It's kinda silly. No way would La Looch move all the way to CA. That would involve effort and she's not big on really doing anything. The whole show really wouldn't be worth it.

"It would be so much cheaper to produce the show in L.A., because they can build permanent sets. That's one of the reason's it is so expensive to do shows in New York, because you have to pay the Union workers to come in and break downs sets every day."

Don't they do the same thing in Los Angeles? Unless AMC were planning on going the GL route and building permanent sets, Los Angeles pays Union workers to do the exact same thing. I can't think of a single L.A. soap that has more than one set that stays unstruck after the day is over.

"The network is getting to to the point where they have to do something to keep the shows profitable, so if they lose a few stars with the move, that's a risk they are willing to take," says a second mole. "A few years back there was talk of moving One Life to Live to Florida, but the network backed off because much of the veteran cast refused to move."

"That Aisha Tyler Show was definitely planned for the ABC Daytime lineup," says a source. "People at all three soaps were definitely worried, no matter what was said in the trades."

Now I buy this. But that's just a lucky guess.

"GH may be the lowest rated ABC soap right now, but historically it's the lineup's most popular soap, it will be the last one to be cancelled," says an insider. "All My Children is considered the legacy soap, even though One Life to Live is older and was the first soap Agnes [Nixon] created for ABC, because AMC has iconic characters played by people recognized outside of the soap world. One Life's problem is it never created those types of superstar characters. Moving AMC to LA will actually buy both soaps time."

LOL. If AMC is considered the "legacy soap," then why is IT being moved to LA instead of "never created superstar characters" OLTL?

Brian Frons said in an interview that he was a fan of OLTL and GH and that he had never seen AMC before he joined the lineup. That should say something in regards to how Frons feels about AMC.

Don't they do the same thing in Los Angeles? Unless AMC were planning on going the GL route and building permanent sets, Los Angeles pays Union workers to do the exact same thing. I can't think of a single L.A. soap that has more than one set that stays unstruck after the day is over.

They just have more room for permanent sets out in Los Angeles. There's definitely less striking done on the LA soaps than there are on the NYC soaps, because the NY soaps have much MUCH smaller studios to work with. The DC article is just worded weird, but I get what they were trying to say.

This article is complete and utter bs.

Exactly.

And Susan Lucci may not be the most talented thespian ever to grace daytime, but she's still the most famous and recognizable.

Cool. So if she doesn't make the move that's not a good thing?

Susan Lucci is, and will always be, a joke...both inside and outside the soap industry.

She's a "name," but nothing more. NO ONE in or outside daytime thinks she ever deserved an Emmy, nor thinks she could've succeeded outside of daytime. (Her many failures include a recurring role on DALLAS, some ABC primetime TV movies, etc).

Like I said, let's not make this an "us vs. them" issue, which is clearly what the loons at DC are hoping for, if only to try to be relevant for a change.

Doesn't matter if she is a joke or not she is still known outside of the soap world as a legacy character. It's not an us vs. them issue it's just stating facts and I doubt that it will happen but if it does good for them.

More BS from DC. I can't believe that anyone would take this crap seriously. Only out of touch with reality Jamey Giddens could write that with a straight face. No way can AMC be moved to LA. It is not financial feasible, period. No way would this save money. ABC would not waste the time and energy when its soaps are on the edge of collapsing as things stand.

Everyone that I know, knows Susan Lucci. No one thinks that she is some great actress, but they know that she plays the bitchy Erica that people love to hate. Eric Braden is also a name people recognize as TGVN. Jack Wagner is big from his Melrose Days. They know Kelly Monaco from DWTS (apparently everyone watches that show except me) and have a vague memory of Tony Geary, but everyone else from daytime might as well as be invisble.

My friends know that both Victoria Rowell and especially Shamar Moore used to be on Young and the Restless and they never watched one episode everyone else like you said probably can walk down the street during rush hour traffic and not even turn a head.

I have no idea which soap ABC will cancel first, but all three of them cannot keep declining like this and stay on the air. I do think that ABC will experience more with GL's cheap production model. I saw OLTL is already going that route. AMC and GH will probably do the same eventually if the ratings do not rebound during November sweeps. Moving AMC to LA is a non-starter.

If people don't recognize Eric Braeden's name, they definitely know his face. The moustache!

During the last World Cup, I was watching ESPNews only to hear them announce that Eric Braeden would be coming on. I was in shock. I hung around for the interview thinking that he was going to talk about a charity or something like that. The whole interview was about the World Cup and his torn loyalties because he is originally from Germany. The guy interviewing him was dead serious too. Braeden is that well known to non-soap male audience. Stunning.

Kelly Monaco and Cameron Mathison both benefited a whole lot from being on DWTS, and Tony Geary is pretty unrecognizable unless he has a crazy perm. The only other people that I can think of are Shemar Moore and Victoria Rowell, who, if they're not knowing by the general non-soap-watching public, are definitely known by the black non-soap-watching public. Same with Debbi Morgan (but Darnell Williams, not so much).

My friends know that both Victoria Rowell and especially Shamar Moore used to be on Young and the Restless and they never watched one episode everyone else like you said probably can walk down the street during rush hour traffic and not even turn a head.

I didn't mention Victoria Rowell and Shemar Moore because they are no longer on the soaps, but you are both right. Debbie Morgan may be well known in the black community, but not the general poblic. Her face might be recognizable from Eve's Bayou which got a lot of critical acclaim and she was amazing in that movie.

