So why aren't soap actors more supportive of the genre?

[JaneAusten]

That's true but I have also heard their viewing decrease blamed in a way for the decline of primetime. Soaps were at one time a cash cow for all the networks and much of the money was used to help develope and sustain new primetime endeavors. Just imagine shows like Taxi or Cheers may never had made it if it wasn't for soaps. No way in this day and age would either of these shows have made it with their dismal ratings their first couple of years. But the networks stuck with them until they became successful partially due to the monies daytime afforded them.

I know TPTB spew all that nonsense about changing lifestyles etc. But I don't particularly like the actors spewing the same nonsense. I guess they are just following the lead of their bosses. It just reeks of sticking around to collect a paycheck and nothing more. Do any of them really love the genre? I guess we all want them to care as much as we do and to them, it's just a paycheck.

We all know the writing could improve but I'm just not sure good writing would make a difference. So many quality TV shows and films flop. I think more should try what Days has done but who really knows if Days will be able to sustain their gains and I honestly don't think any of TPTB at CBS or ABC has a clue as to what Days did and how they did it.

[Ann_SS]

While some prime time shows do get more time to find their feet if they are darlings of the critics, lots of prime time shows have done poorly are quickly cancelled on the three main networks. If anything prime time shows are far easier to cancel because the networks usually have mid-season replacements lined up. The networks have given the soaps far more time to turn things around because they don't have cheap replacement programming in the works.

[EricMontreal22]

All true but people love to show how the ratings are somuch lower than 20 years ago--so areprimetime numbers

[Chris B]

Knots Landing was always the low rated primetime soap, the little engine that could. That show regularly reached 15-20 million viewers! It made CBS Thursdays and they didn't have another hit until CSI came along. Primetime ratings are way down these days and what makes a hit on network tv has changed. For soaps though they still expect the same ratings with absolutely no promo. Lets see how the already struggling primetime shows would do under the same circumstances. Soaps are dying because no one cares. That's the one and only reason.

[Ann_SS]

But if the networks had those expectations they would have cancelled all the soaps over 10 years ago. What the networks are looking at is profitable in the current economy. CBS has cancelled the soaps that are no longer profitable or profitable enough because there is cheaper alternative programming. Yet they continue to hang on to Y&R and B&B. Zucker said that Days was not going to get renewed, Yet it was renewed presumably due its profitability. I don't think that there is a network conspiracy against the soaps as much as capitalism at work.

[JaneAusten]

Bingo. I have a friend who went to NYU for a degree in fine arts and a masters degree also. She did an internship with a small independent film production company in New York. She has had aspirations of becoming a film director, and has directed some corporate films and short films, but she said the entertainment industry, especially when it comes to female directors, is very closed off. There's a general unspoken sense that producers and investors don't feel women can make commerically successful productions. She calls in the capitalism effect. Oddly in countries where there is state funding available, females have more opportunity. The point I am making in an round about way is that this is all capitalism at work. And as much as many may think there is some giant conspiracy against soaps, it's all about money. If soaps were still the cash cows they once were, I doubt you'd hear anything.

[EricMontreal22]

Not odd at all--something else conservative Americans don't grasp.

[JaneAusten]

Off original topic, but what's funny and sad is the entertainment business which is allegedly filled with a bunch of liberal types, are the most conservative and capitalistic types of all. And there are no equal opportunity laws guaranteeing fair and equal opportunity when it comes to trying to raise monies or get a project approved in that business. It's the worst old boys club in any industry. And production companies are filled with those alpha male types.

[EricMontreal22]

It's true--Hell for some reason ABC Daytime is run by one of the worst examples of one.

[JaneAusten]

Yet he works for Sweeney. Of course ABC primetime is more of a disaster this year than it was last year. They've been shielded since NBC has taken all the media heat for that ridiculous Leno move. ABC primetime is now 3rd behind Fox and CBS and has lost viewers this year where Fox has gained a lot.

[quartermainefan]

You want a law mandating equality in the hopefully voluntary bankrolling of films?

[JaneAusten]

I am just pointing out what's frustrating and biased in the entertainmet business. Like in most areas of business, women will need to forge their own way as they have for years regardless of any laws on the books. That's how women got the right to vote also. But I think it's pretty obvious Hollywood is one of the most sexist and discriminatory areas in the workforce. It's capitalism at it's so not finest.

And the independent film business which used to be more open to women, has also been sucked into the mainstream gender biases in the industry. Now I'm not saying my friend who went to NYU would be the next Scorcese if given a chance, but all you need to do is look at how many women out there produce and direct films to see that raising money and getting awarded a good gig is more than who's best.

[Juliajms]

But how is this the fault of capitalism? It seems more the fault of sexism. If capitalism were really at work the people who were making the best (or at least most commercially viable) films would be the ones getting funded.

[JaneAusten]

This is turning into more of a philosophical discussion and probably should be moved but I somewhat agree with you. Capitalism allegedly exposes the best and brightest right while socialism is more about equity not necessarily who's better. There are pluses and minuses with both. Capitalism at it's ideal form is best but we all know the best and brightest are not always rewarded. Bias and politics play into it. That's why equal opportunity employment laws and affirmative action came into play. But as a woman I think women can be just as discriminatory and biased as the next male. Why is it that successful Hollywood types like Anne Sweeney or Nancy Meyers or Barbra Streisand or successful female directors like Meyers or Jane Campion not done more to help women in that industry. It's a mystery. And granted I am basing my assessment on what I read and my female director friend who's very outspoken when it comes to this subject matter.

I think there is a thought in Hollywood that female centric films are not commercially viable. Or if they are, it's slasher movies where women are getting brutalized or vapid teen love stories like the Twilight series.. Then what explains the success of films like Mama Mia or The Devil Wears Prada or Somethings Gotta Give. There seems to be an audience out there of women craving to see female centric films.