The only thing that doesn't make sense to me is why is ABC deliberately promoting (at least to SOD) that Broderick signed a multi-year deal? They never say that a new HW has signed a multi-year deal, they just say "So-and-so has been named Headwriter of Such-and-Such, effective whenever".

If the shows are going to be canceled mid-April (which is where I'm hanging my hat) when SL's press tour is done and Frons is suitably-tanned, what is the point? To try and silence the "She is probably only being made headwriter in order to write the show off the air" buzz for one freaking week?

Edited April 3, 201114 yr by LeClerc

The only thing that doesn't make sense to me is why is ABC deliberately promoting (at least to SOD) that Broderick signed a multi-year deal? They never say that a new HW has signed a multi-year deal, they just say "So-and-so has been named Headwriter of Such-and-Such, effective whenever".

If the shows are going to be canceled mid-April (which is where I'm hanging my hat) when SL's press tour is done and Frons is suitably-tanned, what is the point? To try and silence the "She is probably only being made headwriter in order to write the show off the air" buzz for one freaking week?

Nothing makes sense anymore. La Lucci's last tour date is actually April 30, so who knows when ABC or if ABC will announce anything.

They want people to think things are normal by saying it's a "multi-year deal" then a few weeks later we get cancellation news

Nothing makes sense anymore. La Lucci's last tour date is actually April 30, so who knows when ABC or if ABC will announce anything.

the only way I can see waiting that long is if the shows are ending when Soapnet ends at years end. OLTL I know is already filming June and they write five months ahead, so they are already writing Sept now

I'm no fan of Frons, but how would she know after a couple of superficial meetings that he has no passion for the genre? And why would he need to know she played a forgettable role like Olivia on GH 10,000 years ago? I actually forgot myself until I read her message. I'm not sure she's being totally objective. I do agree with her about Capitol, though. The show was doomed anyway, because Bill Bell wanted B&B to replace it, but that Saudi Arabia crap killed the show creatively.

One thing I woudl say about Frons is that he is too passionate about his shows, hence all the micromanaging and fanfic pairings he forces.

Well, no one's ever banged at her door asking her to reprise Olivia. I think that character is a footnote in GH history. I think in general her Cap and OLTL roles were her signature roles, more so OLTL.

IA. I cant believe she even broguht that up as if she owns the rights to the name Olviia.Soaps reuse names ALL the time. The character has to be pretty significant in order to keep the name off limits for a non-related role. We'll probably would have never seen another Laura, Alan or Stefan on GH, but Olivia? Puh-leaze

Edited April 3, 201114 yr by Cheap21

Is LB's multi-year contract fact or just more speculation? I'm sure her contract has outs for both parties, but why sign her to a multi-year contract knowing full well that the show was about to be cancelled and then have to pay off what I'd think would be a good portion of that contract? Business-wise that makes absolutely no sense. I'd like to think that the cancellation rumors are just that and that the shows are safe for another couple of years, but ABC's non-denial after all these weeks and then Logan's column, and then Behr's statement, lead me to believe that something big IS brewing. Waiting to announce cancellation til after Lucci's tour is over does make perfect sense, but that would be a moot point if the show isn't being axed. As Jonathan said, none of this makes any sense at all.

Edited April 3, 201114 yr by LoyaltoAMC

They want people to think things are normal by saying it's a "multi-year deal" then a few weeks later we get cancellation news

Right but it probably would have been just as effective had they just announced she was being named headwriter and left out the "multi-year" thing.

To lie like this (well it may not "technically" be a lie, she may actually have signed a multi-year deal... but for all intents and purposes it's a lie) to try and fool people for a week or two doesn't seem worth it. I'm sure JHC will be gathering everyone at the studio tomorrow to make the announcement that Broderick has been promoted to headwriter and has signed a long-term deal, and a lot of the cast and crew will probably take it at face value. It just seems unnecessarily cruel for the amount of time we're apparently talking about before the ax falls.

Uh damn Tonja Walker is my heroine, she posted this on Carolyn Hinsey's Facebook Page:

....

Wow. Good for her!

If previews cost extra then I'll take your word for it. I personally don't understand what cost a day after preview clip might have but what the heck do I know.

It sounds like cost management to me. Like you mentioned yourself AMC doesn't have the day after preview, they don't have the behind the scenes videos or songs on itunes (thank the lawd) so AMC is saving money on that (money they might need to save since they are/were over budget). If you don't have money to spend, you don't spend it, doesn't mean you're over budget.

GH is a different beast, they might not get day after preview clips or behind the scenes but they get everything else.

