OLTL not going to HD next year

[All My Shadows]

Exactly. Here's my circle-jerk/over-analyzing post for the month:

Cable killed soaps. Cable killed soaps. Cable killed soaps. Soaps today could be AMAZING, BRILLIANT television. But that doesn't guarantee outstanding ratings because quality is SUBJECTIVE and what WE as true believers in the world of soap opera may see as great, the average TV viewer might now. Imagine the 60s, 70s, and 80s, when there was a smaller amount of TV channels. If one was at home during the day (regularly or due to being sick, vacation, etc), if they watched TV, they had no choice but to watch soaps or game shows. They didn't watch soaps because they were enthralled by this or that or mesmerized by this or that. What else were they gonna watch?! Once people got more options of what they could watch during the day, that's when the ratings started to fall, and it's really that simple. Sure, the true fans/die hards like us stuck around and still stick around, but your people who really only watched because they had no other choice started to watch other stuff. Not because soaps suddenly became bad but because they actually could watch something that they might want to watch. This is not to say that bad writing and general suckage aren't culprits in why soap ratings are down. I just think that the people who are migrating from soaps because of their increased lack of quality (or the general consensus thereof) are the die-hard soap fans who stuck around and now have had enough.

So yes, the quality of the shows can affect the ratings, but in the larger scheme of things, soaps will NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER achieve what they did in the 70s, 80s, and 90s, ratings-wise. In a world where a person can get hundreds of channels, you have to figure out the probability of them watching ONE of those channels. The odds get worse with each channel you add.

[DRW50]

A lot of people have had cable for at least 10-15 years, if not 20, but the severe drops still haven't happened as much until the past decade. There really isn't even that much on cable, just a lot of reruns of reruns, especially in daytime. I think that daytime really did chase a lot of viewers away in their desperation to become like everything else. I think if viewers had had a choice between higher quality soaps, and cable, some may still have stayed with soaps. I know a lot of people who felt like their soaps deserted them, especially older viewers who were told that they were worthless and that the teen demo was the only answer.

[All My Shadows]

Of course this is true, but the laws of mathematics almost always take precedence. Three channels (plus PBS and some locals) sharing millions upon millions of viewers works well for everyone. Hundreds of channels sharing millions upon millions of viewers becomes a war zone.

I don't deny that they've let viewers down by trying too hard to change the shows, but they've tried too hard to change the shows for a reason. They probably figured that the base of everyday viewers will be there always, but the people who aren't non-regular viewers are leaving us to watch other stuff, so how can we keep those people from watching reruns on other channels? Let's try to see what exactly they're getting from those reruns...and now let's copy those reruns and hopefully try to do it better. They're losing sight in what is keeping their everyday viewers tuned in, but the advertisers have already told them that those everyday viewers really aren't valuable.

[DRW50]

I guess I don't see daytime cable as being engrossing enough that it becomes a war zone. When I see it it seems more like repeats of shows everyone has seen a million times. That stuff becomes a default for viewers who feel they have nowhere else to go.

I think they tried too hard to change the shows more out of arrogance, and incorrect assumptions, at least at first, than out of losing viewers. They believed they could bring in young viewers and that would easily replace the older viewers. They didn't really get that they would be alienating the older viewers and yet not really bringing in a lot of young viewers, because what can a younger person relate to on soaps now?

Listening to advertisers and assuming a bizarre idea of youth and bad imitations of primetime was the answer I think hurt daytime more than cable.

I remember when AMC started dumping vets in the mid-90s, and replaced them with a half-dozen teens, most of whom had tenuous ties to existing characters. The main story centered on Bobby, a smarmy loser "bad boy" who looked like he hadn't seen his teen years since Reagan was in office. And what do you know, the ratings dropped, and they had to basically go to the soap press and all but apologize for this decision.

I think that started a long and increasingly blatant pattern of AMC pushing away older viewers to try to chase some hip demo which is not interested.

I really believe if daytime had just been patient and written stories for all generations, they might have better youth demos. That doesn't mean they had to keep all the vets, I know that they would have had to phase some out, but they could have had some balance, and appealed to the multi-tier viewers, generation upon generation, which helped keep soaps going for so long. I know it's naive, but I can't help feeling that while soaps would have obviously faced erosion from cable, talk shows, women leaving home, they would still be in a healthier position than they are now.

And having so many soap producers and writers who obviously hate daytime doesn't help.

[chyti]

As a new non-regular soap viewer of the past six years this is exactly it in a nutshell. During the day I watch what I tape at night, on demand channels, netflix which offers instant movies/tv shows, reruns of shows that I never saw during their first run, reruns of old tv sitcoms that I heard about from siblings, dvd's of present movies, online streamings of present movies, and then maybe I will watch a soap there are too many other, better choices for the average tv watcher which is why broadcast television in general is falling in the ratings.

Daytime tv watching isn't just watching what airs live during the daytime anymore, the genre is dying because just like everything else in the technical world things evolve. Instead of all these desperate measures to try and prolonge an industry that is not going to last why not just produce a quality show that has an end in about two/three more years.

