Jump to content

If ABC cancelled All My Children, would CBS acquire it?


Recommended Posts

  • Members

We agree. Soaps will be cancelled, and they will not (for the most part) show up in other venues. The sole exception, I have been half-convinced by DaytimeFan, might be Y&R.

I don't think it is self-fulfilling. I think it is logical conclusions drawn from clear predictors and trends. I don't think you heard much of this "death of soaps" stuff (although Roger Newcomb posted a 1983 Time article that talked about the death of soaps even then) until recent years. But you just have to follow the numbers. There can be no other conclusion.

I don't think it is just the death of soaps. though they may go first. I think network free-TV, in general, is almost done.

To be clear, I think we can expect the death of these soaps...soaps in general will rise again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 58
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members

Personally I think we are just reliving history. When TV came about there was a new medium to watch soaps and radio soaps started dropping as. They held on for a few years on radio and then in 1960 CBS (the last network on radio to air them) cancelled all their remaining soaps on the same day.

I think we are just living in a time when even when soaps are good there are just too many things competing with them and with TV in general - just like radio did back then.

Soaps cannot keep up with the modern viewer either. The modern viewer does look at production values more than viewers of yesterday. Soaps like The Edge of Night could not succeed today. Hell even a soap like Dark Shadows that had very low production values couldn't survive in first run today as today's viewer does look at sets and stuff and picks the show apart on things like that.

Soaps do not have the money to upgrade and do things as they should anymore. And networks are unwilling to spend the money to increase things like that.

Personally instead of having a soap move to a another major network. My wish is for soaps to move to cable. From what I understand the cost is less there, and there is the ability to make them a little more edgy. I would love to see that. I think that could add something to the stories that might lure viewers in or at least make them more enjoyable to the fans they do have.

I think soaps can hold on a few more years beyond what some are predicting, but they cannot do it as hour shows and I am not sure the networks are willing to cut them. As the casts are being cut there are less people that the writers can work with, and stories for the same old same old gets very old very quick - and it stifles writers to keep coming up with ways to keep the few characters they are often forced by fans to writer for interesting. A shorter time frame would help with that immensely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Y&R and B&B are totally different animals. The Bells are going to keep those shows going for as long as they can do them to the degree of taste that they're currently able. B&B is self supporting and Y&R is a cash cow. The Bells have a vision that extends past those two shows that doesn't take into account the USA. Soaps, as they are viewed in America, are on their way out (although again, Y&R and B&B will either continue to flourish or at the very least outlive their competitors for a good decade). All that being said, the Bells and their shows will leave before the party's over. They're not going the GL route, ever.

CBS would never acquire AMC if ABC were to cancel it. The show has virtually identical (if not somewhat worse) numbers than ATWT. Also, when shows jump networks they lose a chunk of their audience and if ATWT or GL was canceled in favor of AMC the show would receive a backlash, just as I believe Passions did after it replaced Another World.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I think cutting soaps back to a half hour and trimming the average cast from 30 down to maybe 18/20 contract cast members (moving "past their prime" vets and "colorful, kooky" characters to recurring status) would save a great deal of money.

Do we notice the increase in recurring cast members? GH builds story around so many recurring cast members, and many of their contract regulars are relative "newbies". I think GH's cast is pretty lean right now, not spending terribly too much money on anyone extraneous. Thinking of the "vets", John Ingle probably got a salary reset when he came back from DAYS to GH, Jane Elliot probably makes a lot less than she would had she not been gone from 1993-2003, John J. York was bumped to recurring in the early 00's, and then put back on contract which probably saved a chunk of money he'd accumulated since joining in the early 90s. Leslie Charleson is probably swallowing the biggest chunk of "unearned" money (in the eyes of TPTB), unless she's taken an unpublicized paycut. Zeman went recurring status and we see her how often?

I would bet that all the big money on GH is invested in Benard, Burton, Wright, Geary, and Brown. Second tier salaries are probably afforded to Grahn, Hearst, Rademacher, Herbst, Christopher, Charleson, and Monaco. Third tier salaries probably go to Vaughan, Berman, Barash, Storms, Ward, York, McCullough, Thompson, Elliot, Ingle. And fourth tier is probably newbies that aren't as "marketable" like Anderson, Eddy, Boniadi, Coffee, Cook. And maybe heavy recurring players like LoCicero and Henessy. And that's the whole contract cast right there! Dropping the fourth tier of contract cast to recurring status, and maybe Ingle and York from tier three would save some money and if they cut Charleson down to a tier three pay, the money might be invested where the should would seem more profitable to TPTB.

