I couldn't agree more! I like AMC right now above the other soaps -- other than the Rylee overload -- mainly because of the more in-depth characterization, the slower pace, the non-stunts, the tone, etc. K & S are NOT that bad, other than Frons seems to want to put in his 2 cents where they don't belong. GH has the "Sonny/Brenda" show, and then the stunt-driven Balkan mess; OLTL is preoccupied with too many who's-the-father baby stories, turning previously sympathetic characters evil (Clint/Marty), and the shirtless Ford family; and even Y&R has got WAY too many things going on at once with a very bloated cast...So when I want to relax and enjoy a soap like I used to in the 80's, AMC is my choice....In many ways, it feels like I'm *coming home* when I sit down to watch.

As for the demographics -- I agree that AMC is better-suited to a bit older crowd. 30-49 would be the age group, imo. But I know plenty of 20-year-olds who flock to it because of Jannie...and I have a feeling with the advent of the Griffin/Cara/Jake/Amanda quad, it will appeal more to the younger girls.

I agree with a lot of what you say here. I'm glad to see people liking AMC. Unfortunately for me the Rylee overload - along with the disgusting underuse of Frankie and Natalia - is a dealbreaker. I no longer feel good about supporting the show in its current form. I don't hate it, I'm just terribly disappointed in it and I learned the hard way from OLTL that when ABC decides you aren't the audience they want, they don't try to hide it.

ready to add my two cents here (although i was a McTavish supporter so what do i know?!) - i think D&D are doing a good job these days, i've been looking forward to watching my daily recording of AMC and that means a lot (hasn 't happened in years)

ready to add my two cents here (although i was a McTavish supporter so what do i know?!) - i think D&D are doing a good job these days, i've been looking forward to watching my daily recording of AMC and that means a lot (hasn 't happened in years)

I agree that AMC has been A LOT better then the last 3 HW's but thats nothing. D&D are being compared to Pratt, Megan and B&E. Not much to compare.

AMC has been consistent, nice pace show and thats something that hasn't happened in years. But sometimes AMC can get boring because nothing is happening.

This is the best I have seen AMC since 2002 but the ratings speak for themselves. People are still not watching because of how damaged the show is.

I agree that AMC has been A LOT better then the last 3 HW's but thats nothing. D&D are being compared to Pratt, Megan and B&E. Not much to compare.

AMC has been consistent, nice pace show and thats something that hasn't happened in years. But sometimes AMC can get boring because nothing is happening.

This is the best I have seen AMC since 2002 but the ratings speak for themselves. People are still not watching because of how damaged the show is.

But are people actually watching ANY soaps right now the way that they used to? All ABC Soaps' ratings are on the decline, and all soaps on every network are seeing drops from previous years...I think many people go to the internet to watch (ABC.com or Hulu), others watch on SoapNet, and still others DVR it, and watch at the end of the week. Soaps are different from other shows (primetime) because most people aren't necessarily home to watch them anymore, and now that there are other avenues by which to view, people are taking other options. I wish they'd find another way to track ratings (other than the antiquated Nielsens) because that might provide a more accurate depiction of how many are actually watching soaps!

Plus, if you look at AMC, last week it was tied with the other ABC soaps (so they were all dead last), and it faces the most competition (Y&R and DOOL in most time zones). So comparatively speaking, it's actually not doing so badly!

Plus, if you look at AMC, last week it was tied with the other ABC soaps (so they were all dead last), and it faces the most competition (Y&R and DOOL in most time zones). So comparatively speaking, it's actually not doing so badly

Not in the coveted demo it wasn't, it's still dead last, so tying with soaps on their own network isn't much of a feat, cause ABC soaps don't and aren't supposed to compete with each other.

Edited December 13, 201015 yr by Stiletto

And Nielsen isn't antiquated.

And Nielsen isn't antiquated.

I would argue that they are.

http://popwatch.ew.com/2009/05/19/is-it-time-for/

The biggest problem for Nielsen is that it relies on excruciatingly small samples to predict what the rest of the country is watching. There are approximately 10,000 households with Nielsen set top boxes across the country, about 450 of which include college students. And out of those 450, 30 percent agreed to have their children’s viewing habits recorded while away at school. This translates to roughly 135 students — a painfully small number to be considered representative of the entire country’s college student population, yet still more than the zero who represented us before. Furthermore, this small sample is not atypical for Nielsen data, which, at the outset, posed little problems due to the small number of channels. In the digital age, however, with more channels than we know what to do with, such a small sample can hardly be taken seriously as an accurate representation of the entire country’s viewing preferences.

But since Nielsen’s data is the best system we have, the networks have to work with it. The addition of the college demographic certainly improved Nielsen’s status, rising in rank from an arbitrary gauge to a slightly more accurate marker still rooted largely in guesswork and probability. And unfortunately entire livelihoods are built around these probabilities.

Simply stated, our television culture today owes itself to these numbers. They determine what we watch, when we watch it, and how often we watch it. Low numbers mean low ad prices, which translates into low profits for the networks. Thus any chance to improve the accuracy of Nielsen data is a welcome advancement. The real question is why it took so long for Nielsen researchers to realize the college population watches TV, and a lot of it.

Quoted from this source: http://cornellsun.com/node/23180

Silly.

Next month, when things start to get good, we can thank Agnes for stepping in to ghost write.

:hi5:

I really thought LB actually did a good job. I think AMC's rating's actually stayed steady during her tenure. I will apologize if I am wrong but LB was a VAST improvement from the last 3 HW's (Megan, B&E, Pratt).

I remember when LB was writing Mid-Feb and that was when AMC was at it's BEST this year.

No, I agree (except for early Megan's return I guess). It wasn't that exciting I admit but it was consistently well written.

D/S haven't even been headwriters for a year so why even think about replacing them so soon? Granted the show isn't excitement galore but it has a quiet tone that is in stark contrast to GH and OLTL right now. I will say that I agree with people about Kate Hall because whenever I see her name in the credits, I know it'll be a great episode.

I say give D/S at least 12 to 18 months to truly see the effect they are having on the show since it takes several months to tie up previous writer's stories and start their own. Maybe even have LB become a co-headwriter so that you have three visions (the old, new, and somewhat new).

The thing is Broderick is in the highest position she seems to want right now--she didn't want the job full time. Maybe she'll change her mind, but... I do agree that even if the show is lackign in excitement, under D/S it does make a nice contrast to the wqay OLTL and GH are being plotted right now...

what about former Y&R head writter Lynn Marie Latham as head writter? she was a bad fit at Y&R but is more of a ABC soap type writter

THE KIDS have suffered enough.

Writter..?