[Kubla Khan]

Cable has helped killed soaps, absolutely. But I think the networks have taken the wrong approach in trying to "modernize" their soaps to stay competitive w/ cable and new media. They've sucked out the heart and soul of each show in the process of re-inventing the shows. A smart network exec. would ensure that the show's identity and core is still in-tact while modernizing the stories and making the shows more smart, hip, and edgy. This would be a better approach to keeping the "long time viewers" (i.e. making inter-generational viewing still a reality) while still attracting the newbie viewers. Instead of retaining the show's cores and making the shows hip and edgy (like a true cable show)...we have soulless shows that are sloppy and shallow.

Oy.

[DRW50]

I guess for me this is just a more modern version of what average TV watchers did in the past when they didn't care about seeing a show. They would turn the channel. Or turn the TV off. Or go do housework. Or call someone. Or go outside. The housewife or person at home made time to watch their soaps.

If the soaps were better, more would make effort to watch them.

[You're Soaking in it]

I know this is off-topic, but my perception of this AMC era (not to mention the soap press response to it) is a bit different than yours. I don't recall this being disastrious for AMC at all (unless we're to put aside that ALL shows' numbers dropped significantly in 1994 & 1995, resulting in a number of knee-jerk reactions across the dial). Some of AMC's best, most true to the soul-of-the-show storylines came in 1995. No, it wasn't perfect. The show has never been perfect. But I thought it was pretty damn close.

I suppose, however, that ABC made that apology to AMC viewers by ousting the superb Felicia Behr as EP, and replacing her with the artistic-but-uneven Francesca James... then ousting AMC's most awarded head writer Lorraine Broderick, and replacing her with her plot-driven predecessor, Megan "AMC-is-mine-and-always-will-be" McTavish - who would write the steaming pile of misguided dookie called All My Children 1998 (Lurker-Girl Camille & her crazy white trash dad Lee Hawkins, Raquel Santos, Psychic Mateo, and let's not forget Janet Green's all-time best story, "Harold the Dog DIES").

I swear, I'd probably pay a subscription fee if we could again have the creative pairing of Behr & Broderick over Carruthers & Pratt!

[DRW50]

I thought some of AMC was quite good in 1995, but that was character-driven material featuring longtime characters. The Liza/Tad/Dixie story. Janet's struggle for redemption. The only good story I saw which involved new characters was Michael's coming out. That worked, for the most part, and was smart use of the teens. Erica's pill addiction story and the Kelsey (the only teen I really enjoyed and whose presence on the show felt natural) story also worked for me. So did Arlene's trashy affair with Alec. I don't mean to make it sound like the show at that time was bad. I just think they were starting to shift away from those who made AMC a success to try to shoehorn in new faces, like Laura, Bobby, Anita, Scott.

The main focus on the teens did seem very heavy to me at the time, and most of them weren't interesting enough to justify the airtime. I remember heavy-handed writing like Hector Santos taking his daughter to the gynecologist to make sure she was still a virgin. Do people watch soaps for that? I might be wrong but I did remember ratings falling when they started taking center stage.

Then in 1996, the wheels fell off with Jamaica, Maria/Dimitri having sex and Maria the doctor not noticing a pregnancy for five months, Skye with the floaty nightgown and reduced to a bitter shrew to prop Maria and Hayley, the cringeworthy Pierce/Brooke affair, Janet planning to get plastic surgery to look like Brooke, Liza becoming watered down thanks to Jake Martin, and so on.

I think those years were when AMC started losing its identity. McTavish had some low lows (although I actually liked the Harold story -- give me a poignant tale about losing a pet any day over Janet beating a woman with a giant candy cane and Trevor slinking out of town with a murder rap), but I think the show had already been put in a bad place. I think Lorraine Broderick only works as a writer when people sit on her. Otherwise we get the sick stuff like what they did with Hayley/Tanner or with Brooke dating her daughter's pornographer. The same is true for McTavish, of course, and she is probably even worse.

As you said, lacking a strong EP is what really hurt AMC. They haven't had one in a long time.

[You're Soaking in it]

Broderick can write the shyte out of show when paired with a great EP. So while I thought there were some "great moments" that occurred with Broderick while Francesca James was EP (Edmund takes Baby Sam out of Maria's arms to return to Kelsey, the plane crash / Maria's death), it was wildly uneven and misguided (Tanner, Maria sleeps with Dimitri).

Behr was a slick EP who was very clear in what she wanted for the show. "Character-driven" was big on her to-do list, and that ultimately drove her to fire McTavish (I think Janet's disintegration to a cartoon villain and the umpteenth attempt at an "evil twin" story - the Will Cortlandt lookalike, right on the heels of the Tad / Ted debacle - put the last nail in McT's coffin.) When Broderick stepped in and teamed with Behr, everything just came together. As you mentioned, Liza's return, the affair with Tad - and Marian's "public" reavealing of it, Janet's struggle for redemption, Erica's addiction and unforgettable public meltdown (which, to me and I think to many, marks Susan Lucci's single best performance as Erica), timely cultural references to tabloid television, homophobia, infertility, teen pregnancy... I just thought it was classic AMC reborn. The hasty decision to dismiss Behr was a blow to the show, especially since it seemed to just have been rediscovering itself.....

