7 hours ago, adrnyc said:

Y'all can believe what you want but as year after year, decade after decade continues to go by and you're all still writing posts like, "I don't understand why P&G doesn't do anything with all of their soap opera material," maybe one day, it'll sink in.

Very often I talk to soap fans about this subject. I have authored & maintain a blog on "Streaming Classic Soaps". I do not whine about not understanding P&G. Instead I talk to soap fans about many things that would have to happen for classic soaps to be curated & how expensive & time consuming it could be, not even getting into how high episode counts would require so many servers. 

As far as I am aware, 5 different streamers approached P&G and P&G turned them all away, disappointed, saying, at that time, "We are no longer in the soap opera business." 

 

16 hours ago, Melroser said:

If the episodes do still exist, it would be great if P&G's involvement with The Gates becomes successful. Then maybe consider streaming rights of their catalog to companies as a way to generate money for more projects. One can hope. 

Yes the episodes exist (post-1979 and a few scattered episodes from earlier periods).  And it would be great if P&G would release their archive to a streaming platform.  But I don't hold out any hope that it will happen any time soon.  Although I do believe P&G still maintains the episodes, the logistics of organizing, preparing, and releasing the episodes would be a financial boondoggle for P&G. Streaming those old soaps would not be a profit-maker for P&G, in fact it would likely cost the company money.  First, the thousands of tapes are not accurately and chronologically labeled. They are on old technology (one-inch videotape cassettes, I believe), and they have not consistently been stored in a climate controlled environment.  For example, I was told by the P&G lead archivist that all the AW tapes had been stored in the basement of the Brooklyn studio until the show was cancelled.  At which time, he personally flew to NYC to assist in moving them to a centralized location.  My point here is -- even organizing the tapes to prepare for digitizing (which would be required to broadcast/stream today) would cost untold thousands of dollars.  So far, no profit.

Next is finding a platform interested in streaming the various soaps to their customers.  That would involve uploading and storing on their servers thousands and thousands of digitized episodes for streaming, and possible re-captioning (to provide required closed captioning) for every single episode (unless that transfers from the videotapes, which is unlikely).   And then promoting and finding an audience for the various shows.  I just don't see any profit here.  

Next, we haven't even discussed the size of the potential audience for old soap operas, which I believe is a very small group of die-hard fans (like many of us).  Maybe 5000 individuals tops nationwide, would anyone agree?  Again, too much effort and cost for the return -- no profit in my opinion.  

I think the most similar situation to study is RetroTV's broadcast of The Doctors during the past decade.  Although there are mixed opinions about whether that effort was profitable, at least RetroTV did get the episodes on the air and on a streaming platform.  But did Colgate-Palmolive (who produced the show and supposedly still owns the show) make a profit from this?  Did SFM Entertainment (the show's distributer) make a profit?  And did RetroTV itself even make a profit?  Did any of those entities break-even financially?  At this point, would RetroTV do this again, if they had the opportunity? Would Colgate-Palmolive or SFM Entertainment do this again?  I've never seen the answers to those questions.  But something tells me, that entire effort was not a big money-maker for anyone.   

Maybe the best option would be to remove the profit angle all together, and convince a museum (like the Paley Center for Media in NYC or the Broadcast Museum in Chicago) to create a streaming platform and sell memberships in an attempt to break-even financially. Since most museums are non-profit organizations, they would be happy with something approaching a break-even situation.

As much as I would like to see all the old soap operas made available for streaming, it is not something I expect to see in my lifetime.  

Why would they go through all of the trouble of saving these episodes only to destroy them later? I don't think it would take that much to digitize and stream episodes. Surely they're interested in making money off of them. 

29 minutes ago, Reverend Ruthledge said:

Why would they go through all of the trouble of saving these episodes only to destroy them later? I don't think it would take that much to digitize and stream episodes. Surely they're interested in making money off of them. 

They did not destroy them.  But actually organizing and digitizing the episodes is quite an effort.  And the audience is very small, so very little profit is likely.   Just my opinions of course.  

And for those saying no one is saying or wondering why they're not being shown, Reverend Rutledge just proved my point. Wondering why they wouldn't keep them and insisting they could make money off of them.

Why would they keep them? Because companies kept everything for years.

Why would they finally destroy them? Because the P&G soap opera division has ceased to exist for over a decade. It cost them to keep them in storage so, as I heard first hand from someone who worked at P&G, rather than spend the money on them, they just got rid of everything. That makes perfect corporate how-do-we-save-money sense.

