If you're going to copy/paste, please link. Thank you.

Numbers are based on Live+Same Day ratings

Ratings for the week November 29 - December 3, 2010

Total Viewers

1. Y&R 5,052,000 (+115,000/+227,000)

2. B&B 3,071,000 (-43,000/-103,000)

3. DAYS 2,580,000 (+118,000/-210,000)

4. GH 2,500,000 (+78,000/+3,000)

5. OLTL 2,349,000 (-8,000/-62,000)

6. AMC 2,301,000 (-142,000/-345,000)

HH

1. Y&R 3.5/12 (+.1/same)

2. B&B 2.2/8 (+.1/-.1)

3. DAYS 1.9/6 (+.1/-.1)

4. AMC 1.8/6 (same/-.1)

4. GH 1.8/6 (same/-.1)

4. OLTL 1.8/6 (same/same)

Women 18-49 Viewers

1. Y&R 1,093,000 (+46,000/-36,000)

2. GH 769,000 (+48,000/-74,000)

3. DAYS 745,000 (+53,000/-47,000)

4. B&B 681,000 (+70,000/-61,000)

5. OLTL 610,000 (-15,000/-94,000)

6. AMC 543,000 (-22,000/-144,000)

Women 18-49 Rating

1. Y&R 1.7/11 (+.1/same)

2. GH 1.2/7 (+.1/-.1)

3. DAYS 1.1/7 (+.1/-.1)

4. B&B 1.0/7 (+.1/-.1)

5. OLTL 0.9/6 (same/-.2) <- ties low rating (2nd straight week)

6. AMC 0.8/5 (-.1/-.2) <- ties low rating (Last time: November 8-12, 2010)

Girls 12-17 Viewers

1. DAYS 25,000 (same/+2,000)

1. Y&R 25,000 (-40,000/-1,000)

3. GH 22,000 (+5,000/-25,000)

4. B&B 14,000 (-22,000/-3,000)

5. AMC 12,000 (-3,000/+4,000)

5. OLTL 12,000 (-11,000/-5,000)

Women 18-34 Rating

1. Y&R 1.1/7 (+.1/+.1)

2. DAYS 0.7/5 (same/-.2)

2. GH 0.7/4 (+.1/-.3)

4. B&B 0.6/4 (same/same)

5. OLTL 0.5/4 (same/-.3) <- ties low rating (2nd straight week)

5. AMC 0.5/3 (same/-.3) <- ties low rating (7th straight week)

Men 18+ Viewers

1. Y&R 1,259,000 (+84,000/+138,000)

2. B&B 682,000 (-23,000/-9,000)

3. DAYS 599,000 (+19,000/+45,000)

4. GH 492,000 (+25,000/+35,000)

5. AMC 448,000 (-71,000/-108,000)

6. OLTL 426,000 (-6,000/+12,000)

-------------------------------------

Day-To-Day Ratings - HH/Total Viewers

AMC

Monday: 1.9/2,509,000

Tuesday: 1.8/2,347,000

Wednesday: 1.7/2,226,000

Thursday: 1.7/2,221,000

Friday: 1.7/2,201,000

B&B

Monday: 2.3/3,173,000

Tuesday: 2.4/3,393,000

Wednesday: 2.1/2,932,000

Thursday: 2.0/2,866,000

Friday: 2.1/2,992,000

DAYS

Monday: 2.0/2,745,000

Tuesday: 1.9/2,559,000

Wednesday: 2.0/2,671,000

Thursday: 1.8/2,520,000

Friday: 1.7/2,405,000

GH

Monday: 2.0/2,712,000

Tuesday: 1.8/2,519,000

Wednesday: 1.7/2,407,000

Thursday: 1.9/2,527,000

Friday: 1.7/2,334,000

OLTL

Monday: 2.0/2,627,000

Tuesday: 1.8/2,342,000

Wednesday: 1.7/2,367,000

Thursday: 1.7/2,252,000

Friday: 1.6/2,158,000

Y&R

Monday: 3.9/5,534,000

Tuesday: 3.7/5,263,000

Wednesday: 3.5/5,004,000

Thursday: 3.4/4,832,000

Friday: 3.2/4,630,000

----------------------

For the SEASON September 20, 2010 through December 5, 2010

HH

1. Y&R 3.6

2. B&B 2.3

3. GH 2.0

4. DAYS 1.9

5. AMC 1.8

5. OLTL 1.8

Women 18-49 Rating

1. Y&R 1.7

2. GH 1.4

3. DAYS 1.2

4. OLTL 1.0

4. B&B 1.0

6. AMC 0.9

Ron's toned down the camp but he revels in the absurd. This is where I think we get into what different people consider "soapy." I've never liked that element of genre. I've always been drawn more to the social issue/straight drama end of things. It's like how some people love that Erica Kane thinks she's the sexiest woman in the world and others find that pathetic.

