Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Members

Exactly.

As far as I can tell ABC, CBS, and NBC network exes have always made it clear that the soap cancellations were all about economics; low ratings and production costs. Some soap fans simply do not want to hear that truth and have been determined to make it personal when it has always been a business decision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 5.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members

The only time I think most fans felt it was personal was with Frons. Usually, although some (including me) were put off by some of what Moonves said, people are more likely to know when it's just about money. But if a network executive is going to go around giving every reason but money, then people will think it's not about money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I see what you mean, but I think, even with the budgetary reasons being the main factor, there is some kind of idea among some at the networks that soap viewers are unworthy and there's this floodgate of people just waiting to watch daytime as soon as the icky soaps are gone. There's been contempt for soap viewers for a long time, which is what helped kill the genre in the first place IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

If there was a feeling there was a floodgate of viewers wanting to see daytime, these networks and not just ABC would not be turning over airtime back to affiliates. I get thinking the execs are out to get soap fans but I dont see it. And promoting a new show like The Talk or THe Chew. What exactly do folks expect the networks to do tell viewers look folks we are putting on these shows because they are cheap and we know they are garbage?I dont see how this is a whole lot different than primetime broadcast TV replacing scripted drama with reality fare. Its got nothing to do with the fact America wants reality TV its all economics. the stigma associated with soaps being housewife fare started long before people like Brian Frons and Barbara Bloom propagated it for their benefit. Its not anything new.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I think saying "it's about economics" would be enough. I'm sure people would be angry - I was angry when they got rid of GL and ATWT, even if I know why it happened - but it's better than the crapola Frons said when he announced The The.

Not only is it a bad con job, it also sets up unrealistic expectations. A lot of people who tuned into The Chew said they weren't getting what was advertised.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Agree, It may be personal for fans but for the networks it is nothing but the money. Network exec's have a what have you done for me lately additude with their shows which is to be expected. It doesn't matter how long the show aired, or if it has a dedicated fanbase if it is not pulling its weight it has to go and regardless of how many bloggers and soap media claim soaps are still viable it is the person who is footing the bill that determines that for his/her company.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Except in every single post-cancellation interview network executives always give money as the reason. They always point to falling demos, lower ad revenue, and high production costs. Typically, this is ignored and a vocal group of soap fans start ranting about how the exec always "hated" the soaps when all these men care about it making profit for their companies so they can hold on to their jobs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I understand money is the bottom line in this, but I do think that the network execs are part of the problem. Nobody is trying to fix these shows, which is why the people running the shows and the Daytime Division are ALSO to blame. I also wish somebody would cut one of these soaps budget down 40% to match a talk show and see what happens. A lot of these soaps have casts that are too large anyway. We know soaps command a larger audience so there are things that could be done if they try. And yes you may even lose lots of major cast members, well try and refocus and maybe write one expensive family out and create a new one that is worth watching. The British soaps do it successful so there is no reason US ones couldn't do the same. Even in primetime you lose major characters, entire casts and the show survives.

It's a combination of reasons, but I don't think it's fair to say soap fans are being silly for not falling for the money excuse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Tonja Walker gives ideas on her blog talk show on how PP can continue the shows

-Investors For the show

-One Big Sponsor Funds the Show

-Make the show 30 mins

-Do short arcs so you only work certain actors at times then rotate

-Charge a 5.00-10.00 a Subscription fee a month

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

When you have an actor telling PP how to continue the show.....you're in troubleeeeeee.

I would hope the fee would be 5 dollars...cause 10 dollars a month is 120 dollars a year...nope...not in my budget....

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

    • I agree. Especially after SilkPress got back to her apartment and started to mock Nicole. Her dislike for Nicole and seeing her as a threat to her getting Teddy Bear is growing worse. So I could see her pulling a kidnapping on Nicole at some point. If anything she was going there to poke the bear and got pressed (pun unintended) when the bear gathered her.   Completely understandable. 
    • Beyond The Underwear Oops I mean Gates!

      Please register in order to view this content

    • I swear this entire time I thought Roman knew about the Phillip/Vivian letter lol.  I do like how mature Roman/Kate are as a couple.  It makes me sad the new writers never got a chance to write for John/Marlena. I agree with @AbcNbc247 that the Felicity stuff is a bit after school special-y.  I am pretty sure that (most) of the viewing audience is aware that a grown man should not be shouting at any teenage girl especially one with disabilities.  Just let Xander apologize and move on. Linsey Godfrey was in her Sarah baby voice mode today and it irritates me to no end.   I know it's a cutesy thing her and Xander do but it's annoying. Bringing Kevin back is strange, but I do like the use of history.  I do think Rex probably could have been used instead, but whatever.  I don't care about Rex much either lol.
    • I mean over the past decades. But I do agree that in recent years now, the writing is not working for them as well as it used to then. It's same old, same old...which is what made the Damian storyline refreshing. At least for me.   
    • Did Denise give any interviews where she talked about her first few years on GH... '73-75? I wonder if she had any regrets leaving Days for GH, as from what I've read, the show was in the dumps writing-wise, so am thinking she didn't have great story? Any Leslie story highlights I've seen always start with '76, after Gloria Monty took charge.
    • I know! It's like second verse, here we go again!  Agreed. Certainly there was concern maybe even fear at the highest levels for the very good reason that what they had was so economically successful, so of course this risk was scary but if anyone was brave she was. Yes, he was. I have seen her associated with getting it on the air one other place but no details nor official title. Not the writer or creator so it made me wonder if she functioned as a kind of uncredited ad hoc producer, but then maybe she just supported it. At any rate that is nothing but supposition on my part. No data! Yes, not a surprise anymore but still so frustrating! On one hand I am appreciative that she is included in this book, but scholarship where are you?!
    • that wasnt her point. She wanted to further demonize Ted; that was the main focus of their talk. She wants to ensure that Nicole leaves him so that he's free and single to be with her. At this point, I dont think she really cares what Nicole thinks of her; she just wants her out of the way Eva is Nicole's stepdaughter and is a Dupree by association. If Nicole takes Ted back then its reasonable that she would accept his daughter and i that happens, Eva will have welcomed to their country club, be invited to their parties, have access to their resources, etc....much like Andre whom also isnt a blood Dupree but is accepted by them via Nicole. Eva got what she got from Anita bc of Hayley. I think its important to remember that context bc they just dealt with an interloper that infiltrated their ranks and hurt her daughter in the worse way. Now you have another unfortunate girl positioned to do the same to her other daughter. The feelings are still too fresh and she doesnt want Eva to get the idea that she would ever be allowed the opportunity to play them again
    • Oh I've seem this! That's part of why I'm curious! The show could put EastEnders to shame on the gangster Aspect! Oh I've seem this! That's part of why I'm curious! The show could put EastEnders to shame on the gangster Aspect!
    • Eve was one of those characters that had the "Jessie Brewer"role. They had heavy storyline, they burned through it and now they are there for support and a touchstone in the community (Marland wanted to give Jessie story, but I agree with Monty...she best served in her connecting role, and keeping that damn Amy Vining busy so she keeps her nose out of things) So charcters are important and why they should have kept characters like Bridget around (even as she is more volatiles then Eve) who didnt need a big storyline but could have been behind the bar making connections and expostion, but Rauch wanted JEVA/JEVA/JEVA and DRAMA (which to him meant a lot of yelling and stupidity.)
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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