January 4-8, 2010

[jfung79]

Yeah, I wish OLTL would bounce back in the ratings, it doesn't seem to deserve the low ratings. Happy for Days too. I agree with you, CarlD2, there are ways to bring vets back in a way that strengthens the story.

[Saving ATWT]

Dropping current storylines, bringing back a handful of familiar yet useless vets, and wrapping everything up with a tight little bow will signal the real END of the world and destroy any chance of a flip to a new network. Lifetime, nor any other network, will pick up a show made up of 70somethings having heart attacks instead of romantic heart ache. Hey, forget heart break, heartburn is serious and product placements for Tums will be fun! Ellen, and all the other castaways, will do nothing to raise ratings. ATWT is not a Golden Girls redux. The vets should have been pushed off stage a long time ago. The new generation of Bob, Lisa, Kim and Nancy types deserve a turn. Sex, affairs, breaking up and making up drive ratings. GH, Days, and Y&R all overtook World Turns by reducing vets and focusing on youthful story. Even under Marland, ratings, especially in key demos, sagged. It isn't pretty but the numbers speak for themselves.

Maybe Y&R will keep all its vets and someday change its name to The Old and the Listless? I just can't wait to watch Nikki battle Depends diaper rash!

BTW, I like the Mick story, love NutMeg, and want to learn more about Hunter.

[DRW50]

Weren't they?

If a casual viewer tuned into this show, would they really say, "Where are the young people?"

The show has spent years shoving young people at viewers. Aaron, Gwen, Will, Lucy, Maddie. Parker and Liberty, Allison and Casey, and many others who are below middle age, like Paul, Katie, Brad, Meg, Janet, Dusty.

DAYS has showcased their vets over the past year and their ratings have increased.

If you give stories to interesting people who can act, then the age doesn't matter.

The stories that helped take Y&R in the ratings were heavily focused on older characters like Katherine Chancellor.

DAYS lost a million or more viewers when they dumped vets in the early 80s to try to hype bright young things.

[DRW50]

Why would Nikki have a story like that? Katherine doesn't, and she's 20-30 years older than Nikki.

When Y&R tried to hype younger Sabrina over Nikki as Victor's great love, ratings crashed.

Focusing on dead-eyed, worthless new faces like Daisy who can't act and can barely speak -- is that the way of the future? I'd say it's what has killed soaps.

Y&R has the worst younger cast of any soap. To give control of the show to them just because they're young is a good way to say goodbye to the show.

[Saving ATWT]

Do you think soaps should maybe have a limited life span--sort of like a Telenovela? I do not see how a soap can last without the 'next generation' taking over. In fact, such a thing is very true to life. Within a family, The 'thirtysomethings' usually take control and older gen takes on a new role in the family. As for Y&R, Daisy is probably there for plot. As for the rest of the youth, they will almost all be recast. I'm more talking about actors like Nick, Sharron, Adam, Cloe, and Victoria. The kids on any show tend to be weak. World Turns has actually done an okay job in this regard.

[DRW50]

I don't believe Nick, Sharon, Adam, Chloe, or Victoria can carry the show in the future. The characters are a mess and Heinle and Morrow can barely even get through a scene. Y&R has managed to thoroughly dismantle most of their 20/30/40 set over this decade.

I think current Y&R is dragged down by the inability to build new characters, and because of the need to destroy so many, young and old, for Victor, because they cling to him. He makes it easier for them to not have to develop the show. If they were going to dump any older character I would pick him.

I think the way a next generation takes over a show is for them to be eased in over time, and prove they are capable of lifting their weight. You can still keep some older characters and over time give them less of a role. When a soap takes an "out with the old" attitude, they just alienate viewers without having anything to back it up.

[Saving ATWT]

Didn't Bill Bell rip his show apart in the early 80's and get rid of the Brook's family. I do agree change should happen over time. In the case of a show in trouble like World Turns, there isn't enough time and bold writers need to take risks. I'm not saying Goutman or any of the current writers are bold.

[DRW50]

Yes. Bill Bell thought the Brooks and Fosters had been recast too many times, and since the most popular actors of those families, like David Hasslehoff and finally Jamie Lyn Bauer, were leaving, he decided to phase the families out, aside from Jill, and build up already existing characters (Jack, Paul, Victor).

His storytelling ability is probably what made this work.

People on soaps don't bother to tell stories now.

[Saving ATWT]

Another good example could be when Marland utted GH, saving it from the ax. It has, and can be done again, with the right writer. I doubt we'd agree on who could fix ATWT. I say Jack Smith or Latham. I don't totally fault Latham for the drop in ratings: all soaps were falling at that time. There was no way for her to maintain the numbers and I liked how she put Gloria, Michael, Lauren, and Kevin front and center. Latham's Y&R was the only time I actually enjoyed watching. Aside from that time, it was never MY show.

[DRW50]

The ratings didn't fall that much under Latham, did they? I can't remember. I thought that was more MAB.

Marland wrote for a lot of preexisting GH characters. Scott, Laura, Lesley, Monica, Rick, Jeff. He did bring in some new faces but also tried to respect the past. That's what soaps don't bother with now.

[Saving ATWT]

We could check in the Y&R room to make sure but I know i was under Latham. I remember everyone ripping on the poor woman who has done a lot of great work: Homefont and Knots Landing. I'm pretty sure they lost close to one mil under her and MAB helped to get the show stable again with modest gains. Go figure, I think the show was so much better back then. MAB big story was the Kay/Madge car crash, a arc everyone praised but I found to be lame. I was way more into Brad and the Holcaust art. Plus, she knew how to use Gloria. The 'Fishers' were on their way to being the new Abbots. I love Lauren's character and she was so utilized. Now, she isn't even under contract.

[DaytimeFan]

Well, for those of us who have been long term fans of Y&R, that hack bitch from the depths of hell LML decimated the show. Brad and the Holocaust art and his thighs of death was just the start of a domino effect of crap.

The Fishers as the new Abbotts...that completely illustrates LML's problem she wanted to take the show and make it HER show. That belly flopped hard.

That said, Ma Bell from Beverly Hills is taking a big wrecking ball to Y&R now, it's unwatchable.

Yay for DAYS is all I can say, it's the best soap on the air.

[MarkH]

[bellcurve]

Stop right there.

If PGP had any remote interest in "saving ATWT" they would have either a.) Sold it for a buck, as you so put it in one of your first topics here or b.) Found a new home and done everything they could financially to make that happen.

I don't buy this whole, "PGP wanted out of the soap business was just a rumor" thing. They haven't even bothered developing any new soap ventures, neither online nor on broadcast/cable television. They never bothered pumping real effort into ATWT and ESPECIALLY GL's revamp and opted for a guerilla-style videography. Which is fine if you're doing cable access. But not for a network television series, daytime or otherwise.

I'll be brief...

For ATWT to make that cable move, that would probably mean the end of the characters you are complaining about. So I don't know why you are even bringing them into the equation.

Also, you may be right...absolutely right in that older characters do not skew good demos and numbers(even though a show you just mentioned was a solid performer on Lifetime for years, that constantly delivered younger female demos every evening). But even if that is the case, it HELPS to have characters like Kim, Bob, and Lisa there to at least be a sounding board or a point of history for the younger characters. Soaps simply cannot exist without a family/community/multi-generational aspect. Cut people like Kim, Bob, and Lisa or don't bring back characters that audiences remember even for short visits or to introduce aged younger characters, then there really IS no ATWT.

GH is in the same position that ATWT is in. That show just has better demos and the support of the network. Y&R and DAYS have loyal fans and people who sample the show as a "flavor of the week." We still don't know if DAYS will be able to keep their second wind.

And just because it "drives ratings" doesn't make it a good show. You can't have it both ways...do you want a show with great, suspenseful storytelling with occassional unpredictable twists born from the characters you grew up loving? Or do you want sensational, trashy stories? The direction ATWT has taken in the last five-ten years has had the whole "SEX! AFFAIRS! BREAKING/MAKING UP!" But that does not constitute a story. And apparently, the audience agrees because they all left.

You are entitled to your own opinion as am I. It's my opinion that your rationale and the fans and corporate heads that think like you are the reason why ATWT is getting axe and why daytime is in the shape it's in.

[Sylph]

It is funny to me how people ignore this. It is pure science, scientifically proven facts. This graph doesn't lie — LML actually gained viewers and then lost some in 2007.

Whereas Alden and Smith are epic disasters of mythic proportions!!!!