Ugh, I never commented on how Barbara made a point to smush it in Susan's face that she didn't get an Emmy nom. I just do no like that woman.

DeeeDee, that pic of Vonetta is gorgeous.

Ugh, I never commented on how Barbara made a point to smush it in Susan's face that she didn't get an Emmy nom. I just do no like that woman.

Seriously? The more I hear about Baba Wawa and her weird attitude with the soaps, the more I begin to dislike her. I'm sure SL handled it with the utmost dignity and class.

DeeeDee, that pic of Vonetta is gorgeous.

Thanks. May she RIP.

I'm sure SL handled it with the utmost dignity and class.

Actually, SL got ethnic with her, telling her to "back that muthafuckin' train up," and that she was making money for the network long before Barbara ho'ed her tired, lisping ass off the "Today" show on NBC.

(I'm just kidding. But wouldn't it have been awesome if she had?)

Actually, SL got ethnic with her, telling her to "back that muthafuckin' train up," and that she was making money for the network long before Barbara ho'ed her tired, lisping ass off the "Today" show on NBC.

(I'm just kidding. But wouldn't it have been awesome if she had?)

It really would have been something.

Barbara was so weird in that interview, it's like she hates Lucci, but likes her at the same time. Respect and revulsion. Just such an odd contradiction to watch.

Lucci was her usual classy self. She saved her street language for Joy Behar's HLN show...

Behar: So you're pissed?

Lucci: Yes!

Wow, I didn't see this before. It's an interview with John Yorke, who is the BBC's Controller of Continuing Drama, and was the EP of the much lauded and highly rated 2000-2002 era of EastEnders. Anyway, AMC/OLTL get mentioned, and he talks about basic differences between the UK and US soap industry.

http://blogs.bbcamerica.com/anglophenia/2011/05/10/bbc-exec-john-yorke-responds-to-u-s-daytime-soap-cancellations/

BBC Exec Responds to ‘All My Children,’ ‘One Life to Live’ Cancellations

By: Kevin Wicks Posted: Tuesday, May 10th, 2011

The stench of death hangs over the Daytime Emmys, whose nominations will be announced tomorrow morning (May 11). The ABC dramas All My Children and One Life To Live, recently canceled in favor of cheaper food and reality shows, will still vie for trophies. But the mood surrounding the awards will be anything but celebratory. In January 2012, there will be four U.S. soaps competing for aging, dwindling audiences, down from 10 shows at the turn of the century.

In contrast, the British Soap Awards will be handed out on Saturday (May 14), with much joy, fanfare, and glamour. Yes, the industry across the pond has seen its share of axed soaps in the past decade, from Brookside to Grange Hill, but the country's big three evening melodramas, BBC1's EastEnders and ITV1's Coronation Street and Emmerdale, regularly rank among the most-watched shows in all of British television. (The Brits had the good sense to schedule their "stories" primarily in early primetime — when more people are home to watch live.) UK soaps remain vital, as central to British pop culture as American Idol is to our own.

Born in radio and transferred to TV, the soap opera could be the most American of entertainment genres — so why have the Brits seemingly perfected it? We asked John Yorke, BBC's Controller of Continuing Drama and the man behind shows like EastEnders, this very question. His shows are funded through Britain's license fee, which is an annual payment that UK households must make for owning any television-receiving equipment, giving his programs an advantage over ad-supported U.S. content. But, as he tells us, there is still tremendous pressure to deliver a quality product while keeping costs low. Can U.S. soap execs learn a thing or two about how he does business?

Even though the shows never made much of an impact in the UK, have the cancellations of All My Children and One Life to Live been on your radar? What are your thoughts on their demise?

Yes, it made a bit of a splash in the newspapers over here. I get terribly sad when any drama gets canned, and my thoughts go out to viewers cast and crew. There's a creeping inevitability about these things now. Unless shows can attract a mass audience reality TV will kill them. We've seen something very similar here in the UK where Dream Team, Brookside, Family Affairs, and Grange Hill have all [been canceled].

