CBS: Whole Network is in trouble.

[bandbfan]

Hasn't it been that way for years? Y&R goes up and down, and especially everything below B&B does. But up until the last few months, B&B was pretty much steady for several years.

[Vee]

GL won Best Drama for a handful of half-decent episodes not long before their storytelling, narrative, and continuity collapsed completely, particularly with the new production model (which was not in effect then). Things are far worse now, not that they were that good then. I don't know what you're hinting at about "anonymous posts" but my issue isn't your feelings about OLTL; you can feel however you like about it. My issue is people who have an issue with one show going on and on about another they obviously either barely watch or don't watch at all, as if to praise one as the "fresh and new" counterpoint to the other show. It happened with Dena Higley's DAYS, it happened with Maria Bell's boring Y&R, and now, GL? Really? Really?

The thing is, you don't really know anything about what you're claiming is so much more "fresh" and "adventurous" than OLTL, but you've read about it, and it sounds like it might be good, so you've latched onto it, and then you really want to come back to fans who are actually informed and suffering through the programs and claim that it must be much better than the show you don't care for. I swear to God, every GL thread I read on every board these days is like watching people toil through an endless suicide pact that never quite reaches the punchline. If you bothered watching GL, you'd know why your free pass for it incenses me. It has very little to do with OLTL (though I love the show) and much, much, much more to do with people looking for "any port in a storm" to try and defend already flawed logic, except the port you've chosen is just the absolute nadir of American daytime.

And for the record, I am in the primary youth demographic and am not yet in my thirties, nor am I a housewife, nor do I have children; I have a career and I'm a career-oriented person. And yet, I enjoy OLTL and despise GL. So there is no new mythical demographic seeking out "new blood" like the toxic waste on GL. In fact, there appear to be people fleeing from GL week after week. I don't watch OLTL for nostalgia fumes; I watch it because I think it's good. Putting on a solid, intelligent, well-written show will beat cheap handheld cameras, bad muzak and location filming every time, and the reason is, young or old, gay or straight, male or female, people can smell [!@#$%^&*].

[Khan]

Like Doug Marland once said, all you need (to make a successful soap opera) are good stories and good actors.

You think alot of today's hottest primetime and cable shows are "reinventing the wheel," so to speak? They aren't. But they're successful (and luring away people who used to watch soaps) because they still remember what it takes to make a show that is interesting and entertaining.

Could you argue that Ron Carlivati isn't doing anything right now that is "fresh" or "new"? Probably. But you know...we've had at least a decade-and-a-half of people in this industry attempting something "fresh" or "new", and failing. Miserably. And in the end, what do they have to show for all their "hard work"? A dying industry.

RC might not receive brownie points for being innovative, or even being good; but I do applaud him for being probably the first in a very long time just to get back to basics. Who knows? As they say, that's just crazy enough to work.

[EricMontreal22]

I was rewatching some City videos recently and the camerawork on it--that at the time many soap viewers complained was too jittery, etc, now looks positvely stunning. I know City was an expensive soap to run, but I don't understand how the camera work can have gone so far backwards...

Back to the original Podcast, Nelson surely is exagerating when he says ALL Dena would do for her story porjections was one sentence. Like "Jess has a double who's Tess" and then leave the other writers to fill in EVERY single other detail... I knwo ti's true that Headwriters get paid a lot more than the others to often write much less but...

[Jess]

I have attached my previous post because I can not find where I said anything about GL being either "fresh" or "adventeurous" I believe I said it sucks hind tit. I readily do admit that unlike you I am one of the ignorant masses who just watch soaps and don't pretend to be experts. But again here is the post. I might add, I don't think saying sucks hind tit is giving it a free pass. Also, I did not say that GL was better than OLTL. It was a comparison of two shows taking different approaches to trying to deal with a problem of lost viewership. One GL is trying the primetime model, the other OLTL is trying to return to its roots. The original post that upset you so much:

OK, I'm going to be the skunk at the garden party. First I listened to the tape and agree that Nelson was entertaining, but he was also totally Nelson.

Now on to what he was talking about, I think. In my opinion soaps are in a world of hurt and someone needs to figure out how to fix them or kiss them good-bye. Right now, I guess OLTL is adopting the 80s model. If suddenly there is a big turnaround and people flock back to OLTL, then it looks like it is working. What has GL got to lose by trying to abandon the traditional soap model and try something different? It's been sucking hind tit for a decade. It's not like it is taking risks with its place in the daytime hierarchy. James E. Reilly certainly took a few chances. The "island" story was nothing if not bold.

Maybe daytime is going to be more like nighttime in the future in the sense that the era of shows celebrating their 40 year anniversaries will be over.

I personally think daytime needs to start thinking out of the box. However, maybe all of you folks who gush over Ron will prove me wrong and he will be the salvation for daytime. At this point, I don't see where GL is hurting itself by trying something different. I also think turnover in writers isn't a bad thing. I can't imagine writing that many episodes over and over and over again.

[Jess]

I enjoyed watching City and don't remember that much about the camera work. GL's camera thing is weird and I don't know what they are doing. AMC, which I do enjoy these days, is weird too with its camera angles. You know back on City, I think it takes longer for soaps to catch on then it does prime-time, particularly when they do things in a different way. Daytime did lose a generation of viewers. You can look at the ratings and see that about 2/3 of viewers are 50 or older. It goes back to the point I really was trying to make about Ron and OLTL earlier.

