Sarah (with the English accent) isn't just some random character.  Sarah was once the housekeeper for Eliot Dorn and Margo Huntington.  One of the following 2 scenarios happened a few months ago: (1):  One night, while Margo wasn't at home, and while Oscar the Doorman wasn't at his post, a burglar sneaked into the private elevator, rode up to the penthouse, stole several thousand dollars worth of Margo's valuable diamonds and pearls, and tied-up Eliot Dorn and Sarah the Housekeeper, ensuring that Eliot and Sarah couldn't pursue the burglar back down to the lobby or phone the police to apprehend the burglar. OR --  (2): Eliot Dorn was SLEEPING with Sarah the Housekeeper, and the two of them conspired to steal Margo's jewelry and went on a lavish spending spree and then tied THEMSELVES up to make it look as though a burglary had occurred in the penthouse. Margo Dorn currently believes Scenario #1 occurred, and she's rather annoyed that the "incompetent police" haven't located her stolen jewels yet.  Eliot and Sarah know that Scenario #2 actually occurred.  When Sarah stopped by the Unicorn and saw Eliot kissing Raven Swift, Sarah snidely said, "Oh! This must be Mrs. Dorn!  Nice to meet you, Mrs. Dorn!" Sarah knew good & damn well Raven isn't "Mrs. Dorn" because Sarah worked for Margo Dorn on a daily basis for many months.  That was Sarah's not-so-subtle way of announcing, "I'll be paying a visit to District Attorney Logan Swift and letting him know that his wife is sleeping with you, and I'll be paying a visit to WMON to let Margo Huntington know that you're sleeping with Mrs. Swift!"  lol.     
    • The AMC hate came from Jamey Giddens/DC and their industry friends, IMO. For whatever reason I always felt they targeted the show, and it was wrong. AMC ratings were decent and even went up under Pratt (Yet, he was fired). The ratings were also good under Broderick and lowered out after her interim.  There was no reason to be upset with the show other than it being slow. They literally played it safe and did the best they could in 2010 and 2011. 
    • I have very detailed synopses of all 1976 storylines for the soaps from the Daytime Serial Newsletter. Please let me know if you are interested in a particular show and I will post it in the appropriate thread. As I stated they are very detailed, so I don't want to clutter up threads if posters are not interested.
    • Please register in order to view this content

       
    • Surely we (and Billy Flynn) are not going to be saddled with a character named Aristotle Dumas? This isn't 1970's Edge of Night.
    • What annoys me a little bit about the "day players" is they sound a bit too "Brooklyn-ish" sometimes.  Obviously, the show was taped in New York City, and the actors are all New York actors, but Monticello is supposed to be located in Illinois or Ohio.  Occasionally, they grab actors and actresses for small roles who have VERY distinct New York accents, which contrasts sharply with the main cast, none of whom have noticeable accents (except for our dashing European gigolo, Eliot Dorn, of course).  The heavy Brooklyn accent works fine if the character is a bookie, or the owner of a pawn shop, or a guy who's selling stolen guns on the street corner.  But when it's a steadily recurring character -- such as the first Mrs. Goodman, who worked for Miles and Nicole -- it's pretty jarring to me sometimes.  And you'll see it often -- such as an "under-five" character who witnesses a car accident, or a character who witnesses a shooting, or the occasional desk clerk, or waiter.  
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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