The Decline of Soap Operas

[DaytimeFan]

Absolutely right. That being said, CBS Television Distribution has done, in my opinion, a much better job with carrying prestige daytime programming. By prestige I mean popular programs that make money.

Sony Pictures, the studio, might not have an issue if the deal with CBS Television Distribution was great.

Overall, I don't see CBS winning in negotiations with the Bells. Babs can huff and puff all she likes but without Y&R and B&B she doesn't have a job. ATWT and GL can't carry the network, TPIR is on the slide and she knows it.

[Khan]

Finally! A voice of reason!

God bless you, DaytimeFan.

[Roman]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28815777/

Includes a spoiler for Y&R.

[Jonathan]

Another one of these?

[bellcurve]

This article(or exerpts of it) have been posted already, but I just wanna say this: The poor, middle aged African-American women comment really bothers me.

Do they think poor, African-American women ages 25-54 won't buy Febreze or Johnson & Johnson Baby Oil?

I just find that comment extremely ignorant. And even IF it isn't the target demo the advertisers are going for, why further alienate your alleged fanbase by making such a blind comment to the press(and not being ballsy enough to put your name on it?)? A comment that could rile up said fanbase and force a boycott on those shows?

Why would a higher level Network Exec risk garnering such negative publicity for his/her shows and the network by saying, "Oh those poor old c**ns. We don't want them watching our shows. The sponsors won't give us money."?

[alphanguy74]

Well, a new, or should I say OLD production model might be the answer. I've metnioned it before on other threads, but why does no executive seem to be realistically looking at returning soaps to a Live To Tape format. Y&R did that from 1973-79, as did many others, and it resulted in a perfectly polished show. I saw 3 videotape editors on the credits for Y&R... that's 3 paychecks you could definately dispense with. Are today's directors and producers scared of it? Conboy did it... he knows how to produce a show Live to tape, hire the man, or get him to teach someone the ropes, for pete's sake!

[Paul Raven]

Re Live to tape.

Did any shows do this with the hour format?

I remember a lot of flubbed lines,wobbly sets etc.

With the number of scenes in today's shows,I don't think the actors could, or would want to, handle it.

[bellcurve]

I don't quite understand what you mean by "live to tape." Do you mean, shoot one scene, then shoot another scene on a different set, then shoot another scene on a different set, then shoot another scene? If that is the case(meaning simulating shooting a live TV show), then that would be too expensive and kind of a waste of time. Why bother moving from set to set when all the players are there already, they all want to shoot their scenes, and they all want to leave?

If you mean "live to tape" as in do the scene in one take, well, most shows are doing that already. That's how some shows are able to take two shows in one day or five shows in four days, etc.

But it would not save on production costs by making them "live broadcasts on tape" and going in order of the scenes. It would be really expensive.

[Paul Raven]

As I understand it ,live to tape meant they shot the show like it was live-no retakes.The actors would hold their positions and wait for 60 secs or whatever as commercial time played out.The whole hour show would be taped in an hour.

[bellcurve]

That would still be a waste of money and time.

Let's say Sunset Beach were still on the air, as an example:

If Ben and Annie are having an entire show at The Deep, and the scripts for this week's tapings has Meg(two shows later) meeting a character for a drink in one scene in the next(a scene that couldn't take place at her house), why break down the set and rebuild it again for Meg's one little scene at The Deep? Susan Ward is there already, she knows her lines, it's a quick scene, why not wait until Clive Robertson and Sarah Buxton are done taping, get Susan Ward in there with the dayplayer to do the drink scene for that episode two shows later and be done with it?

And why bother shooting the show as live-to-tape, when Clive and Sarah already know their lines, they want to shoot, they've been properly rehearsed and blocked. Why make them wait until the Gabi/Antonio scene is done, the Bette/Olivia/Gregory scenes are finished and wait an additional 2 minutes before they have to tape their next scene? Why break up that flow the actors have, why waste money on two simultaneous camera crews?

I'd love there to be a "live" soap opera, but I don't see how it would be more economically feasible than the way soaps shoot nowadays.

[DaytimeFan]

First of all, I still yearn for Sunset Beach, that show was such fun trash...oh the 90s...

Live to Tape USED to be less expensive. In the 70s it was very very cheap. However, as unions have negotiated better pay for their workers the take down and putting up of sets has become very expensive. Thus, the way production is handled now (shoot a week's worth of scenes in the same set in one day) is the most economically feasible.

[SteveFrame]

I think the best way for the networks esp. the soaps to get by some of those Union restrictions is to do what GL did and that is permanent sets.

I am a Union guy for the most part even though I am disgusted with the WGA for the way they have dealt with this whole issue with the writers in daytime who did what they legally had the right to do, but yet are being made public spectacles. I think the WGA has hurt themselves in a lot of people's eyes.

Anyway I am usually a Union guy but I think in the long run Unions esp. the entertainment ones have hurt soaps and are going to lead to a great deal of their members not having jobs. The restrictions that they have made had made soaps more expensive to produce and in a market when less people are watching and budgets are decreasing - more of the places these folks work are going to disappear.

[Cat]

It's a sad fact but I agree. And it's not just soaps.

[marceline]

Because higher level network execs are all too often older white men who haven't figured out that it's no longer the 50s or the younger white men who learned from them. One Mr. Brian Frons comes to mind. I wouldn't be remotely surprised if he provided that quote.

[bellcurve]

I was thinking the exact same thing.