Ahh... memories of a markedly better All My Children.

[DRW50]

I did think Behr and Broderick made a formidable team on AMC. They weren't a great fit for ATWT (from the Allyson Rice Taylor firing to the Liz Hubbard departure there seemed to be a whole lot of tension), although the reason they were fired was the youth demo, so I guess that shows the pressure they were under at AMC to get a youth demo. I think of that time as a transition because someone I knew then who watched the show was very annoyed by Tom Cudahy being written out and all the teens showing up. So that's something I personally remember and may put too much emphasis on.

AMC has had so many downs in the past 13 or so years, I don't mean to dismiss some of the stronger points from 1995.

I actually think AMC, for it's many downs over the past decade, still had a heart and a soul until Frons.

[You're Soaking in it]

Schnessel doesn't deserve the "hack" label, but I absolutely agree that the show was much better with O'Shea at the helm: Schnessel had some great ideas that made it through in 85-87, including the decision to revisit Niki Smith, the creation of Cord Roberts, Tina over the falls, and Viki's visit to "heaven." But there was resistance from O'Shea on some of the more outlandish choices. I think what she didn't realize is how much better her control and contributions made these various stories. O'Shea's presence really did, as you said, make these otherwise "out there" stories seem grounded and real.

He did the 1888/1988 time travel story, which is appreciated by many. I thought it was boring (worse that it was prolonged by a WGA strike at that time). On the other hand, I thought Carlivati's take on it for the 40th Anniversary last year was entertaining and better executed (and thankfully much shorter)... that's because Carlivati's version was laced with character, and current-day story reference. Schnessel was clearly not gifted in presenting subtext... O'Shea was. It's really too bad she left, because - although THEY may not have thought they were a match - she and Schnessel really did superb work together. Stories like Bo / Faux Bo (Patrick London) and the introduction of Sarah / Megan being Viki's daughter / Fraternity Row (the soap within a soap) might have had twice the impact with O'Shea's guidance and influence.

Schnessel left the show in 1990, as I understand it due to failing health. I believe he passed away a year or two later.

[DRW50]

I wish I could see more of the Old West story. I've seen a few clips. Perhaps there's more on Youtube. What I saw of the story worked for me because of the earnestness, and because I actually did see Ginny as being different from Viki. 1968 didn't work for me because I thought it was too cute, I hate Rex/Gigi as a couple, there were too many bad accents floating around (if you have a choice between a bad accent and no accent, go w/no accent), and JPL and FF can't carry major storyline.

Was Peggy O'Shea resistent to having the psychos come in? I know she did have Jamie Sanders but it seemed like the big time crazies started after she left. Just nasty and vile, to the point where it is almost too much to watch. Austin Buchanan, for instance.

I also have mixed feelings about Michael Grande, although he seemed to be a fan favorite. I can see why Rauch thought Parlato, based on that role, might make a good Roger Thorpe, but truly, there was only one Roger Thorpe.

[You're Soaking in it]

You make an excellent point with Austin Buchanan, and that's precisely what I was getting at... I don't know if she objected to the "psychos" specifically. I don't think it's so much the number of bad guys / psychos, but it was the way they were being written. With O'Shea, there was character and subtext (Maria Roberts, Mitch Laurence 1.0)... but without her, it could be like a fingernails-on-chalkboard cartoon. Even Jill Larson's Ursula Blackwell became a joke... and the Patrick London of 1988 was only good because Bob Woods was playing him... same goes for Michael Grande under Parlato.

But when you think of the other post-O'Shea "evil" characters, played by perhaps less-gifted actors - Austin, Henry Layton, Elizabeth Sanders, Prince Raymond of Mendorra - they were often pretty cartoonish... probably because that's what was on the script under Schnessel.

[DRW50]

I guess it's having psychos just for the sake of having psychos. That hurts a show very quickly.

When I watch the Schnessel clips, I think what salvages some of it is the commitment. The show itself goes all out, but the actors really save the day. Fiona Hutchinson, Jessica Tuck, Bob Woods, Erika Slezak, Michael Grande, James de Paiva, Andrea Evans, John Loprieno, Jensen Buchanan, Clint Ritchie, etc. The talent level varies, obviously, but they're all very earnest and clearly believe the swamp land they are sometimes selling. On paper, Bo marrying Sarah while disguised as a man he looks NOTHING like (the man looked like the crazy on Mork and Mindy who believed he'd been abducted by aliens), then skiing down the slopes, that is a disaster. Yet on the show, it somehow worked.

There's not very much grounded in reality at that time, whereas the O'Shea stuff is. I would have liked to have seen Brenda with a different set of writers and producers, as she's one of those who seems somewhat real to me of that era.