Jump to content

April 6-10, 2009


Toups

Recommended Posts

  • Members

Rhinohide, I think if Frons is gone OLTL can be salvageable even though RC may still be HW since I've seen him write well before, although for the life of me I cannot seem to recall when that time period was. I do think he showed promise, if not spurts of good writing, however he has gotten progressively worse in the last few moths so I may have to recant my original words.

I think the entire line up can show progress with their current writers but Frons ultimately has to go. There's not even a debate there. GH fans can correct me but maybe the show would not be as bad as it is if Frons wasn't at the helm and Guza remained? Can the same be applied to AMC if Pratt had to report to someone who actually cared about the genre? I dunno.... All I just know is that OLTL is my soap and it totally sucks ASS right now. I blame both Frons and RC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 67
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members

IMO, GH would be worse with no Frons. Guza would be out of control. It would be all mob violence and all the characters not related to the mob would be completely eliminated. Frons may not be the greatest, but I'll keep him over Guza alone or some unknown replacement who may be even worse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

First and foremost, Frons needs to go. But Guza and Pratt need to go, as well. They are a misogynist trio that are somehow inexplicably in charge of a genre that is supposed to appeal primarily to women. And that's killing ABC's ratings. The only viewers left are the self-loathers and masochists who share their vision of women, or the hangers-on who keep hoping (wrongly) that things will improve with the current regime. It won't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I didn't like most of Tomlin's reign, OLTL was a little too light for my taste. Although I really enjoyed Allison's return and anything involving Natalie/Seth/Roxie was really good too. BUT. That Trading Places episode is an underappreciated CLASSIC. It is laugh out loud funny from start to finish, it was produced beautifully, every actor was brilliant. It is funnier today than it was then. The show deserved that emmy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

There was also the Babes Behind Bars episode and the LIVE week. Plus he helped bring back Dorian, Gabrielle, Mitch, and others. I loved the humor and the campiness of it.

I ran across one the episodes from around that time the other day.

It was very funny....Bo was talking to Dorian about Mitch's murder.

The funniest line...."This water's from Ore-gon, Dori-an. Can't get this stuff in these parts." His accent was priceless....as was RS's face as she tried to keep from laughing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Here's the thing. It is market forces.

Bear with me...The state of the 8-soap ratings is market forces. 99% market forces. Seriously. I can show you the analysis...I can explain 99% of the ratings variance without knowing a single thing about what writer, what producer, what...anything. (Now, you could say, "but they're all crap--that's why they're all declining together"...but that really doesn't seem to matter).

Here's where the creative factors might matter: The within-genre ranking. For example, in HH, GH seems to have gone fairly quickly from first to third on ABC. That is a precipitous change in ranking, and if it holds, is probably capable of being put at the feet of Frons/Guza, etc.

Even here, though, I'm losing my confidence. Because I was sure that DOOL was an exception: "Low quality writing but ratings/ranking improvement". But SouthofSoap came in and said, fairly, "You don't watch DOOL. It is not that bad."

So, maybe the theory holds: Writing/creative strength is one of the factors that determines a show's relative ranking...but I continue to maintain -- with evidence -- that it has no effect on long-term decline trajectory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

The decline also happened — note on also, not just because — the falling quality of writers. From Agnes to Megan, from Bill to Latham, from Harding to Lethal Leah. And so on. Just as there was a gradual fall in quality of writing, there was a gradual fall in ratings. The "doomed" factor comes because people who created daytime never thought that one day women might not stay at home and that cable TV wouldn't exist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I agree with you on the "doomed" factor to some extent. In other words, the audience shifted, and that meant (a) there was less of an audience (my point), but also (B) that the writing and production needed to have adapted to a new and changing audience (and maybe a different daypart) if the genre wanted to survive.

I think the resistance, as recently as last year, to even show two men kissing shows that the evolution of this genre, in this daypart, did not happen, and cannot happen in time for the genre to remain relevant in its current form.

However, I am less certain that "the quality of writing" fell. What about "the quality of writing did not evolve"? or "The quality of writing remained inflexible to the changing context"? or "The quality fo writing remained pitched at persons who might be converted into Vaseline purchasers, even though such purchasers existed in dwindling numbers".

There have been moments of utter greatness in the writing. But, from inception, there were also moments of total sh!t. I cannot affirm that the relative proportion of greatness/sh!t has ever really changed. I do not believe that the daytime commercial format, as a rule, allows there to be too much greatness. We look for flashes of it, nothing more.

I think the serial format can be marvellous, but (and here I think I echo Marceline), for that to happen we have to start over. Shorter stories, less often, in a different daypart, ideally with less risk-averse advertisers. But that is a discussion point that is almost entirely orthogonal to the story of these current daytime shows now.

