Jump to content

Cancellation Most Devastating to Genre: GL, ATWT, AMC, or OLTL?


Recommended Posts

  • Members

I would say it's pretty subjective, as someone else said above.

However, I think the most devastating in terms of, "Hey, the soaps are really dead" to those in the know is the cancellation of OLTL. Never before has a show that wasn't at the bottom of the key demographic been cancelled. OLTL's cancellation was the sure sign ABC wanted out of the soap business, and the sure sign that GH is gone next.

GL was dead last when it was cut....ATWT was dead last in the demo when it was cut....and even AMC was dead last in the key demo when it was cut. Sure, AMC's was a big deal to those outside the soap world because of Susan Lucci, but it was no surprise to those watching the ratings in soapland, whether they be actors, directors, writers, producers, or just viewers. Indeed, if OLTL hadn't been cut with AMC, the thought of GH being gone by next September wouldn't have even been considered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 61
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members

Carolyn1980, your previous post made some good points. However, you are wrong when you state that OLTL was the first soap to be canceled that wasn't at the bottom of the key demos (upon getting axed): back in 1999, AW outpreformed SuBe in the women 18-49 demographic, and had more total viewers than both PC and SuBe. (I am uncertain if PC did better or worse than AW in the women 18-49 demos.)

Furthermore, both Texas and The Doctors were concurrently canceled in 1982, and it's highly unlikely that they both finished a tie for dead last in the demos. (In terms of households, Texas scored about 1.0 ratings points higher than The Doctors at the time.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

My opinion is AMC. ATWT and GL were at the top ratings-wise until the era of 18-49 demos really took hold in the 1970s. They were "your grandmother's stories." AMC was the first to ride the youth wave, knocking ATWT from #1 for the 1978-79 season based largely on its appeal to high school and college students. GH of course would follow it once Luke & Laura hit the scene. Now those high school and college students are middle-aged and approaching demographic undesirability, if they haven't already passed it. So daytime soaps no longer attract housewives (what's left of them) and no longer draw the youth and young adults. I think that the loss of a show that was able to draw the young once upon a time really shows the end of the era since that's what all the shows have aimed for during the last 35 years. Of course the end of one era is the beginning of another so let's see what it will bring.

I say this not to diminish the losses of OLTL, ATWT, GL, AW, and even Ryan's Hope and Search for Tomorrow, all of which I watched and enjoyed at various times over the years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

When AW was canceled, the general consensus at the time was that the slightly higher rated SuBe would go shortly after...and it did. As for Texas and The Doctors, they were the two lowest-rated soaps in the key demo when they were canceled.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Sunset Beach and Port Charles were never a ratings grabber. There wasnt much shock with them being canceled. AW had been in the dumps in the ratings for years. Was it a shock? Yes

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

SuBe was never slightly higher than AW- AW consistently beat it in the ratings. Plus, AW's ratings were on the rise in its final year, when a decision was being made between the 2. Most "in the know" were well aware that SuBe was a goner after AW left the airwaves.

And while I do agree (mostly) with your previous post, I must point out that Santa Barbara was not at the bottom of the ratings heap either when it was cancelled. It was well above the lower-rating Loving for pretty much its entire run.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Sorry to be argumentative, but I can never recall Sube being "slightly higher rated" than AW among women 18-49. (Perhaps you are referring to a more narrow demo, like women 12-34. However, when somebody says "the key demographic," it is still generally considered to be women 18-49.) Unfortunately, I cannot find the data on the internet, but back when I observed the ratings in the soap magazines, AW always came out on top of SuBe among that demo (although I concede that the demos for both soaps were horrible). Among total viewers (which is not relevant to your point), AW had about a million more viewers than SuBe.

This is similar to the current situation at ABC: OLTL & AMC were the two lowest-rated ABC soaps in the key demo upon cancellation. (While OLTL would sometimes outperform GH in the women 18-49 demos, it is a fact that GH--when one looks at yearly performace--had superior demos to OLTL.) The only difference between the two situations is (obviously) that Texas was the second-lowest rated soap in daytime (back in 1982) while OLTL is not currently the second-lowest rated soap in daytime. However, ABC has made a decision to cancel two soaps at the same time (much like NBC did back then), and they obviously cannot cancel a soap (with lower demos than OLTL) on another network. Hence, the two worst performing ABC soaps (among the demos) are being canceled.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Lol. I actually meant to say the "slightly lower rated" SuBe.

That said, the difference in the key demo between the two when AW was canceled was negligible. In fact, SuBe skewed much younger than AW. Still, as I said, it was generally expected that SuBe was going to go shortly after AW regardless.

