Jump to content

June 9-13, 2008


Toups

Recommended Posts

  • Members

MONDAY, JUNE 9

1.(1) Y&R: Monday: 3.6/5,015,000 (-44,000)

2.(2) B&B: Monday: 2.7/3,776,000 (+31,000)

3.(5) ATWT: Monday: 2.1/3,018,000 (+322,000)

4.(3) GH: Monday: 2.2/2,891,000 (-114,000)

5.(4) OLTL: Monday: 2.1/2,774,000 (-5,000)

6.(8) DAYS: Monday: 2.1/2,748,000 (+997,000)

7.(6) AMC: Monday: 2.0/2,576,000 (+94,000)

8.(7) GL: Monday: 1.7/2,422,000 (+213,000)

TUESDAY, JUNE 10

1.(1) Y&R: Tuesday: 3.6/5,077,000 (+62,000)

2.(2) B&B: Tuesday: 2.7/3,643,000 (-133,000)

3.(7) AMC: Tuesday: 2.1/2,754,000 (+178,000)

4.(4) GH: Tuesday: 2.1/2,732,000 (-159,000)

5.(6) DAYS: Tuesday: 1.9/2,668,000 (-80,000)

6.(5) OLTL: Tuesday: 2.0/2,653,000 (-121,000)

7.(3) ATWT: Tuesday: 2.0/2,618,000 (-400,000)

8.(8) GL: Tuesday: 1.6/2,411,000 (-11,000)

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 11

1.(1) Y&R: Wednesday: 3.5/4,681,000 (-396,000)

2.(2) B&B: Wednesday: 2.6/3,613,000 (-30,000)

3.(4) GH: Wednesday: 2.2/2,914,000 (+182,000)

4.(5) DAYS: Wednesday: 2.1/2,910,000 (+242,000)

5.(6) OLTL: Wednesday: 2.1/2,697,000 (+44,000)

6.(7) ATWT: Wednesday: 1.9/2,597,000 (-21,000)

7.(3) AMC: Wednesday: 2.0/2,508,000 (-246,000)

8.(8) GL: Wednesday: 1.7/2,331,000 (-80,000)

THURSDAY, JUNE 12

1.(1) Y&R: Thursday: 3.3/4,767,000 (+86,000

2.(2) B&B: Thursday: 2.4/3,496,000 (-117,000)

3.(3) GH: Thursday: 2.1/2,604,000 (-310,000)

4.(6) ATWT: Thursday: 1.8/2,430,000 (-167,000

5.(5) OLTL: Thursday: 2.0/2,401,000 (-296,000)

6.(4) DAYS: Thursday: 1.8/2,345,000 (-565,000)

7.(7) AMC: Thursday: 1.9/2,330,000 (-178,000)

8.(8) GL: Thursday: 1.4/2,035,000 (-296,000)

FRIDAY, JUNE 13

1.(1) Y&R: Friday: 3.3/4,380,000 (-387,000)

2.(2) B&B: Friday: 2.4/3,442,000 (-54,000)

3.(3) GH: Friday: 2.2/2,814,000 (+210,000)

4.(5) OLTL: Friday: 2.1/2,742,000 (+341,000)

5.(7) AMC: Friday: 2.0/2,514,000 (+184,000)

6.(4) ATWT: Friday: 1.7/2,281,000 (-149,000)

7.(8) GL: Friday: 1.6/2,174,000 (+139,000)

8.(6) DAYS: Friday: 1.6/2,097,000 (-248,000)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 109
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members

IMHO, Hogan did destroy ATWT. I don't appreciate how he made Barbara a head case, or Craig unredeemable. He was also, to my knowledge, the first HW to write wacky sci-fi crap into the show. Y&R... you're next!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Sylph is definitely right.... Y&R fans (including me) are so depressed that they'd take ANYTHING and ANYONE (besides Latham) just to get Y&R out of the mess that it is in. It's a shame to see the #1 soap falling so low. I am sure that we'll NEVER see Y&R reaching 4.0 again. Never.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

The only except in not-so-recent memory, I think, was GH. That DID pull itself up, for a few years (early 1980s), before rejoining the general decline trajectory. Maybe it is Thom Racina and not Hogan Sheffer who will save the show.

Also, I didn't realize this Lisa Seidman had such LML ties. Maybe she will "save" Y&R like LML did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

It may not be true. I haven't seen it referenced elsewhere. Though it really is cool...tying that character to that legacy character.... who has ties with... well...it would be cool if true.

Now, if only OLTL ratings would follow with this upsurge in cool.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

You're right about Bloom. She doesn't get nearly the criticism that Frons at ABC gets, and she's responsible in large measure for the pitiful state of the CBS daypart. In the day when Lucy Johnson was in charge of the CBS daypart, she took a hands off approach, if she trusted the writer(s) heading her network's soaps. Bill Bell often commented on this, and he was grateful not to have network suits butting into the day-to-day. Barbara Bloom's approach is just the opposite. She micro-manages everything, or tries to. Her biggest mistake, however, is bringing her friend Lynn Marie Latham to Y&R. Bloom never understood Y&R appeal. She never understood what a different soap it was from all the rest. And because she didn't, she and Latham "overhauled" a show that didn't need overhauling. Tweaking a bit, perhaps. But gutting a show creatively like was done to Y&R, I think, is one of the biggest blunders in the history of daytime programming. Consider all the talent that is no longer at Y&R: ED SCOTT, KATHRYN FOSTER, NOEL MAXUM, KAY ALDEN, JACK SMITH, JIM HOUGHTON, SALLY SUSSMAN, JANICE FERRI ESSER, JOSHUA MCCAFFREY, REX M. BEST, MICHAEL MINNIS, SARA BIBEL, TRENT JONES, JERRY BIRN. These people were the heart and soul of Y&R for many, many years. All are gone now, probably never to return. As hard as Maria Bell may be trying to return the show to its former roots, she can't do it without the people who made Y&R the success it was (along with the late great Bill Bell, of course). For that reason alone, Bloom should be axed now, especially since her blunder has impacted the entire CBS soap lineup. As Y&R goes, so goes the lineup. I'm beginning to think the show will never recover, even if they brought back the old team that made the show so poupular.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

The show is beyond mind-numbing. The pairings don't work. There are so few characters to care about any longer. Everyone "sounds" the same. The soap is generic. It's lost its voice. It's lost its soul. It's lost its way. Just like the other CBS soaps. And soaps in general.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Soaps don't have time for headwriters to "find their groove." If a headwriter is hired by a show, then that headwriter should be prepared to hit the ground running. Are Y&R fans supposed to wait months for Hogan to learn Y&R and "find his groove?" This show is sinking fast. Instead, why not bring on a new headwriter who has history with the show, who understands Y&R's uniqueness, who doesn't need a learning curve. There are any number of writers who left Y&R or who got purged, thanks to LML, who could step start turning things around from day one. Or better still, put together a headwriting team like GL once did (with Curlee, Demorest, Reilly, Brodericlk) using former Y&R writers who work well together, but who have differing strengths. Come up with an interesting configuration of writing talent as a headwriting team, and let them do their thing. Also, bring in a strong EP to execute the writers' vision. Ed Scott is the logical choice, if available. But what about John Conboy? He has a history with the show. Maybe he's available.

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