I see what you mean, but I think most of his current absurd stories are just overdramatic cliches mostly punctuated by actors who play it all as a bad joke. They're stories which someone seems to want to take seriously, but JPL, TSJ, Shipp, etc. do it more as not being serious. The stuff RC used to do like Roxy's talking beaver, or Delphina in drag, or Dorian the lesbian mayor, most of that seemed to get stepped on this year. Now the only pseudo-camp stuff is "ha ha, Rex and Kelly saw each other naked again" and crap like Langston getting horny over a boxing match.

crap like Langston getting horny over a boxing match.

See this is where we totally differ in opinions. I can't imagine why any girl or gay guy for that matter hormones would not rage standing in front of some hot guys with their shirts off. That's actually a normal reaction, that same as it would be for barely dressed sexy women standing in front of a guy.

I don't know if it's a normal reaction for someone to get all hot and heavy when their boyfriend is trying to learn how to fight because his father is abusive and has battered their younger brother for years. Even if it is, I find Ford to be about as sexy as Mrs. Garrett, so Langston's reaction seemed odd to me.

I don't know if it's a normal reaction for someone to get all hot and heavy when their boyfriend is trying to learn how to fight because his father is abusive and has battered their younger brother for years. Even if it is, I find Ford to be about as sexy as Mrs. Garrett, so Langston's reaction seemed odd to me.

I'm not a Ford fan either, but there are plenty of them out there that do think he's hot. As far as the first part is concerned, it's a soap opera, if one can't suspended disbelief, what is the point?

I guess if one has no use for some characters, objectivity will never be obtained. Case in point, I can't stand Ryan Lavery and refuse to watch AMC as long as that character remains front and center.

Edited December 12, 201014 yr by MontyB

Monty, that was a lame defence.

Monty, that was a lame defense.

Don't know what I'm defending. I don't think Langston's reaction was such a huge horror Anyway I edited my original post, but lame? Meh. Whatever!

Edited December 12, 201014 yr by MontyB

I'm not a Ford fan either, but there are plenty of them out there that do think he's hot. As far as the first part is concerned, it's a soap opera, if one can't suspended disbelief, what is the point?

I guess if one has no use for some characters, objectivity will never be obtained. Case in point, I can't stand Ryan Lavery and refuse to watch AMC as long as that character remains front and center.

It's not so much about suspending disbelief as it is questioning the point of the scene. OLTL has had weird tonal issues before - I guess all soaps do - but I don't see the point of having Langston react that way in the middle of what is supposed to be a serious story. I think it made her look like a fool and also reinforced again how insecure the show is in regards to whether people actually find the Fords attractive.

Edited December 12, 201014 yr by CarlD2

It's not so much about suspending disbelief as it is questioning the point of the scene. OLTL has had weird tonal issues before - I guess all soaps do - but I don't see the point of having Langston react that way in the middle of what is supposed to be a serious story. I think it made her look like a fool and also reinforced again how insecure the show is in regards to whether people actually find the Fords attractive.

I've been watchin OLTL when I have a chance to. Maybe RC is living out his fantasies through Langston. How many times has she seen him shirtless? Yet, she has the reaction like its the first time she has seen him without a shirt.

As for the show....I do like how they are using a lot of vets. Nora being kidnapped came out of nowhere. JWS acting is not bad..playing another wacko...lol....but the story has no buildup..we knew he was bad when he first arrived. At least when Douglas wrote him....he didnt come off that way before the whole Frannie/Kim story. I like evil JVD.....lol

I cant stand Terri Colombino....gawd..she sucks.....and of course Ron must have his porno shirtless guys on screen....lol

Edited December 12, 201014 yr by Soapsuds

It's not so much about suspending disbelief as it is questioning the point of the scene.

Personally, I think there's a difference between suspending disbelief and dangling it from the roof by its ankles. The genre already requires a basic level of disbelief if you're going to demand more of the audience it ought to be for a good reason. But again, it's all a matter of taste. Passions certainly wasn't my cup of tea but it served it's audience and it looks like for the most part OLTL is doing the same. That's not the feeling I get with AMC and GH.

