Jump to content

Guiding Light-ways to survive


Recommended Posts

  • Members

How expensive do you think Guiding Light would be to produce, if it kept its current production model, dropped the cast to about 14 contract players, and made it a once a week show that aired on Lifetime or Soapnet? Do you think it would work? Would fans deal with GL only being on once a week?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 53
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members

They could slash the budget to $.50/wk (if they haven't already), drop the cast to 3 contract players and an extra who plays all the other parts like that dude on "Captain Kangaroo," and air it as an interstitial show between reruns of "RuPaul's Drag Race" on LOGO, and I still don't think fans would accept it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Frankly, MikeGoldy, I don't think GL would succeed in any format on any other network (and I apologize for being flippant in my previous answer). I mean, sure, another network - Lifetime, SN, the Hallmark Channel - could give it a try, but...

1) The success rate of daytime (TV) soaps switching networks is slim-to-nil; and

2) Viewing habits, I believe, are very ingrained, and hard to change. It'd be hard to watch GL once a week on SN, let's say, after watching it for so long every afternoon on CBS.

Plus, I cannot think of any network that would look at the current state of GL, a long-running institution that has struggled for over a decade to reclaim and hold onto its' share of the viewing audience, and see buying it as an attractive proposition. I know *I* would look at it as a network exec and wonder to myself, "What could I do to boost this show and make them a profit-turner for my network, that CBS hasn't tried three times already?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Unfortunately it doesn't look like Lifetime is interested. I got an email today - the same email that many others have gotten from Lifetime saying that they have no plans to add daytime serials to their lineup.

Soapnet is probably GL's only hope, other than P&G/Telenext footing the whole bill and doing an internet type of a very very watered down version.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

What did you expect them to say? Hey, thanks for writing us, we are in negotiations and hope to bring Guiding Light to you someday soon?! :lol:

It's a form response from the head of viewer relations. It's business 101. I wouldn't read too much into the response. Who really knows if GL will find a home after that network that shall not be named. We know that talks are taking place. I have faith and will continue to put forth every effort to let them know that we want to see GL continue. I think GL is a much more viable show than that network gave them credit for being. But only time will tell.

In the meantime, I will continue to be in awe of the actors on this show, JLH's writing, and all things Otalia.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Here is a scenario where GL has a slim - and I do mean slim - chance of surviving well into the future:

1) GL is moved to a network that is available in the majority of households in this country. If you think GL could make a new home for itself on some obscure channel you can access only if/when you subscribe to an expensive digital cable tier, think again.

2) When GL is on, it's on at the same time (...more or less...) on the new network that it was on the old. I realize many fans watch GL at 10 am; however, for most of the U.S., I believe, it's 2 or 3 pm, depending on the time zone.

3) GL's quality, at least in terms of its producing and writing, is improved dramatically. IOW, changes must be made at the top.

4) GL's budget with the new network has to be, at the very least, comparable to what it is now. As it is, the budget is already threadbare. Anything less, IMO, would be beyond embarrassing, and downright insulting.

5) GL cannot afford now to be nostalgic, or to do "more of the same". GL, at its' new home, must be different. I'm not talking production values here. I'm talking about truly rebuilding this show from the inside out. What will keep this show alive on the new network that adheres to its core values, but at the same time, is fresh and unique and unlike anything we might've seen in the past?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Geez, some of the responders here are pretty flippant.

I wouldn't go so far as to expect Lifetime to have said that they are in negotiations, but they could have left the door opened a little bit by saying something like they are always looking at programming options instead of saying outright that they will not be adding daytime serials. I take that as an outright no way will it be happening on Lifetime. It's not Business 101 to close off your options the way Lifetime did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

IMO, the only practical way to continue GL is to pull a Loving/The City thing. If a cable net is interested, TPTB should end the show in a big celebratory event, but then keep around several key characters and follow them. Of course, they'd pick all of the wrong characters, but it's worth a shot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I don't think it's impossible for GL to find a way to survive. But I sincerely doubt it would produce five eppys/week. I could see it moving to cable and being an "arc" show like Army Wives. It would require changes in the cast. But I think the writing would improve if freed from pointless plots like coughanythingDAISYcough and given more leeway on cable.

The standards on cable are different. I just read an article where USA was thrilled to average 3 million viewers in primetime. (making them the most watched cable network and surpassing the CW). Given those realities, you'd think some network would covet those GL viewers and try to find some way.

The way tv is going, it'll be nothing but reruns and crappy reality shows.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I wasn't trying to be flippant. I was just responding to the person who said it doesn't look like Lifetime is interested b/c of the response received from Sydney Plant. We know that PGP/Telenext has been in talks with Lifetime so I would like for people to keep up their efforts and not get discouraged because of that response.

The following is the exact response:

Thank you for your e-mail and your suggestion to Lifetime. We have no plans to add daytime serials to our programming line-up.