I've sensed that OLTL's bells and whistles are indicative of its middle child syndrome (notice I used neither "red-headed" nor "step-"). So OLTL doesn't have the "brand power" of GH or AMC and it goes the extra mile to be to be "good" ("Look dad, I'm under budget! Again!") and noticed (previews, special online videos, naked people). OLTL is always dancing as fast as it can, tripping over its feet, but...

Even still, this whole "brand" argument continues to confuse me. If OLTL is consistently under budget and doing just as well if not better than AMC in the numbers, does this really come down to Frons' preferential treatment? Do TPTB who have their money riding on this really give a damn about his favorites? Is it the idea that AMC's *brand* (fading memories/Susan Lucci/scrapbook icon) is this great insurance policy that at least packs the potential to make the show come back on top... someday? And is it the belief that OLTL doesn't boast this? I'm asking, I'm really trying to understand here. I tried to look at it this way... if I was flossin' and owned a dingy apartment in Manhattan that had outdated appliances and fixtures and cost me five grand a month, and another sleek, snazzy, twice as large spot in Astoria that only cost me $2500 a month, if I was suddenly no longer flossin' and had to let one go, I'd probably use my Astoria money to keep the Manhattan pad. Because it's Manhattan. Is this the type of AMC vs. OLTL rationale people speak of?

Just wanna chime in and say that I said from the beginning AMC was gonna get by this time. Hopefully Broderick can work some magic. I'd love it if she brought back Robin Mattson, Anna Stuart, Julia Barr, and Marcy Walker. Ok, Marcy probably ain't happening, but the first 3 would do. I also think it would be nice for Kelly & Mark Consuelos to return for a summer story, maybe with a dash of Olivia Birkelund's Arlene in there.

and then Behr's statement,

Where exactly is this statement? I saw a first time poster mention this in the news section but no link was given.

I would think ABC money pays for previews etc, and not the individual shows. Also, it's not like Frons hands the EPs a satchel of gold coins the first of every month, letting them use for other expenses what they didn't for the actual show. I really doubt it works like that. I think it's a little more complex than that.

I do think all three soaps (under the daytime soaps line up) has a joint budget and then all three soaps have their own budget (hence the rumors of one being over budget and the other being under budget) and the different dept. gets handed out a budget based on the budget they individual soap has. I could very well be that AMC was over budget and decided to save costs on marketing whereas OLTL had an extra dime to spare and decided that they could afford to market their soap. That doesn't mean that the soap not spending money is over budget.

I agree that it's more complex than that and that is why I think it's overly simplistic when it's stated that one soap is under budget because they have the money to spend on preview clips and behind the scenes vids while another soap is over budget because they don't spend that money. It all depends on the budget the show (and the different departments) were given.

Everyone was so on this AMC is being canceled bandwagon that they seemed to forget the most logical endgame all along.

Well what did you expect? lol its not like any poster on here created that bandwagon, everyone was just reacting to various published reports that all said AMC was getting cancelled, and now OLTL being cancelled is added to that same rumor. I think the biggest unanswered question is why hasn't ABC forcefully denied these cancellation rumors? They certainly denied rumors in previous years.

Even still, this whole "brand" argument continues to confuse me.

I think it is all a bunch of BS. What is a brand anyway? NBC had Must See TV as a brand on thursdays and they beat that brand into the ground with terrible sitcom after terrible sitcom. CBS news had a brand for decades as The Tiffany network thanks to Edward R Murrow and Walter Cronkite, but they ran that into the ground. What the hell is the GH brand? Luke and Laura 1981? What else makes their brand?

It all just seems like someone latched onto the word Brand as a way to justify nonsensical thinking. "OLTL rates higher, is cheaper to produce and does better in focus groups...but GH has the better brand." Well, how exactly?

I think it is all a bunch of BS. What is a brand anyway? NBC had Must See TV as a brand on thursdays and they beat that brand into the ground with terrible sitcom after terrible sitcom. CBS news had a brand for decades as The Tiffany network thanks to Edward R Murrow and Walter Cronkite, but they ran that into the ground. What the hell is the GH brand? Luke and Laura 1981? What else makes their brand?

It all just seems like someone latched onto the word Brand as a way to justify nonsensical thinking. "OLTL rates higher, is cheaper to produce and does better in focus groups...but GH has the better brand." Well, how exactly?

+1

IMO, if you're going to call anything a "brand" it's not the show itself at all. It's the memorable or stand-out characters. Erica Kane, Luke and Laura, etc. That's what people know. If you'd ask anyone on the street. I'd be they couldn't name another character on the show or tell you one single storyline.

Edited April 3, 201114 yr by MontyB