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

    • Not only that, but Tony, Annabelle, and Jim had zero skin in this game. The Fishing Trip story had a huge impact on the Reardons and Annabelle because it was about THEIR relatives and how what happened to them shaped their own lives. People directly and indirectly affected by this--i.e. Alan, Amanda, Philip, and even Lujack--weren't involved in this at all, either because they were off the canvas or involved in other stuff. I mostly admire Long's talent for using the past to enhance her stories in the present, but this one was a huge turkey. We saw Brandon old and decrepit dying on screen. Even if we were able to suspend disbelief, why wouldn't he have wanted revenge on Lucille, who tried to kill him? If he wanted to go live with his Barbados squeeze, who would have cared about that by then? In the end, it had little to no impact on the larger story because they were too chicken to bring in that branch of the Spauldings into the main story (until later).  Just a really bad storyline that mainly existed to stretch out the GL stints of the actors who played Tony, Annabelle, and Jim.  
    • Agree to disagree as to Lois's return. Moving from the specific to the general, IMO, successful: Tracy, Lois, Lulu so far & Lucas so far. Questionable: Lucky. But I do not believe that having a romantic partner at all times is the be all & end all of things.  Reminder about how we got from there to here with Rena: Everything was a part of the great unknown, whether they'd like her or vice versa, so they by intent signed a 30 episode deal. Before they even got to the end of those 30 episodes they knew they really liked each other a lot & so they with mutual satisfaction (we think) agreed upon a handshake open-ended deal, which as far as anyone knows is how it still stands. What is good about that? Neither side has YET wanted it to end. What's bad about that? Maybe it is a little weird.  Now, it seems to me that Lois is not going to have time for anything or anyone at all EXCEPT the fallout over the GIO reveal for the upcoming future days & weeks & I do think she is going to take the brunt of a LOT of people's anger. In a way that has begun this week with Tracy being SO UGLY to her.  About Jason & romance. They're not writing any. If I understand what he's said from that podcast they never had any intention with either Anna or Sasha. Also, if they had wanted to write either of those, he would've been against it, although he realizes it's not up to him. (Finola has expressed same at fan events, etc.) (Others who have similarly stated their "preferences": Sonny does not want to be with Carly. Carly does not want to be with Sonny. So, these preferences Jason, Anna, Sonny, Carly, they all work out & none of them is having the show want those pairings either, so, again, works out.  About these writers & romantic couples, they spent a year blowing up every couple that existed. Now a few months has gone by & they have YET to create even one new couple. The only thing that has come close is Lucky & Liz. 
    • 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. 
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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