Jump to content

April 6-10, 2009


Toups

Recommended Posts

  • Members

All that work that was supposed to go into making soaps more essential, more viable, more able to explain the complexities of the people, went to advertisers and executive control... ultimately, when the Internet did hit, they had an inferior product that was not essential enough that they could compete with online. The guys who are running soaps over the last 10 years have to be singular in the manner in which they destroyed their own industry.... they had contempt for their own product. I don't think the internet , reality tv, or cable's superiority beat daytime. The ratings reflect that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 67
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members

But how do you explain the fact that primetime fell at the same rate? And that the rest of the daypart (game shows, talk shows, etc.) fell at comparable or faster rates in the last year?

That does not support your contention that the "guys who are running soaps" had anything to do with it, or that the effect is related to the last ten years.

In fact, if you look carefully, you'll see that the CBS soaps have been on a linear decline trajectory since at least the 1960s.

I respectfully submit that the "guys who are running soaps" had very little to do with it. This is systemic, and has relatively little to do with daytime.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Well, I do think prime time can argue options, but I don't think daytime can. There are more shows in primetime compared to daytime, and more shows in primetime now compared to 20+years ago. Of course they're going to share what's in their pot. In regards to primetime, I believe these trends are systematic of any industry/business.

But then I look at daytime, a genre that ceases to renew itself and continues to recycle anything available to them, and I have a hard time believing that the people in positions of power had any love for the genre beyond the obvious. Perhaps I could believe otherwise if we had seen new soaps in the past 10 years, but what have we seen absent Passions.

Perhaps this seems irrational, but I think most soaps are viewed by the execs as the stuff that goes around the ads. Beyond the interference by people like Frons, they've treated them as such, and because of the fear of losing advertisement dollar, they let the quality of work slip, and called it a necessary evil. But I believe these things were taking place prior to what we're seeing today, even when the so-called "good writing" was on.

The viewers started hating the shows for that, and the networks knew their work was inferior. They allowed the internet to sweep in and cite better material. They were okay with cable telling better stories. I mean "Facebook is the new soap"? That's embarrassing.

You're right, it wasn't that one executive or that one writer. But it's because of that I think we're more willing to look at charts and numbers because we don't know who started this downhill slide. I think the charts and numbers are comforting. We see them and say, "this was inevitable."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Hey Mark,

I agree with you in large part. I do think that soaps are dying under their on weight. However, I do blame "guys who are running soaps" to some degree because the guys (and gals) running soaps have had so little vision. Daytime, in many if not all respects, is much the same format it was 20, 30, 40 years ago. I would argue it is not that much different than when soaps began on radio.

As one poster said, daytime now is little more than something wrapped around the ads. Truthfully, I think that has always been the case to some degree. Daytime at one time bankrolled primetime.

Anyway, I think the future of "soaps" as we know it has been known for some time. I think since the early 90s, we have seen it coming. Yet none of those in charge of soaps ever made an effort to change. Daytime continued to hold on to those who said don't blame the fan or there's nothing wrong with a show that has been on for 40 years or if daytime just went back to its roots everything would be fine.

I don't agree with that. It's probably time to cancel many of those soaps and bring something new back in its place. I admit --- and to many of the self-appointed soap expert's displeasure --- that I admired GL for at least trying something different. Unfortunately it just tinkered around the edges. Yes, GL has been cancelled, but really GL is no worse than much that is still on air.

My big disappointment with CBS and GL is that the network didn't take the show out of its misery years ago and second, that it is not bringing something on to replace GL. Primetime cancels and replaces. That is a pretty good model for daytime too.

By the way, if you get a chance, read the book "The Big Sort." It has nothing to do with soap operas or television, but it is really an interesting book. It talks about how we as a society or sorting into neighborhood and communities just like ourselves. It has some pretty interesting insights into what this means for a country that arguably is built on pluralism.

Take care folks and bye.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

If someone is talking about soap viewership in general, every network has been on a downward trend since the 1960s. CBS launched Y&R in 1974, so that's not entirely true. B&B is the only successful launch of a soap since the early 1980's. I don't agree with people that count Santa Barbara, because it never reached ratings status or longevity of other long-running shows. It may have hit the demo sweet spot but was never near the HH rating of other shows.

There is no replacement for an orginal, which is what Guiding Light is. And if it needs to be put out of its misery, there are about 4 or 5 other shows that will probably be right behind GL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Actually, my last analysis suggests they are:

ATWT

DOOL

AMC

OLTL

Surprisingly, on ratings trajectories, I'm not yet prepared to predict cancellations for

GH

B&B

Y&R

Now, trust me, that last three shocked me. I also know that GH dropped to the bottom of the ABC demo...but still, based on a ten-year trend, this bottom three feels like it will survive a few more years. The issue is that their ratings declines are expected to level off (that is already what has happened for Y&R, this past year).