I have ZERO evidence, and I DO NOT BELIEVE that the writing DECLINED at the same rate of the ratings. I don't believe it, no how, no way. I think people are elevating the past into some kind of magical heights that never existed. I think that there were key transition points in the writing (first move to television; first Los Angeles soaps; Gloria Monty's evolution; pacing/production changes due to MTV and the new quick-cut approach), but I can not find any objective data that the quality of the writing "fell". How would we judge or confirm that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Now THAT is a sensible hypothesis! THAT connects with my reality. It's that the soaps DIDN'T change much, and with more/better options, it made soaps look worse.

Ding ding ding! We have a winner!

For all the ratings wonks around here, I have completed two new analyses.

The first looks at how soap ratings fare in comparison to other parts of daytime (judge shows, talk shows, game shows, etc.). The answer: Not well (bottom of the pack), but the recent 12-month declines for soaps were slower than other aspects of the daypart. Still, I take small comfort in this, because those other aspects of daytime cost so much less. Right now, one should put their money on talk shows, because that is the aspect of daytime that shows real growth.

The second looks at how daytime ratings rise-and-falls have compared to primetime rise-and-falls over the same period. The short answer is that it is complicated. But...most ominous for soaps...it seems that in the 2000s, soaps fell at a faster rate than primetime. That's not good.

I always depress myself with these analyses :).

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

    • There's some irony in Philip being forgiven, because it forces everyone to admit that Victor was wrong to change his will.  Everyone, eventually including Xander, (I presume), seems to think it was wrong for Victor to divide his estate in Xander's favor.  I appreciated Stephanie forgiving Philip, because she's got no skin in that game.  But, Belle's line about Philip missing Xander because he misses Bo did not ring true.  I think Philip would be sad if Bo dies, but I think he's more concerned currently about Xander. I am enjoying this EJ mystery so much that I am hereby taking a vow not to read spoilers.  I am also vowing — for the last time — to stop harping on this, but: the concept of a “sepsis treatment” remains absurd. Hospitals prevent sepsis through vigilant infection control; once sepsis sets in, it causes multiple organ failures. Treatment involves supporting each failing organ individually. The notion that a single medication could magically reverse organ failure is medically laughable. However, I like the contrast of Kim going through cancer, which is incurable in their universe.  Kayla's comment on the health of both of her siblings was both heartbreaking and an interesting twist.  MBE is also totally underrated.  She is carrying the weight of so many stories.   And, I like the use of Kayla as an audience surrogate.  She's arguably the most "real" person in Salem. Kayla isn't psychic, she wasn't SORASed, she's not a billionaire, and she doesn't have a bionic eye.  So, I enjoy that we get her perspective of the nuttiness that surrounds her. However, I don't get what gives her the authority to turn down EJ's offer.  I understand that they need a hospital figurehead to show us scenes of the competition to buy the hospital.  But, unless the entire administration has been let go, the Chief of Staff wouldn't make those choices.
    • But why worry about something that might not happen? Right now, most things revolve around the Duprees. We have no idea if or how long that will continue. For now, it's working.
    • The Duprees not having any staff is a bugbear for me. They've included the background staff at the Country Club but no one at the Dupree home. Even just an extra bringing in a tray of food/drinks or responding to a request from Anita would suffice.
    • Shut up, Dante and Lois.  I actually don't mind this particular soap trope, but in the context of this storyline, it just feels forced and unnecessary. If anything, this Dante/Gio tension needed to begin months ago. Plus, this storyline, in general, isn't doing Lois any favors either.  Emma comforting Gio was really sweet though. It's definitely time for the two of them to have their first kiss. And, Joss playing Secret Agent Barbie will just never work.
    • Note to makeup - Smitty’s eyebrows, bad clamshell look.  

      Please register in order to view this content

    • Okay I can buy that when Brook Lynn was a teen.  Now she knows the child is a boy one would think she'd be slightly suspicious.  Then again, Gio looks nothing like either of them so maybe not lol.
    • I've been behind & just got caught up & the last 3 days were amazing!
    • Yeah.  The hot, poor bad boy with a chip on his shoulder but with a heart of gold was a common soap trope in the 80s 

      Please register in order to view this content

    • That's been an issue with me... the lack of a cohesive 'Have Not' crowd that has focus other than Leslie/Eva.   I would beef up Jan, Mona, Laura, Joey, and few other male characters.. and not just be out to overthrow the Duprees.. but co-existing and broadening the scope of the show since the show is called Beyond the Gates. I think the set up the show has with everything revolving around the Duprees will become predictable especially if they always win.   It would be like Victor Newman on Y & R for 40+ years.. always winning, hardly ever losing.   With MVJ/Guza.. both trained under that mindset... I fear that will happen.   I've always heard from a performer that is playing a character like Leslie/Dana that you have to find the victim/hurt beneath the surface in order to play a villain/villainess... and I think that's why I enjoy watching her.. because she brings so much more to the part than what the writers put on the page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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