"That Aisha Tyler Show was definitely planned for the ABC Daytime lineup," says a source. "People at all three soaps were definitely worried, no matter what was said in the trades."

My whole idea about that show was that it would air in the time period occupied by Oprah on the ABC O&O Stations and affiliates once Oprah goes to her own network, if that's still in the works.

I don't really see how a talk show in either AMC's or OLTL's time period could bring in higher ratings. Especially if AMC is constantly out preformed by Y&R and B&B. The only thing I could see helping ABC Daytime is moving all their soaps back by 1 hour. There is a chance that with better writing an an earlier start AMC could do well at noon if all east coast affiliates & owned stations will air it that time. I don't really think the 3pm time period is that viable anymore. With better writing across the board for ABCD they could contend against CBS because we all know the writing on that network is far from superior.

Edited July 28, 200916 yr by CSF

I've always wondered, after PC was canceled, what would happen if ABC had moved the entire lineup a half hour ahead to start with CBS's lineup? Because I think it's kind of convenient right now that Y&R and B&B are feeding off that half hour jumpstart. By the time 1:30 rolls around, viewers could either stick around and watch B&B in its entirety, or come in half way through AMC, having missed out on the first half hour. Of course, watch a half hour show in its entirety makes sense. But... what if at 1:30, you're pulled into One Life... do you flip over to B&B or just continue to watch One Life because B&B's going to be over in another 15-20 minutes anyway?

I know there are multiple other factors involved, but still, it's easy to boast and brag about your numbers when you get a 30 minute head start.

I've always wondered, after PC was canceled, what would happen if ABC had moved the entire lineup a half hour ahead to start with CBS's lineup? Because I think it's kind of convenient right now that Y&R and B&B are feeding off that half hour jumpstart. By the time 1:30 rolls around, viewers could either stick around and watch B&B in its entirety, or come in half way through AMC, having missed out on the first half hour. Of course, watch a half hour show in its entirety makes sense. But... what if at 1:30, you're pulled into One Life... do you flip over to B&B or just continue to watch One Life because B&B's going to be over in another 15-20 minutes anyway?

I know there are multiple other factors involved, but still, it's easy to boast and brag about your numbers when you get a 30 minute head start.

Exactly! I'll never understand why ABC is so stupid and refused to move their line up around. CBS has always had success from "smart" scheduling. ABC on the other hand has not. They went through four 30 minute soaps failing that occupied the 12:30 EST time period since 1975. Did it ever occur to them that maybe the failure is their 3 hour block preventing the success of another soap? They should have kept AMC at 12:30 in 1975 when they made it a lead in for Ryan's Hope and then moved Ryan's Hope to 1:30 when AMC expanded to 60 minutes in 1977.

They just have more room for permanent sets out in Los Angeles. There's definitely less striking done on the LA soaps than there are on the NYC soaps, because the NY soaps have much MUCH smaller studios to work with. The DC article is just worded weird, but I get what they were trying to say.

That would be true if it was OLTL who has to base their whole taping schedule for weeks at a time on what set is there.

That would be true if it was OLTL who has to base their whole taping schedule for weeks at a time on what set is there.

Having been inside OLTL's studio, I give them MAJOR props for how they are producing the show now. Their studio isso tiny and you'd never know it based on the sets we see on air. They are brilliant in how they will truck in a big set and use it for a ton of episodes that are all shot in the same day or a couple of days.

Back to the reason for this thread, it doesn't make sense that only AMC would move to L.A. OLTL's studio is even smaller than AMC's.

Back to the reason for this thread, it doesn't make sense that only AMC would move to L.A. OLTL's studio is even smaller than AMC's.

Nothing ABC does makes any sense at all anymore. But that's besides the point because I'm pretty certain this is all just another rumor. Just like the rumor that ABC was "this close to canceling AMC" or that they "were this close to not renewing AMC."

Back to the reason for this thread, it doesn't make sense that only AMC would move to L.A. OLTL's studio is even smaller than AMC's.

Well, not that I buy this at all, but if AMC moved west, then OLTL could move into the AMC vacated TV-23.

I've always wondered, after PC was canceled, what would happen if ABC had moved the entire lineup a half hour ahead to start with CBS's lineup? Because I think it's kind of convenient right now that Y&R and B&B are feeding off that half hour jumpstart. By the time 1:30 rolls around, viewers could either stick around and watch B&B in its entirety, or come in half way through AMC, having missed out on the first half hour. Of course, watch a half hour show in its entirety makes sense. But... what if at 1:30, you're pulled into One Life... do you flip over to B&B or just continue to watch One Life because B&B's going to be over in another 15-20 minutes anyway?

I know there are multiple other factors involved, but still, it's easy to boast and brag about your numbers when you get a 30 minute head start.

Exactly! I'll never understand why ABC is so stupid and refused to move their line up around. CBS has always had success from "smart" scheduling. ABC on the other hand has not. They went through four 30 minute soaps failing that occupied the 12:30 EST time period since 1975. Did it ever occur to them that maybe the failure is their 3 hour block preventing the success of another soap? They should have kept AMC at 12:30 in 1975 when they made it a lead in for Ryan's Hope and then moved Ryan's Hope to 1:30 when AMC expanded to 60 minutes in 1977.

Adding my voice to the chorus. I will never understand why ABC did not move its soap line up to start at 12:30 p.m. The only reason I could think of is that they have been afraid that GH's ratings would suffer if it did not start at 3:00 p.m. by which time the kids got home from school.