Personally, I think there's a difference between suspending disbelief and dangling it from the roof by its ankles. The genre already requires a basic level of disbelief if you're going to demand more of the audience it ought to be for a good reason. But again, it's all a matter of taste. Passions certainly wasn't my cup of tea but it served it's audience and it looks like for the most part OLTL is doing the same. That's not the feeling I get with AMC and GH.

I don't even think the idea of a sleazy guy who wants to reform and the girlfriend he is trying to reform for has to be unrealistic, but the tone of the story has been really offputting and I think the actors have been terrible.

Personally, I think there's a difference between suspending disbelief and dangling it from the roof by its ankles. The genre already requires a basic level of disbelief if you're going to demand more of the audience it ought to be for a good reason. But again, it's all a matter of taste. Passions certainly wasn't my cup of tea but it served it's audience and it looks like for the most part OLTL is doing the same. That's not the feeling I get with AMC and GH.

I "think" RC is trying to deliver an almost old-fashioned type of soapy show where the anvils ring loudly and the cutaways are so obvious it's sometimes like one of those Carol Burnett skits.

I am glad he toned down the camp as last year at times it felt like watching Passions not OLTL.

With all that said, I find OLTL doesn't require the same level of disbelief GH does. GH has super villains that never die, just return time and again to terrorize and get away with it all each time. On OLTL, these type of villains do meet their maker and the story ENDS. Jerry Jax and Franco coming back yet again and Luke letting Helena live after kidnapped and brainwashed Lucky requires HUGE suspension of my belief.

Guza pretends he's writing Sopranos-lite but it's more like Smallville, a comic book with villains with superpowers that resurrect them time and again. Sonny & Jason are the vigilantes taking on the really bad villains.

GH requires me to suspect belief far more.

Edited December 14, 201014 yr by TeamEric

I "think" RC is trying to deliver an almost old-fashioned type of soapy show where the anvils ring loudly and the cutaways are so obvious it's sometimes like one of those Carol Burnett skits.

I am glad he toned down the camp as last year at times it felt like watching Passions not OLTL.

With all that said, I find OLTL doesn't require the same level of disbelief GH does. GH has super villains that never die, just return time and again to terrorize and get away with it all each time. On OLTL, these type of villains do meet their maker and the story ENDS. Jerry Jax and Franco coming back yet again and Luke letting Helena live after kidnapped and brainwashed Lucky requires HUGE suspension of my belief.

Guza pretends he's writing Sopranos-lite but it's more like Smallville, a comic book with villains with superpowers that resurrect them time and again. Sonny & Jason are the vigilantes taking on the really bad villains.

GH requires me to suspect belief far more.

This is what has gotten me perplexed about why people are up in arms about Langston having hot flashes looking at hot guys. I'm just saying, if I were going to nitpick, it wouldn't be over something as minor as that.

Even the #1 show delves in to the ridiculous and "why the hell are they doing and saying that" every day.

Oh well..........

This is what has gotten me perplexed about why people are up in arms about Langston having hot flashes looking at hot guys. I'm just saying, if I were going to nitpick, it wouldn't be over something as minor as that.

My objection is BU's acting choices and the directors encouraging this dreadful take on teen lust. She's aping a horney teen girl from a cheap porn flicks with her drooling, panting and sucking of her finger.

My objection is BU's acting choices and the directors encouraging this dreadful take on teen lust. She's aping a horney teen girl from a cheap porn flicks with her drooling, panting and sucking of her finger.

Eh, it wasn't that deep. LOL.....but okay.

Edited December 14, 201014 yr by MontyB

In today's landscape in which 1.8 is considered ratings GOLD (LOL), Y&R has maintained a certain level of quality as well as cast consistancy which helps to explain the stable ratings. I may be wrong, but didn't LML stabilize ratings during her tenure? Y&R is very much like 1970's ATWT in that maybe the soap has the advantage of viewer habit. Regardless, it is amazing that Y&R can pull a 3.9 on the same day most other soaps settled around 2.0. The Yong and the Restless would thrive on CW in primetime.

Carl, if time slot is such an advantage, why didn't ABC move AMC into the same slot years ago in order to benefit? Why didn't NBC do the same after the death of Generations? With the time slot being so great, why did it take Y&R till the early 1990's to gain such dominance?

I think ABC has learned that when they move timeslots it usually only causes harm, LOL. That's been their history since the late 70s anyway.

As for yoru CW theory I don't quite agree. Yes the numbers would look decent on a CW primetime show but I think many of the Y&R audience would tune into the primetime shows they already watch instead... I do think sowpas would benefit from an after work schedule--but that'd be more like 5pm or 7pm...

Edited December 15, 201014 yr by EricMontreal22