We hope you’ll enjoy our current schedule, which includes shows such as Reba, Desperate Housewives and Wife Swap.

Best regards,

Sydney Plant

Lifetime Networks

I e-mailed them and listed two shows that I currently watch on there, neither of which was listed in their response. No matter what you say, if it relates to GL, you get this response... listing the exact same three shows to watch on their schedule.

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.



  • Community Posts

    • I think I've heard of this before but I'd definitely like to know more, lol. Probably in the Classic thread if that's preferred by people. I've never been big on Cari Shayne's Karen. But yes, Carrie and Christie Clark have always had me. Like Kimberly as Robin on GH or Erin Torpey on OLTL, there is a core of lived experience with the actor evolving from child to adult and a quiet intelligence in their presence there that makes the character rise above any poor writing IMO.
    • I hear what your saying regarding Carrie Brady's place on the canvas. There is no arguing that. As I think I was saying poorly above, Karen was introduced during a transition period very early in Riche's run (as was Jagger). There were a lot of things that happened during that period that feel very against the soap opera grain. For example, David Langdon, Monica's ex and Dawn's father, arrives in Port Charles in a medical story where Monica inserts herself with the intention of telling David that Dawn was their daughter. David dies suddenly and Monica never reveals this information to David. This feels very untraditional. Similarly, the whole Joseph Adkins arc with Bobbie writing to a murderer and the women of Port Charles all fawning over his book is not something I felt was the type of story soaps in 1992 did. Similarly, introducing a character like Karen without any family ties and anchoring a younger part of the story with another outsider Jagger wasn't how things would typically work (effectively) on the soap.   I think my issue with the idea that Brenda had a direct goal is that is all there was to her. She had nothing to her outside of that in early 1993. Jagger had wanting to find his family. Karen was working to get into medical school. Brenda had Jagger, who only wanted her when he couldn't have Karen. Even Ruby called Jagger out on this. Brenda's point of view was so limited. The fact that she nearly gets bested by Jenny Eckert of all people in a confrontation in March, 1993, is pretty wild given how milquetoast Jenny is.  I can see why you would think Karen was taking a middle of the road approach to things. It might not have been presented well, but her pursuing her career and going to college was going to come first. Working at Kelly's and maintaining her grades was going to come before her romance with Jagger. With Rhonda around, meddling in her life, Karen definitely had more reason to be conflicted. Rhonda saw Karen's relationship with Jason as the key to Karen's success, both by marrying into a wealthy family and by building a network of connections in Karen's career field.  Having watched some of her "General Hospital" run, I would like to at the early years of Karen's run on "Port Charles" to see how that all this continues in terms of her characterization. I think Karen remains very passive romantically deferring to Courtney Kanelos, who was just a much stronger adversary for Karen than Brenda was based on where Brenda was in her journey given that Courtney had Neil which tied her to the entire Scanlon clan. I do remember Karen having some outbursts, but I vaguely think that Shayne's Karen could also be pushed to her limits and she would fire back. This just wasn't her modus operandi as it was for characters like Courtney and early Brenda.  In Brenda's defense, I think part of the issue was the underdevelopment of her character. I think there was an intent on either Levinson's (or Riche's) part to craft Brenda as a "poor little rich girl" type who had no moral compass because her father was a business tycoon who ignored her and had loved Julia's mother more than her mother. If this was true, and the intent to solicit sympathy, or least empathy, for Brenda, it wasn't played enough for this to be effective. Brenda rejected Julia both in terms of her role as a parental figure and any sisterly advice she gave.  I would even go further and say that the issues I have with the Brenda/Karen rivalry were inherit to Bill Levinson's writing. By comparison, if you look at what was being done in the other female rivalries, the issues were mostly consistent. Jenny and Julia, for example, had the potential to be interesting but Julia was so passive and Jenny was sound brash and unfeeling that there was no one to root for. Also, the rivalry between Tiffany and Bobbie took Tiffany into a very narrow view with her solely trying to secure custody of Lucas at the cost of everything else including her friendship with Bobbie and Tony as well as her marriage to Sean. I'd be curious to see if Levinson had similar issues when he was at "Loving," but I'm spacing at the moment.   
    • Neil Patrick Harris and David Burtka talk new show, ‘Drag Me to Dinner’ l GMA  
    • Jimbo & Alexis Spill Tea on Heidi's Drama (Unaired)

      Please register in order to view this content

       
    • Do these tournaments still test for COVID? https://www.bbc.com/sport/tennis/65794974?xtor=AL-72-[partner]-[bbc.news.twitter]-[headline]-[news]-[bizdev]-[isapi]&at_link_origin=BBCWorld&at_medium=social&at_ptr_name=twitter&at_campaign=Social_Flow&at_link_type=web_link&at_format=link&at_link_id=085D161A-01FB-11EE-91C3-39FFD772BE90&at_campaign_type=owned&at_bbc_team=editorial
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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