But back to OLTL and AMC, I stand by my statement that this was the moment that even the hopeful insiders (like Brad Bell, who had just stated that we were down to the six shows that would survive and thrive....or Frank Valentini, who knew AMC was in trouble but thought OLTL was safe) knew all hope was lost. AMC was dead in the water; only those outside of daytime were shocked it was axed. But OLTL? The show was on the upswing, finishing better than or competitively with the other surviving soaps....and ABC let everyone know they wanted out of the soap business by cutting it loose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Here are some SB ratings from its last year

Dec 14-18, 1992

HH

1. Y&R 7.9/30

2. AMC 6.6/23

3. ATWT 5.8/22

4. B&B 5.6/19

5. GH 5.4/18

6. GL 5.3/18

7. OLTL 5.1/18

7. DAYS 5.1/17

9. AW 3.2/12

10. SB 2.5/8

11. LOV 2.4/9

Dec 28- Jan 1, 1992

HH

1. Y&R 9.1/27

2. AMC 8.0/23

3. B&B 6.5/19

4. GH 6.3/18

5. ATWT 6.1/19

5. OLTL 6.1/19

7. GL 5.9/17

8. DAYS 5.3/15

9. AW 3.6/11

10. LOV 3.2/9

11. SB 2.9/8

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



  • Recent Posts

    • In my usual account on my most used video hosting site with the video title  DAYS 1-8-15 Will & Paul Sex This is an edit I began when I was first teaching myself to edit & at that time I couldn't make it do what I wanted it to do. I pulled it up & finished it this morning. 
    • Or Megan is shot as retaliation for Dave's unpaid gambling debts...while Julie confesses she's the biological mother of Special Guest Star Barry Bostwick's little boy.
    • Finland seemed such an odd choice for a location shoot. ATWT went to Greece and later Spain while GL had Tenerife and there were others in that timeframe. But Finland not being a known tourist destination or offering the tropical/sunny atmosphere usually associated with location shoots seems off brand. Maybe they were negotiating a deal with a tourist association and it fell through.
    • I was talking about 1986, but the glimpses of 1982 are about the same. 
    • I skimmed some of the 1982 synopses; Steve was planning on an opening an office in Finland, and I think Jim went there as part of the preparation. That probably was a big issue; AW had already gone to San Diego that year, with Rachel/Steve/Mitch. And to upstate NY with Pete and Diana. I wonder if upstate was as expensive lol  AW in 1982 has always fascinated me, because of how messy it was 
    • That makes sense. What a messy time for the show. And any changes they made were mostly for the worse.
    • The transition from Neal to Adam was very abrupt, and to be honest my theory is that the character of Neal was designed so that we think he is super shady but then it turns out that he was on the side of good all along so Neal could have seamlessly become a hero of the BCPD with no need for Adam. I don't know whether Robert Lupone was hired on a short contract or if he was fired from a longer-term contract because they decided they wanted someone who was more of a leading man type, but I can imagine a scenario where Charles Grant did both the undercover Egyptian treasure/flirt with Victoria and the straighter-arrow day to day police investigation. But in my imagined scenario the MJ prostitution plotline probably doesn't exist and instead he probably continues a relationship with Victoria. The story seems very odd to me. I assume that David Canary would have been included only because a plotline where Steve is going to Finland in which only Rachel is seen in actual Finland seems unlikely. The synopses explicitly mention that Alice can't go with Steve but would whoever was playing Alice at that time have had the kind of clout to get the remote cancelled? It also strikes me as unlikely that production would have approved the expensive location shoot and *then* cancelled it only because of jealousy. It seems more likely that they rejected it because of the expense but then the jealousy part got added to the gossip speculatively, possibly because while it was being worked out they justified not including more castmembers because of the expense. 
    • My comment has nothing to do with cast resentment, but does relate to the Finland location shoot: It may be a coincidence, but Jim Matthews died in Finland in 1982.  Hugh Marlowe's final episode was in April 1982, but the character probably didn't die untll May or June. (I'm unable to find the character's date of death, only the date of Marlowe's final episode). SInce Jim and Rachel had very little interaction after around 1975, it is unlikely Jim's death in Finland had any connection to Rachel's potential visit, but the choice to have Jim die in that location at that time is a head-scratcher.  I'm sure the writers sent Jim on an extended trip (and off-screen) because of Marlowe's illness.  But Finland seems like a strange choice considering the (then) recently cancelled location shoot.  
    • I totally understand your sloths concern about it and I agree with you. Let’s hope the show plays it’s cards right.    Further comments about the last few episodes: - I liked that one of the attendees was filming the scene. That’s realistic. I wonder if the writers will follow up with that.  - Martin and Smitty trying to drag Leslie out was very heteronormative, so perfectly in line with them two as characters lol.    As for the future: it’s obvious the Duprees will come to accept Eva one way or another, but the rivalry with Kay should be here for the long term   On the topic of acting: the only bad actors I’m seeing are Ted and Derek. Tomas hasn’t proven to be either good or bad, so far, but he’s certainly mediocre and uncharismatic. He sucks the energy out of the scenes and I don’t see any couple of women ever vying for him. 
    • I’m trying to think which actors VW were working with at the time, and none of them had been there for a while. Even like Mac and Ada didn’t have that big of a part in Rachel’s storyline.  And Jamie was involved with all that movie stuff.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy