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 love a smart literary reference in my soap dialogue, but I just laughed at that *picks up book* Martin: "Ralph Ellison--The Invisible Man."  Smitty: "I see you"

      Please register in order to view this content

    • I don't think Sandra Ferguson was fantastic but I thought she did well enough with the story she was given. She had chemistry with RKK and with Charles Grant and made it understandable why Amanda was torn between the two men. RKK leaving hurt the story but beyond that they didn't try hard enough to make Evan a viable character. After he was written out we just got the triangle with Olivia, which also wasn't viable because they wanted us to root for Sam/Amanda long after viewers had stopped caring.
    • Well at one point Aaron's contract with ABC guaranteed a new series on the schedule each year. I guess once his contract was up he was out the door. It would have been a huge financial commitment and as tastes changed and Aaron didn't ,ABC couldn't see the value. Spelling did have a number of flops along the way.  He always brought up Family as a counter to the criticism that his output was trashy but that's because Family was the only show among many that wasn't  trashy.
    • Passions also did this with Ethan and Sam...probably some other soaps (Billy and Dylan on GL, maybe). I am blanking through fatigue.
    • A-la Sonny shooting "Dominic", a.k.a. Dante... just, minus Dante shooting Gio.
    • Amanda getting pregnant didn't help character development and long term harmed the Sam and Amanda relationship. If this story came to be in 1984,  thoughts on Mary Page Keller playing Amanda instead of Sally and her husband Thomas Ian Griffith playing Sam instead of Catlin. And Jack Wagner as Evan. 
    • It's like all the K-Dramas or C-Dramas where the mother-in-law hates the daughter-in-law who's supposedly from a poor or less than privileged background, only to find out she's the long-lost chaebol daughter from an even richer family.  Maybe someone in the writer's room watches them like I do (mostly the recaps on YouTube) and decided to do that with a male slant? All kidding aside, this is par for the course in soaps where someone you think you hate turns out to be the family you never knew you had. Haha.
    • It's frustration the way Dante was acting. You truly don' t Jordan, I see. LOL!!  I really liked Briana Henry in the role.
    • The failure in communication is one-sided, and not mine. Despite being told repeatedly by me and others that what you may have read on other message boards, Facebook, Instagram, X (formerly Twitter), and/or any other social media site, including those you apparently run, does not make the information true, nor should it be posted here on the SON Community whatsoever. If there's something you've seen/read elsewhere that is newsworthy and from a valid source, there's nothing wrong with sharing/linking to that source. This includes linking to articles from other websites like Deadline, Us Weekly, Soap Opera Digest, EW, PEOPLE, etc. For instance, if any of the aforementioned websites reported that Tabyana Ali renewed her contract, link to that site reporting the news and/or an interview discussing it. Ditto, if Tabyana Ali said something about her contract on social media.  Just saying "apparently," while providing no source other than your statement, does not make it so. This includes if you read it by someone on any social media site other than an official outlet's post, the actress in question, or the show that employs her.  Related, your use of the word "apparently" isn't the key issue here. It's the continued posting of misinformation and the nonchalant sharing of personal information, specifically medically, about real-life people. You KNOW what I'm talking about!
    • I like Brook Kerr. I think she plays Portia exactly the way she's supposed to be. With that being said, GH has thrown Portia under the bus from day one. The woman has suffered and made bad decisions all through her tenure.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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