If...who knows??

Anyway,I like the idea of the networks having one 60 min show each-say Days,ATWT and AMC with all others being 30 min.

With everything an hour the schedules are blocked and there is less flexibility in programming- in the 70's you had gameshows and reruns in there as well and if one 30 min soap was cancelled there was room for something new.

As a viewer you could follow shows more easily-watch 3 shows in 90 mins as opposed to a 3 hr commitment.

Also there was more counter programming,so if soaps were your thing you could watch almost every show as only a few clashed.

30 min shows were easier to follow due to smaller casts.I know this could be restrictive to the writers but the opposite largely occurred with 60 mins;the shows moved away from the core, there were huge casts and frontburner stories were handed to new characters which ultimately damaged the identity of the shows.

Of course B&B shows that it's not the length of the shows but the quality and integrity of the writers and producers that counts in the end.

It's interesting that both Nixon and Bell prefered writing the 30 min format.

I doubt it. Look at B&B and how bad it is. I hadn't watched it in a while since this summer. I started watchin again this week and the show is dull borin and a total train wreck.

And for a 30 min show the ratings suck.

Absolutely, soaps would be better off if they'd stayed 30 minutes. There isn't enough story to sustain an hour of drama, five days a week. Plus, it puts way too much strain on production and the acting company. I still wish the shows were live. It gave such energy to the acting. If they were 30 minutes, they could be.

I don't care how long or short the soaps are. Shitty writing & lack of diversity is causing the downfall of soaps. & I'm talking about not letting black, latin, or gays in their own little storyline. I'm talking about let them interact with the other actors.