Hm, this tier ranking might be a good topic for a thread!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Yeah, it does seem like they're way more focused on budgets and bottom lines than they are on quality storytelling - it's almost like they're treating scripted shows like the cheaper reality ones where whoever comes in the cheapest and gets the target ratings they're after wins instead of how to build a solid core audience who cares about the characters, is engrossed in the storylines, and wants to come back to watch day after day, and continue to build their audience share from there. C'mon, I know times are tough all over, but somebody's got to be making money somewhere in the industry - they can't do just a little bit better for the viewers?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Yep. And if AMC or OLTL were canceled for DAYS, there would be backlash as well, despite what some..."fans"...have convinced themselves. Some people, I swear...they're delusional. They think that when DAYS gets canceled, either ABC will drop one of its soaps or CBS will drop ones of its soaps, and the fans of whatever soap that gets dropped won't mind because it's DAYS, and they're bound to be mesmerized by it's purely awesome glitteryness.

GMAB.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I think the shows would be cut to :30 min. before they were ever merged, and I don't even see that happening. I see cancellation, period, before any sort of time cutting/merging. It would be cute and appease our little soapy imaginations to see Erica, Adam, Viki, and Dorian all sharing scenes together, but we are talking some serious cast cuts to make that work and the money situation alone would be a mess. More salary cuts, I mean, are our top stars still getting their same weekly guarantees for half (maybe even a third!) of the amount of work? Half the crew would also be cut, and would the network pay for both EPs to work as a team for a few months until one was let go or both were axed to bring in someone they could get for cheaper? Yikes, just a lot of stuff to contend with. And I won't even touch the matter of egos/billing... title changes!?!?

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

    • I find it hard to believe that they actually watched the same version of "Steel Magnolias" that I did. Are we sure they didn't watch the horrible re-make?    

      Please register in order to view this content

      Oh dear lord, did you have to remind me of that?!! That was definitely not Sally Field's finest hour, and Abby (Maura Tierney's character) was surely one of the most depressing characters ever written for tv or film. I'm not sure she cracked a smile even once during all her years on ER.  
    • I always thought Lois was such a unique character and considered her supporting her first run.  She was in a lot of different places on the canvas, but I don't think she had more focus than Brenda or Robin at her peak. With Ned basically out of the picture Lois doesn't quite have enough ties on the canvas to make her relevant and the show has done very little to give her new relationships and friendships.  She's stuck in the Q mansion most of the time. Oh, I agree it's a problem across the board for GH.  The only stable couples on the show are Brook Lynn/Chase and Portia/Curtis.  Unseen Olivia/Ned and Kevin/Laura are happily married I suppose.   Eventually I am sure Liz/Lucky and Dante/Lulu will get their romance, but is there any other couple that's even rootable?   I can't recall an era when Jason, Carly, and Sonny were all at such loose romantic ends at the same time.   Which is fine.  However no other romance besides Willow/Drew is being focused on.
    • https://www.nzherald.co.nz/lifestyle/shortland-street-fears-speculation-grows-about-shows-future-amid-industry-struggles/T2GECWXTI5AD3AMEV46YYYUE6E/ Still a big cloud over whether the show will get another year.
    • I had hoped they'd pair her with Michael Knight. They had a nice chemistry and he's been one of the better random castings on GH. When it comes to Gio, I found the scenes with Dante to be overdone. It's obvious they're trying to set up conflict for the reveal but I don't think that was needed. It actually made me less excited for the reveal and killed any interest I had in Dante and Gio forming a bond.
    • He also lost the woman he was going to marry, under very sudden circumstances. They are probably surprised Rena has wanted to stay. I think Lois works OK in her current capacity, if they allowed her to have more of a point of view, a bit more life of her own, and not just the reason for Gio's paternity being hidden. The character always felt very thin to me and on paper this dynamic with Tracy, Brook Lyn, Gio, visits from Gloria could be better for her than how overly centered she was on the canvas the first time around. But as of now she could be better used.  Somehow the show that was revived due to supercouples seems completely alien to romance. The older cast has this hardest but even with tiers who are younger or middle-aged, they've really dragged their feet about Liz and Lucky, they have contorted themselves in trying to figure out how to pair a man with Joss, Kai and Trina barely get focus...and others I struggle to remember. They also blew up Sasha/Cody so now I guess we're meant to be waiting to see if she finds true love with Jason? The show is so hesitant and when you are this hesitant it means you are incapable of writing romance.
    • I agree.  Rena doesn't seem to mind the lighter workload and seems happy though. Strangely, a lot of the veteran cast are without viable love interests-Sonny, Nina, Lois, Jason, Tracy, Alexis, Carly (Brennan doesn't count).  The show lacks serious interest in romance.
    • I just can't wait until next week when we can go back to a full weeks worth of episodes. 3 episodes and a mid-week gap has been so difficult to deal with, especially in light of how good the show is.
    • I always hoped they'd change Parker's paternity back to Phillip.  I guess it doesn't matter since Chloe is off the show currently.  I don't recall Holly or Maggie mentioning Parker, so it's not they are close to him. 
    • I’ve reached the summer of 1998.  Until now, my impression has been that the show has steadily improved since the great quality dip of 1994, reaching as high as 8/10 in 1997. Sure, I could complain about a few things in 1997 (Claudia got wasted after her initial storyline; Thorne’s feelings for Taylor were a bit too sudden; the storyline where Sheila lived with James and Maggie while pregnant got rather boring; Mike periodically revisiting Sheila despite being on the run from authorities), but overall it was a very strong year.  I liked the Thorne/Taylor/Ridge triangle, the mystery plot about who shot Grant, the sham wedding to trap Sheila, Stephanie/Eric/Lauren, and Clarke manipulating his way back to working at Forrester. I even liked the Greenland storyline with Eric/Lauren/Rush, although I had expected to hate it. Maybe 1996 tops 1997 in raw soapy excitement (especially as Sheila got a chance to interact with a larger canvas of characters), but certain problems with overall storyline cohesion puts it somewhat below 1997 for me. Unfortunately, early 1998 has turned out to be a bit of a speedbump, perhaps on par with 1995 levels of quality: - Maggie’s character really got trashed after James left her to be with Sheila, and the early 1998 storylines where she imprisoned Sheila in the house from Psycho, or installed those wires and mikes and such in her house to make her think she’s going crazy, were total GARBAGE. So much so that the latter storyline (and Maggie with it) pretty much disappeared into a limbo.  - I have mixed feelings about the twins plotline with Lauren. No way did Rush survive being shot with a crossbow through the chest, and the romance between Lauren and Rush’s good twin brother Johnny was rather dry to me. I did however enjoy the camp aspect of Rush taking his brother’s place to be with Lauren, and Eric rescuing her. But it doesn’t appear like Bell cared too much about the Johnny/Lauren romance beyond the twin storyline gimmick, and it too disappeared in an unsatisfactory manner (come on, why not hire Johnny’s actor for just 5 more episodes for an arc where he realizes Lauren is not over Eric, or JUST SOMETHING?) - Clarke wormed his way back to FC in late 1997, which had exciting storytelling potential, but then he disappeared almost entirely. Sad to see my favorite character wasted in this manner. Does he get anything interesting to do between now and the Morgan saga of 2000-2001? - The Thomas saga was entertaining in 1997, but it got stretched out too much, and made some of early 1998 tiresome, with Ridge having to decide YET AGAIN which woman he wants to be with. On the plus side, I like the plotline of Thorne being neighbors with Macy and Grant, and we’ve finally been introduced to the SORASed Rick/Amber/CJ crowd. The Stephanie/James/Sheila triangle is also starting, and it makes me excited (I remember seeing some if it in my childhood). I know Sheila, Grant, and James are all leaving soon, which I honestly kind of dread - between them and Clarke’s near-absence, it feels like herd is going to get culled too much in the near future. But I know there’s the familiar 1999-2002 to look forward to.
    • LOL - this is a perfect description, and that's what I loved about it! May be a bit campy, but it immediately caught my attention in a good way.  I'm not familiar with the Fishing Trip storyline, I'll have to look that up. I've noticed that about Josh, which has made him less attractive to me overall. He just yells a lot when he's not happy. Wow, Reva was married to HB!  LOL - "Always... eventually, and again"
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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