But I'm probably wrong. And somewhere in some giant warehouse in NYC are hundreds of thousands of tapes of As The World Turns, Guiding Light, Another World, Texas, The Edge of Night and Search for Tomorrow.

But...oh my gosh, they're creating a new all-black cast soap opera. That MUST mean they actually care about their 40 year old entertainment that they, oops, destroyed so long ago. 

Message boards always remind me of how much people will bend the truth or make up things in order to either not deal with something too painful or keep their hope alive, or...I don't know, just have something to rant about?

I'll never get it.

Why hasn't P&G donated whatever their have to a major archive or research facility, like the Library of Congress or UCLA, or to any university or museum looking to start up a research archive? 

P&G was an early pioneer in getting their soaps up and streaming. Remember the AOL Classic Soap channel from the late 2000s? They even had Another World from 1991-1992 up on Hulu. Then Guiding Light and As the World Turns were canceled and everything changed. Out of spite, or whatever, nothing has been heard from them about classic soaps for going on 12 years now. You'd think they'd continue with AW on Hulu, and add classic ATWT and GL, but nope, they were done. As to the fate of the tapes, who knows; but again, I don't understand why they won't let other people at them.

Edited July 31, 20241 yr by Jdee43

Pretty sure this dude has me on Ignore for telling him his kinder gentler tone shift wasn't working out after years of trolling, but now it's really not working out.

21 minutes ago, Jdee43 said:

Why hasn't P&G donated whatever their have to a major archive or research facility, like the Library of Congress or UCLA, or to any university or museum looking to start up a research archive? 

P&G was an early pioneer in getting their soaps up and streaming. Remember the AOL Classic Soap channel from the late 2000s? They even had Another World from 1991-1992 up on Hulu. Then Guiding Light and As the World Turns were canceled and everything changed. Out of spite, or whatever, nothing has been heard from them about classic soaps for going on 12 years now. You'd think they'd continue with AW on Hulu, and add classic ATWT and GL, but nope, they were done. As to the fate of the tapes, who knows; but again, I don't understand why they won't let other people at them.

Another World 1980-81, Texas 1980-81, Search for Tomorrow 1984, and Edge of Night 1980-81 were digitized for the AOL Soap Channel.  I know a lot of this is on YouTube, but this could be put on a streaming service if it was saved.

Almost every other commercial on PlutoTV is for a P&G product. With all the classic TV they have, I could see a P&G soap channel working there.  If they have multiple channels of 30- 40- 50- year old game shows, then a soaps channel, besides Y&R and B&B, could work on Pluto TV.

Anyone know the status of the episodes of the TBS P&G produced soap The Catlins from the 1980s?  I wonder if these episodes were saved by TBS or P&G?

1 hour ago, Reverend Ruthledge said:

uestionWhy would they go through all of the trouble of saving these episodes only to destroy them later? I don't think it would take that much to digitize and stream episodes. Surely they're interested in making money off of them. 

You're not listening. It would take quite a lot to prepare these old videotapes. First they'd all have to be organized. Then, they'd have to be digitized. Likely title cards would have to be created. Next up, the question of music rights. Finally, servers, so many servers would be needed because the episode counts are so high. That is one reason why Jerome Dobson's recent announcement about Santa Barbara is very interesting. The show has less than 3,000 episodes, total. 

4 hours ago, adrnyc said:

And for those saying no one is saying or wondering why they're not being shown, Reverend Rutledge just proved my point. Wondering why they wouldn't keep them and insisting they could make money off of them.

That's speculation any poster is going to have. That's inevitable. They aren't coming from a place where they are in anguish, tearing their hair out over P&G's archives or lack thereof. 

I would suggest if you don't want people to speculate, you should put them on ignore. 

You're probably correct and I shall start doing so. 12 years of the same speculation over and over again just becomes tiresome. Instead, I'll spend my time focusing on all the episodes that exist on YouTube for there are, indeed, many!

So, this is as good a time as any to say, what is it you are looking for? For me, it's for AW, March 15 & 18, 1985. Felicia & Wally are in a truck with Carolyn the gorilla in the back of it. Felicia is driving, apparently an 18 wheeler, but the brakes have gone out & they are on the downside of a hill, headed straight for the city, going faster & faster, screaming, lots of screaming, and they barreled into Tall Boys & did some damage. This used to be up, available but it's been MIA, I can attest, for years. 