Many are now saying that the American daytime soap is dead. But UK soaps seem extremely vital and relevant. How do you account for this? Is it simply a matter of smarter scheduling, as most UK soaps air during peak viewing hours?

Our primetime soaps are much more resilient. Partly there are more people available to watch, but also they reach a wider demographic, so at their best they still offer something for everybody. All TV audiences have dropped here from a high of maybe 15 years ago, and some like HeartBeat and The Bill have been lost, but the survivors work well because they're properly funded and — most of the time — are actually pretty good.

Why has EastEnders remained so popular year-after-year, even with changing tastes? How have you been able to grab audiences who now have more viewing options than ever?

None of the soaps are as popular as they were. EastEnders once regularly got 18 million viewers, though that was in a three-channel world. [EastEnders now typically draws around 9 million viewers - Ed.] Having said that, most weeks it's the most popular show in Britain. Why? Again, mostly it's because it's good. I've always believed that viewers turn off for one fundamental reason: they get bored. There's a very healthy soap competition in the UK, and I think that helps in us substantially raising our game. In addition the format allows you great scope for evolution, so you can reflect social change without damaging the brand.

U.S. soaps have been viewed as lagging behind the times in in terms of socially representing modern America. With Britain more diverse than ever, do you have a mission for your dramas to reflect the changing face of the nation?

I strongly believe that diversity is a gift to drama and we champion it endlessly. Every new ethnic, religious, or sexual group allows you the possibility of telling old stories in a new way, and viewers do seem to actually love characters irrespective of their backgrounds. The biggest story on British TV last year was a Muslim wedding [on EastEnders], in which the groom was unmasked as gay. I'm very proud of that, but it also demonstrates that we shouldn't be scared of going into new worlds and telling stories in those worlds confidently!

In the U.S., soaps have often carried a stigma as low-quality entertainment, amongst both the mainstream media and TV execs. How different is the perception in the UK? Some actors have complained that soaps take up primetime hours that could be better used supporting "higher quality" U.S.-style TV dramas.

Well there's still a class system, but it's not quite as profound. Large chunks of our industry were trained on these shows. [King's Speech director] Tom Hooper, this year's Oscar winner, learned his craft on EastEnders.

However, you still have to break through a certain belief that these program are inferior. For 10 years Jessie Wallace has given a breathtaking portrayal of Kat Slater on EastEnders, but it took a cameo in a single film [The Road to Coronation Street] to get her the BAFTA nomination she deserved. But that's OK. The smart people in telly know to recruit talent from here, and it's also worth remembering that the people who hanker after "higher quality" U.S. dramas are a small minority who have an over-amplified voice. The reality is that our shows are most often the most popular in the country, and millions of people who pay their license fee, who may not have such a loud voice, love them passionately.

What creative impact does being publicly funded by the license fee have on your shows?

Well once upon a time it probably allowed us a certain leeway to re-shoot if things got wrong or buy our way out of trouble. But I've been in the industry for 20 years, in the commercial world too — and I've never seen a more disciplined system of cost control than we have here. There's no waste: it's all on screen, and we recognize that part of our job is to be the cheapest. That doesn't mean the worst.

In the U.S., writers have catered to the 18-49 demographic, the group most sought after by advertisers. UK soaps have been praised for multi-generational storylines. Even without the imperative of ad revenue, how much pressure is there to focus on youth in your shows?

Our remit is to appeal to a wide demographic so as many license fee payers as possible so it's not imperative. However, our shows do have the largest young audience of any soap, and it's something we're very keen to hold onto as they are our future audience.

How involved are you in the creative process of EastEnders and the other continuing dramas? There must be a balance of not interfering too much but also acting quickly when the shows hit creative trouble.

Good question! My basic job is recruiting the talent, making sure they're equipped to do the job, and letting them get on with it. I keep a close eye on the shows, but try very hard to refrain from comment — unless it's constructive. Though if you asked our staff they might not always agree.

Where do you see British soaps in 10 years?

All of British TV has had 10 years of audience decline as multi-channel has taken hold. In the last two years that's stabilized, and I strongly believe that if we continue to invest in them, they will still absolutely be at the center of primetime television and British life.

