Jump to content

AMC: Daytime Confidential confirming production moving to LA


Recommended Posts

  • Members

The City was in the same studio as Loving,ABC-TV 24 at 320 West 66th street.

This studio is where The View is now produced and for about 5 years,portions of the loft set were used on the show. AMC (and soon OLTL) is in the studio down the hall called ABC-TV 23. Ryan's Hope was in the The View/Loving/The City studio from 1985-89 and Loving was in the AMC/soon to be OLTL studio from 1983-89. LOVING moved to the TV-24 studio in late 1989 and AMC moved into the TV-23 in March 1990.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 502
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members

I don't think it's happened since the 50's or 60's.....and not more than once or twice.

None of the current soaps have ever changed coasts.

I would've said it never happened, but I just read the other day somewhere (maybe here, lol) where someone mentioned that a soap I'd never heard of had suffered from a move from NY to LA.

I do know that the 60's saw a big exodus of all kinds of productions from NY to LA, from The Tonight Show to every game show there was at the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

According to Wikipedia,Glendale is near Glassell Park,so it has to be the KABC Broadcast Center studios.

http://gallery.bostonradio.org/2008-11/la/284-8474-sm.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glendale,_California

Glassell Park neighborhoods of East Los Angeles. The Golden State, Ventura, Glendale, and Foothill freeways run through the city.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glassell_Park,_Los_Angeles,_California

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I don't think it will impact AMC's ratings seriously. They have nothing to lose ratings-wise, especially when the ABC soaps seem to be doing just about the same.

If a lot of the cast doesn't want to make the move and their contracts are up before the move or whatever, it could be a problem. But who knows if actors leaving will seriously impact the ratings anyway at this point?

The only worrying thing is if this relocation is costing too much money, even if it will save the show a lot of money in the long-run.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

It's going to totally ruin the show! It will all be different!

You know, the same way that Ugly Betty is unrecognizable since it moved from LA to NY. Or the X-Files was when it went from Vancouver to LA. Or Fringe will be when it goes from NY to Vancouver...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Here's the thing, though....I didn't believe that original DC article, because it sounded like bullish to me....and I was wrong. And in that original article, the same insiders who said that AMC was moving to L.A. also said that GH and AMC were safer than OLTL, because GH was ABC's signature soap, and AMC had built "legacy" characters over the years, whether or not they still remained on the show (I disagreed with that, since OLTL has done the same, IMO, but that's what the "insider" said).

So I have to believe, unfortunately for me, that if these insiders were right about this move for AMC, they are also likely right about AMC being safer than OLTL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I think 3 things are going to save the show money:

1) NY rent is EXPENSIVE. They own the studio where OLTL will be filming (AMC's old studio), but they didn't own OLTL's studio. So that huge rent is gone after December. (And if it's KABC studios where they'll be filming AMC in L.A., ABC owns that studio, so no rent there, either).

2) Their set in NY is so small that sets had to be taken down and put up over and over, on a daily basis. And that was done by expensive union workers. In LA, the studio is twice the size, so sets can be up permanently.

3) I really think they're banking on losing some "big" salaries with this move, since some actors won't want to relocate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Everyone keeps discussing losing cast members and what not. If they are under contract does that matter? I can see Susan Lucci having a clause in her contract about this but some of the others probably don't, I'm not sure how the whole thing works and what not.

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

    • Speculation about Missy Reeves' potential evolution on basic civil rights doesn’t change my opinion of her. My view is shaped entirely by her public social media presence—which I find unpalatable—and I have no interest in learning more beyond that. I simply liked Jennifer’s hair and dress. That’s as far as my admiration goes.
    • Cheryl was gone before Lemay came back but I agree with your thinking that he would rather a character from a family he introduced to the show than a family he did not originate.  I remember reading somewhere in the early 90's probably after DS left as writer, their was an either a writer or a producer who made a comment that their intent was bring the McKinnon family back to AW.  Would have made sense for the newer viewers from the 80's.  Much like Lemay's attempt to bring the Frames back from his writing in the 70's in his 1988 return
    • DePriest left in January 1988. According to the AWHP, Rose last appeared nearly a year before in February 1987 while both Sara and Peggy appeared as late as October 1987.
    • Annie was not brought in as an antagonist for Reva. Reva wasn’t even on the canvas when Annie first appeared in late 1994. 
    • The speculation……….very entertaining. 
    • I had forgotten that several Days stars came out strong against Melissa. Good for them!
    • That would have made sense. Did all these characters get dropped when DePriest left or had they already been dropped?
    • The other issue with Missy: in June 2020, she "liked" some social media posts by Candace Owens -- things Candace said that were against Black Lives Matter.  That is described here https://tvline.com/news/melissa-reeves-racism-days-of-our-lives-instagram-controversy-2894568/ I don't know if that was ever resolved.
    • She appeared onscreen not long after Rose Livingston and Sara Montaigne, and we found out that Sara was Rose's estranged daughter. I wonder whether Peggy might have been part of that family group -- or else they were just juggling a few different potential mysteries so that they could develop whatever seemed to be getting the best response from the audience. They didn't do anything much with Rose and Sara really either. Maybe Rose would have become more prominent if Rachel and Mac had split up over Mitch, or if Sara had really flourished. In some ways I can picture Cheryl being affected by MJ's prostitution similarly to how Josie was distressed by finding out about Sharlene. But I can also see that Josie as a Frame being involved with Matthew would have different stakes for Rachel and Sharlene than Cheryl being involved with Scott. I do think the solution for Cheryl would have had to be a badder boy than Scott -- either a real bad boy who would do her wrong, or the kind of bad boy (not Chad!!!) who is essentially misunderstood and other people just don't understand. Cheryl would also have been better off with some friends her own age. Matthew and Josie benefited a bit from having other teenagers to interact with.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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