10 minutes ago, adrnyc said:

You're probably correct and I shall start doing so. 12 years of the same speculation over and over again just becomes tiresome. Instead, I'll spend my time focusing on all the episodes that exist on YouTube for there are, indeed, many!

The thing that I tire of is not this but it's related. And that is every Tom, Dick, Jane & Mary wanting their classic soap to be rebooted. I cannot tell you how many times I have said that this simply is not going to happen. Speculatively, I can go as far as saying, ignoring my own favorites, that Edge of Night would have the biggest chance of success. 

On 7/30/2024 at 1:17 PM, Mona Kane Croft said:

Interesting.  Thanks for the information.  It's fun to know the writers were savvy enough to use Missy's move to Somerset to propel a plot in Bay City.   

It is an interesting contrast between the spin-off of Somerset versus Texas.

The seeds of Somerset seem to be sewn from the moment Missy and Bill leave Bay City.  I know that it was not always the plan to have Missy anchor the spin-off, but their departure sets in motion a series of events that culminate in Sam, Lahoma, and Missy moving to Somerset.  As I mentioned, Walter and Lenore buy Missy and Bill's house, which necessitates Walter leaving the DA's office in order to join John Randolph's practice so that they can afford the new place.  Sam and Lahoma had been having problems in their marriage due to his neglect around the time of Lee's death, her taking on a new job, and his fluctuating dedication to law school.  So, when he passes the bar, but John had already taken on Walter as a partner, it seems like the right time for them to renew their commitment to each other and get a fresh start in Somerset.  Then, Bill dies, Missy returns, Liz becomes overbearing, and she realizes that she'll never be liberated living with her mother-in-law.  So there's a flow, along with Rachel searching for her father while avoiding Russ during her pregnancy with Jamie, that builds momentum. 

Years later, while Reena had become a part of the Bay City crowd, Iris's decision to visit Houston feels more impetuous.  Obviously, she didn't plan on staying until Alex wooed her.  However, she had just divorced Brian, and she had spent a good period of time off-screen in the south of France.  So, even though the audience had been introduced to the Houstonians, there was less groundwork laid for the connection between Texas and Another World.  That may have been done on purpose, so that when Mac was going through his marital troubles with Rachel, it didn't create a situation where we expected Iris to weigh in on the matter.  But, I recommend reading the synopses, starting at six months before the debut of each show, to see the differences.  It shows some intriguing creative choices. 

The For Richer, For Poorer spin off is the clutziest of the three, in my opinion.  When Lovers and Friends started, there was no mention of the connection to the citizens of Bay City.  Then, when it got retooled, Amy and Austin have a week-long dinner with Mac and Rachel where both couples discuss their marital issues.  It seems especially odd, that suddenly Mac is giving relationship advice to these two strangers.  But, Rachel and Mac wish them well, then Amy and Austin leave to show up on the new FRFP.

 

Edited August 1, 20241 yr by j swift

16 hours ago, j swift said:

 

The For Richer, For Poorer spin off is the clutziest of the three, in my opinion.  When Lovers and Friends started, there was no mention of the connection to the citizens of Bay City.  Then, when it got retooled, Amy and Austin have a week-long dinner with Mac and Rachel where both couples discuss their marital issues.  It seems especially odd, that suddenly Mac is giving relationship advice to these two strangers.  But, Rachel and Mac wish them well, then Amy and Austin leave to show up on the new FRFP.

 

Amy and Austin weren't even the show's first couple, that's an interesting choice. Perhaps because of the magazine world? Austin was a photographer, right?

I always thought that Mac and Rachel were wedding guests  in the reboot premiere.

I wish I could watch L&F/FRFP online.

On 7/11/2024 at 10:41 AM, j swift said:

Amusingly, is there anything more indicative of an actor’s ego than saving only their own scenes? It’s akin to actors who read only the parts of the script in which they appear. However, giving her the benefit of the doubt, she probably posts scenes that she is in to comply with YouTube rules.

She said her Mom (her biggest fan) bought one of the first expensive home recorders (pre VHS which arrived in 1977) and recorded her on the show. She said the basement flooded at her Mom's house and most of the tapes were damaged by mold. She said she found the surviving material she is uploading in a linen closet. She is still looking at what stuff is left and hopes to find more surprises.

She said she loved being on AW and was hurt she was let go. Same thing for ATWT.