Edited May 21, 201114 yr by Y&RWorldTurner

I don't think it's really possible over here, as I suspect the networks are slowly dying period, but in 5-10 years down the line that's what I'd do, basically; adopt the British formula and run a soap three to four days a week, a la Idol as well, and run it between 5-7 PM at night for either 30 or 60 minutes. Make the final day of the week - either Thursday or Sunday - the biggest 'event' day of the week. And it's still early enough that it still retains some 'feel' of daytime, and you can perhaps run ancillary web content on some weekday or weekend mornings.

Crazy, but a thought.

I don't think it's really possible over here, as I suspect the networks are slowly dying period, but in 5-10 years down the line that's what I'd do, basically; adopt the British formula and run a soap three to four days a week, a la Idol as well, and run it between 5-7 PM at night for either 30 or 60 minutes. Make the final day of the week - either Thursday or Sunday - the biggest 'event' day of the week. And it's still early enough that it still retains some 'feel' of daytime, and you can perhaps run ancillary web content on some weekday or weekend mornings.

Crazy, but a thought.

We have to remember though that Corrie, Enders and Emmerdale all started with just two episodes per week and only expanding to 3, 4, 5, 6 episodes as they found built in audiences.

Yes, but that was the UK market. Our market was primed for 5 days a week for decades, so it's sort of simply going in reverse.

Still and all, two wouldn't be bad.

Edited May 21, 201114 yr by Vee

Interesting interview with John Yorke. I'm glad that he pointed out that even with the advantages of prime time programming, lack of dependence on ad revenue, and government funding that the UK soap audience has also been declining. He acknowledges that the role that competitive programming has taken its toll on the U.K. soaps also. I actually don't think that all the UK soaps are sufficiently diverse, but they have done a better job than the U.S. soaps. Quality-wise I think that they have their fair share of crap. However, it is good to see Yorke speaking forthrightly about the challenges ahead for the UK soaps. I think that EE is doing a great job with finding young talent through its Web series and IPlayer is excellent. If this keeps up, they might be able to stave off their audience decline longer than the U.S. soaps.

The UK soaps seemed to have stopped the decline in the last few years. While that may just be a calm before the storm, I do think that it shows these programs can still have a sizable audience if enough effort is made. I am not a fan of what has been done to Corrie or Emmerdale in the last few years (or longer) but it shows that you can have success when the network makes an investment.

Yes, the ratings have stabilized or in some cases gone up for the UK soaps. Even with added competition and more ways to watch them, EastEnders or Corrie are still at or near the top of the weekly BARB ratings.

But these shows tend to be the cornerstone of BBC or ITV's schedule, thus more investment and pressure is put into them to succeed.

In short, ITV and the BBC give a damn. ABC, CBS, and NBC do not.

In short, ITV and the BBC give a damn. ABC, CBS, and NBC do not.

+1

IMO, it's very sad that for a genre that was started in the US, OTHER COUNTRIES (Mexico, Argentina, Brazil, Spain, UK, Germany, Czech Republic, Japan, South Korea, China & Australia) all have THRIVING soap operas, while here in the US , we're in the death throws of it.

I've watched almost every US based soap opera that was on air from the time that I was a child, being watched by my grandmother until I was in my early 20's. I ONLY got back into watching soaps, because I read that ATWT had written a storyline that had Luke Grimaldi Synder, coming out of the closet. Then, somehow I found out about a similar storyline on a UK based soap called, Hollyoaks with their John-Paul McQueen character. I know that US based soaps want to provide "fantasy", but on the other soaps, especially the UK based ones, IMO are more successful in providing entertaining serial drama that doesn't make it seem like they're dumbing down their audience. I don't see or feel that misyogeny is the driving force of those soaps. It's not the norm that female characters are having 2, 3, and/or 4 children out of wedlock by different men. It's not the norm to have female characters falling in love with their rapists/abusers. It isn't the norm to have "secret twins" being discovered.

It's not the norm that female characters are having 2, 3, and/or 4 children out of wedlock by different men.

And we love her for it!

Edited May 22, 201114 yr by Y&RWorldTurner