I think what he is trying to do by appealing to what he said was the "daytime core" is to get people who have watched for a long time watching again and get them interested in the type stories that they enjoyed when they first started watching daytime. Those people will bring in other viewers, many of them younger, in the same fashion that many of today's soap viewers started watching. Instead of trying to generate some buzz about one story that is going to land on the front cover of Time Magazine, I think he is trying to build viewers from within, family members coming back or talking about the show to friends. But that is a slow process.

There are other soaps, GL and to some extent AMC and GH, that are trying to kick start the ratings by bringing in people with eww and ahh stories or by imitating nighttime. I do think that is tough because daytime is on every day. I never enjoyed DOOL when it was weird and I never really liked GH when it did so many strange stories in the 80s and 90s, but the changes did seem to work for a whole lot of people. I thought the best thing about PC was the story arcs, although I didn't like vampires, but I think the story arcs were interesting -- like City and worth a try. Whether it's done Ron's way or the blow up and start over way, it's going to take time because it is recruiting people who don't have a habit of taping a show.

[Vee]

It is impossible to get a "younger generation" that will be sustained from any single story. In fact, it's probably impossible to get any "younger generation" period these days if they don't have some past history with daytime. The only thing that stood a chance to capture a hardcore new set of viewers was a frontburner GLBT relationship, but ATWT is such a televised abortion that you need only look what's become of that. No one magical couple or story will do it; it has to be built on something more. ATWT doesn't have it, GL definitely doesn't have it, and Dena Higley's OLTL wouldn't even have known what it looked like. And on another note - nor, for that matter, did Michael Malone's OLTL in 2004. What was fresh and amazing for him in 1993 didn't work in 2003 and 2004, not least of the reasons being because he had no executive producer, no restraints, and absolutely no subtlety. He communicated entirely in slogans and two-minute PSA scenes last time, nothing like his amazing groundbreaking work with Linda Gottlieb, and he has to share as much blame for his run in the final analysis as Brian Frons, IMHO - it was hard to watch and even harder for me, as a huge fan of his, to admit, but there was so much quintessentially "Malone" about his various flaws last time. Ron Carlivati may not try to make every story socially aware, but he at least constructs careful, intelligent storylines with subtlety and layering (as well as some broad humor, definitely), and he doesn't have to talk down to anyone to flash a neon sign about something at me. If he's going to give a message - like Viki talking about health care in Paris, TX - he does it in a down to earth way.

[Jess]

Yeah I agree, particularly about the PSAs. I admit, I took notice of Viki's comment about health care (in part because I care about the issue). Sometimes I think the PSAs are used to put a little bit of perfume on a stinky story, but that is just my opinion.

[EricMontreal22]

What PSAs do you mean for Malone's recnet run on OLTL? I ask just because I don't remember him tackling too many social issues this time along at all... I do think a big part of what helps Malone isn't just Gottlieb's control but working alongside Josh Griffith--Malone's 1990s work without Griffith didn't work well, nor did his period at Another World, and while nothign was brilliant when they briefly worked together this last time, when Griffith left (apparantly because of too much Frons interference) it just got all the worse...

I get a feeling Ron Carlivati seems to almost wanna combine the more socially relevant style of OLTL in the 70s and under Malone in the 90s with the campiness and BIG MOMENTS of the Rauch era in the 80s... And so far, he kinda seems to be managing to do just that...

You brought up the GLBT story on ATWT--I do think a lot more young audiences would go to these shows if there was more of a gay element-- It just seems, in 2008, that currently there's one gay/lesbian presnece on any of the soaps, that they are really out of date storywise. And, as always, most of the people who seem to be trying to shake up the shows don't focus on the stories, but on things that are largely irrelevent. I don't think too many people don't watch soaps because of what they look like...

E

[ian]

Look how big soaps are in England, and they're largely traditional, they don't have a bunch of models, and people are ENGAGED. Does this mean that british people are dumber or more easily amused than most Americans? No. Maybe a larger attention span, and possibly worse teeth (I'm just joking) but... the possibility to be wildly successful and do what's been working for years and years still exists.

BTW - Vee I co-sign practically everything you've written in this thread. Cheers to the "Bard of the Board" ahahaha

[Soapsuds]

Here is Tom Casiello's latest blog on this topic

http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseacti...logID=409155184

[EricMontreal22]

ALthough there have been things in the past few years to update soaps--Corrie had some controversy over it as did Eastenders. Nothing major, but (and they had attempts at new styles like Night and Day which ran a year I think...)

That sadi UK soap watchign culture is VERY different--which is probably why for the most part US daytime soaps haven't worked there. They're early evening, not just for housewives (a mentality that still oddly seems to exist with American soaps among nonwatchers), very rarely about glamorous people and the rich, etc. But I get your point--

[DeeeDee]

CBS has been in trouble since Bob Barker decided to retire.

[Dan]

Ya know, I have to agree with Tom on this one. Nelson's rant, while entertaining, will not benefit anything. Will it cause Ellen Wheeler to grow a few brain cells and to just produce a good SOAP OPERA? No. Will Barbara Bloom end her ABC-ized reign at CBS? No.

The only thing that Nelson did was draw too much attention to himself and give us information that we really already knew. I sure didn't need Nelson to know that Ellen Wheeler is a complete and utter putz. It won't help matters. Only make them worse and allow TIIC to entrench themselves further.

[TC]

Their airtimes is probably what saves them.