We'll see....

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

    • Cady had a fairly posh accent or manner as Rosanna - the character was a 180 from Dixie when she went to ATWT, and it was a huge success initially. As someone mostly only familiar with the nagging, miserable or clueless Dixie of the mid-late '90s and early 2000s it was what convinced me Cady could act. I thought she was incredible in her first run. Later, in future stints, her hair and story and performances were all over the place but a lot of that was down to the show for me. She brought some of Rosanna back with her to Dixie in her ill-fated return and a lot of people didn't like it, which I understood but I did think the character needed some change. I think she's had a little bit of the same persona and arch performance in every role she's played since, including Jennifer Horton at DAYS or Kelly at Y&R, who later became a maniac and was easily the worst work I've ever seen Cady do. It has kind of infected her overall mannerisms, I'll allow that, but I do think she brought Dixie back together as herself while still evolving the character when she returned to AMC again in 2012-13. Nonetheless, for me the upshot is that this is a character where Cady's kookier recent performance style suits the role. But I can understand it grating for people.
    • Yeah, Loretta Swit's passing stings. My late dad LOVED the show (he died last November) and watched it religiously. In first run and repeats.  And I was literally born the day after the show's premiere, so I grew up with it! I know many loved later, softer Margaret, but I loved Early Hot Lips. In real life, I'm all for less misogyny, but to me, the early years of M*A*S*H were just funnier. May Loretta Swit rest in peace. Thanks for all the memories connected to my dad!
    • FROM THE VAULT: WEEKLY DAYTIME NIELSEN RATINGS: WEEKS OF 10/29/73-11/2/73 & 11/5/73-11/9/73:  

      Please register in order to view this content

    • I agree that she isn't Dixie or Rosanna and shouldn't be acting like either. I just found it strange that she had a naive Southern character and a wealthy urbane character in the past and didn't experiment with accents before (unless I missed it, correct me if I'm wrong). She used to do improv characters on YouTube. She's probably doing something similar here.

      Please register in order to view this content

       
    • And here I thought I'd never think about Lauren Tewes again after her brief appearance in Twin Peaks Season 3.
    • I may be the single person who does not mind Transatlantic Campy Pamela. I think it perfectly suits this sort of Absolutely Fabulous-esque supporting character she's playing much more than it did when Cady tried weird and often broad stuff at AMC* or Y&R, or later stints at ATWT. She's not Dixie and she's not trying to be. I will freely admit some of the other chances she took at other shows often came off stiff, hammy or downright mortifying (Kelly Andrews, come on down). (* - and I say that as one of the few who was somewhat into Cady trying to make Dixie more cosmopolitan in the Rosanna Cabot mold in mid-2000s AMC, just to liven the character up again)
    • There’s absolutely nothing exciting happening storyline wise but I’m always happy to see the vets on my screen so I’ll take what I can get. It’s also just nice to see them all dressed up in the same room, it always gives classic Y&R vibes. The best part? No Phyllis. 
    • Please register in order to view this content

       
    • Well now we had Ashley's reaction-and weren't we all gasping when she appeared to hate it-but she was just joking!! She loved it. Now we have to see Abby's reaction, and maybe Mamie could come back to say she loves it. How about Jill via Zoom giving her opinion (she'll love it) and bring in a day player to play Mrs Martinez to say she loves it also... I feel bad to keep dumping on this show (not really) but when the choices they make are so inane, it's the only entertainment value the show has. Let's unpack the Nikki birthday story. So Claire wants to throw her Nana a birthday bash as away of endearing Kyle to Victor. Don't quite get the logic there,but OK. She hires a party planner who makes ridiculous suggestions. Slightly annoyed that Y&R are hiring someone for this role for 5 episodes when we never see doctors, co- workers etc. But OK to that to. With all the talk we are expecting something special. What we get is the Jazz Lounge hideously decorated with some ugly tablecloths and a few tacky decorations. They needed a planner for this? Then the guest list consists of family members (no grandchildren)and a few others. Hardly a party. As usual the costuming is pretty awful. A red and black theme ? And our guest of honor is sporting a do that looks like a cross between Cameron Diaz in Something about Mary and Marie from Roxette. They should have had an intimate dinner and ditched all the fanfare. Would have been way more believable.
    • Please register in order to view this content

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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