The game show genre which is dismissed by so many people here is one that dwindled, but never died completely.

Aside from Price is Right, the genre did die completely on network daytime. They tried and tried to replace it with other programming. It's back now because it's cheap. If they find something else even cheaper, then LMAD will be history.

I don't think it's about "beating up on TPTB all the time," so much as how many times some of us can hear a variation of "It doesn't matter, daytime is dying, the soaps have no say in the matter, they were doomed from the start!" I'm not saying that YOU are saying this, but this has been said in one form or another so many times, especially in the Y&R threads, that I tend to have a somewhat terse response.

The way they are, they were (doomed). Scientifically proven.

But your post touches on philosophy and the unanswered question: What is eternal? Soap operas most certainly are not.

They will live, but transformed.

Another BOOM! Ann and I agree about something!

The endtimes are upon us.

And when soaps can cut costs appropriately and find a modern audience, both casual and regular, they'll be back, or, if they're lucky, they'll simply continue. But the kind of stories that are told, and the focus on an immersive world for the viewer, does not have to change. There is nothing about the kind of tales Nixon or Marland or Phillips or Lemay told that is obsolete (as opposed to the execution). Issues of ongoing family and community will always be part of scripted drama.

Edited December 10, 200916 yr by Vee

You and me both. LOL!

Your example of the game show is perfect. The game show genre which is dismissed by so many people here is one that dwindled, but never died completely. Game shows will always be popular programming choices for the network because they are inexpensive to produce and there is an audience that will tune in. Daytime serials may be able to follow this trend if Y&R and one or two soaps hold on and creative ways are found to substantially reduce production costs while keeping the soaps looking reasonable good. Our society has changed. There are never going to be enough women at home to watch daytime television ever again and there are too many alternative choices two watch on tv.

I will never get why people look at game shows with such contempt and such a upturned nose perspective. Uh...soaps are the ones dying a miserable death (regardless of reason) and if they ever come back, it won't be the way they are now. Game shows are thriving and are a living breathing genre that is constantly changing and rearranging. Look at "Family Feud." It was a huge hit in the 70s and early 80s with Richard Dawson. It lost popularity for a while and was canned. Then, only three years later, it was a big hit again with Ray Combs. After a while, it lost popularity again and was canceled. Then, only four years later, it became a big hit AGAIN and is currently on its fifth host and still going strong. It's like game shows have found the fountain of youth or something.

Aside from Price is Right, the genre did die completely on network daytime. They tried and tried to replace it with other programming. It's back now because it's cheap. If they find something else even cheaper, then LMAD will be history.

Honestly, though, it never really mattered if TPIR was the only game show on network daytime. So many of the syndicated games were seen in daytime, and it's hard to tell the difference just from watching between the two. Family Feud is a hit in daytime syndication, Millionaire is (or was) a hit in daytime syndication, Jeopardy reruns are a hit in daytime syndication (and even weekend daytime, which is truly WTF), Deal or No Deal is doing well, Fifth Grader (ugh) is even doing well, etc. Hollywood Squares was a hit for a while, too, another show that rose from the ashes twice.

Edited December 10, 200916 yr by All My Shadows

The endtimes are upon us.

LOL!

Marceline... You don't have anything to add? To spice things up a bit? You know you want to!

I was hoping we could find a way to circle back to the topic of ATWT's cancellation as opposed to Sylph's endless pubertal rebellion on the board. There's nothing more over the hill than a man begging other posters on the Internet to help him "spice it up!" Bedroom aids come to mind.

Edited December 10, 200916 yr by Vee

I will never get why people look at game shows with such contempt and such a upturned nose perspective.

Because they trivialise knowledge.

Oh, that's adorable, you're British now. Just like Madonna! Right on the bleeding edge of now.

Edited December 10, 200916 yr by Vee

Game shows are thriving and are a living breathing genre that is constantly changing and rearranging. Look at "Family Feud." It was a huge hit in the 70s and early 80s with Richard Dawson. It lost popularity for a while and was canned. Then, only three years later, it was a big hit again with Ray Combs. After a while, it lost popularity again and was canceled. Then, only four years later, it became a big hit AGAIN and is currently on its fifth host and still going strong. It's like game shows have found the fountain of youth or something.

Family Feud was a powerhouse show and is now, compared to those days, a back number, although at least they finally wised up and replaced Louis Anderson.

I love game shows. I watched Joker's Wild, Classic Concentration, Win Lose or Draw, Sale of the Century, on and on. I watched the reruns that used to come on USA. I watch GSN now, to see the classic shows from 40, 50 years ago. I sat through every episode of awful Regis and the brain dead people who generally made up Million Dollar Password, because I wanted to at least get to see the show revived one more time (and it was nice to see Betty White).

My fondness for game shows doesn't mean I can enjoy something as badly put together as LMAD, or that I can trumpet their ratings, which are barely higher than GL's and which somehow managed to have older demos.

Do I resent game shows for replacing soaps?

No.

Do I resent that these game shows are, if LMAD, or the current Price is Right are any indication, cheap jack, boring afterthoughts which seem to only be on the air to fill time?

Yes.

And if these shows do succeed, then in the long run, they just further sour the great energy which game shows once had.

Honestly, though, it never really mattered if TPIR was the only game show on network daytime. So many of the syndicated games were seen in daytime, and it's hard to tell the difference just from watching between the two. Family Feud is a hit in daytime syndication, Millionaire is (or was) a hit in daytime syndication, Jeopardy reruns are a hit in daytime syndication (and even weekend daytime, which is truly WTF), Deal or No Deal is doing well, Fifth Grader (ugh) is even doing well, etc. Hollywood Squares was a hit for a while, too, another show that rose from the ashes twice.

I thought Deal or No Deal and Fifth Grader had both gone down quite a bit in the ratings.

Aside from the few stalwarts, it seems to me that game shows are still just brief fads which are quickly burnt out if they're put in primetime. I do enjoy some of the GSN shows, like the one Alfonso Ribero hosts.

Family Feud was a powerhouse show and is now, compared to those days, a back number, although at least they finally wised up and replaced Louis Anderson.

I love game shows. I watched Joker's Wild, Classic Concentration, Win Lose or Draw, Sale of the Century, on and on. I watched the reruns that used to come on USA. I watch GSN now, to see the classic shows from 40, 50 years ago. I sat through every episode of awful Regis and the brain dead people who generally made up Million Dollar Password, because I wanted to at least get to see the show revived one more time (and it was nice to see Betty White).

My fondness for game shows doesn't mean I can enjoy something as badly put together as LMAD, or that I can trumpet their ratings, which are barely higher than GL's and which somehow managed to have older demos.

Do I resent game shows for replacing soaps?

No.

Do I resent that these game shows are, if LMAD, or the current Price is Right are any indication, cheap jack, boring afterthoughts which seem to only be on the air to fill time?

Yes.

And if these shows do succeed, then in the long run, they just further sour the great energy which game shows once had.

Well, we're on the same page here, then lol I liked the new LMAD for the first two weeks or so, but it got old QUICK. Once I realized that the contestants don't make their own costumes, the magic was lost.

And when soaps can cut costs appropriately and find a modern audience, both casual and regular, they'll be back, or, if they're lucky, they'll simply continue. But the kind of stories that are told, and the focus on an immersive world for the viewer, does not have to change. There is nothing about the kind of tales Nixon or Marland or Phillips or Lemay told that is obsolete (as opposed to the execution). Issues of ongoing family and community will always be part of scripted drama.

I agree. It's naive, or a copout, since we will never know, but I really do believe that if the above writers just started out in the soap genre now, they would find a way to hook viewers. I can't bring myself to believe that people were willing to watch soaps 20 years ago but then suddenly technology fell on their head and now they see daytime as unworthy.

I agree. It's naive, or a copout, since we will never know, but I really do believe that if the above writers just started out in the soap genre now, they would find a way to hook viewers. I can't bring myself to believe that people were willing to watch soaps 20 years ago but then suddenly technology fell on their head and now they see daytime as unworthy.

That's lovely, but I don't believe it.

Don't forget the viewership kept bleeding even when Bill Bell, Harding Lemay and Douglas Marland wrote shows. They couldn't even stabilise them.

I can't bring myself to believe that people were willing to watch soaps 20 years ago but then suddenly technology fell on their head and now they see daytime as unworthy.

This is exactly where we differ, because it's not hard for me to believe this.