Greenlee could easily be rebooted on the show without Ryan. The issue for PP is likely Cameron Mathison's high Q rating. He's a fun, amiable guy when he's not Ryan Lavery, and Ryan used to be fun too. The pairing is what sucks. If PP has no qualms with separating the couple and pairing them with others - and I suspect they won't care - they can continue to co-exist on the show as individuals.

I just don;t see the value of Ryan to the show. Hes kind of a floater to me. He has no family on the show and is symptomatic of what Frons has done to this show. I feel the same way about Greenlee and yes I know she is Jacks daughter shoehorned in. Hes not a kane, he's not tied to the hospital, hes not a chandler not that that matters or a martin not that that matters either he's just there. I realize my opinion and personal preferences don't matter. I also feel the same way about Zach although he at least is married to a Kane.

He has no family on the show and is symptomatic of what Frons has done to this show.

Ironic, considering how far his sperm has traveled.

Me too but that makes us bad soap fans.

Ha story of my life

Welllll, I don't know about that. When I called Nelson Branco getting fired, it felt pretty good.

You know, I guess I missed all that drama during one of my breaks from posting--because just the other day I was on the TVGuide Canada site and thought to look at the soap site,and was kinda shocked to see Nelson was no longer there. I haven't read his column since the Spring. Ha, I can't say I'm sorry...

Landing Lucci is key to PP being able to even market the show to other networks. She is the only recognizable face on that show and has the highest Q rating of any soap actor which is why she is so important. While we all know AMC could go on without her, not having her limits PP"s options in terms of marketing the show to cable networks. And while people may shrug at Q factors, the entertainment business uses them and is why some shows get picked up and some don't. A cable network like Bravo wants to be assured they have some recognizable faces and appeal to not just the soap viewers but a broader potential audience.

That makes sense, but (and I'm not trying to stir anything up by this comment) what does that mean about OLTL? Does the fact that it has a .1 to .2 demo and HH higher rating point mean they don't need those familiar faces? Is Erika enough of one? (By all rights, she should be, but I don't think I could show a picture of her to a non soap fan and they'd know who she was).

Call my crazy, but I think if there is truly serious talks with Bravo, they need to try and get a Real Housewife or two in a long term contract for one of these soaps. With Beverly Hills we already know Kim and Kyle Richards have acting history and want to act again. I could see them working out a good taping schedule with those women. Especially Kim who isn't doing anything and all of her kids are grown. That would be good cross promotion.

Do you seriously think any of the real housewives could handle a soap actor's schedule?

Edited September 8, 201114 yr by EricMontreal22

That makes sense, but (and I'm not trying to stir anything up by this comment) what does that mean about OLTL?

It's so sad that you feel the need to put this caveat in everytime you mention OLTL.

Does the fact that it has a .1 to .2 demo and HH higher rating point mean they don't need those familiar faces? Is Erika enough of one? (By all rights, she should be, but I don't think I could show a picture of her to a non soap fan and they'd know who she was).

For Bravo, the numbers should speak for themselves. IMO, the interesting part comes in figuring out (and selling) the cause for those ratings. Is it the writing? Is the actor(s)? I'm sure that lively debate is taking place somewhere.

Sadly, AMC needs Lucci's star power. Plus I have no doubt that Bravo would love to have SuLu as one of "their" stars so PP isn't just offering them a show, they would be offering them Susan. I think she knows that and wants to be compensated accordingly. Good for her. After watching the men at ABC get treated like they were what soaps were all about, I like seeing Susan hold this much power.

Edited September 8, 201114 yr by marceline

It's so sad that you feel the need to put this caveat in everytime you mention OLTL.

Total non-sequitur

Do you seriously think any of the real housewives could handle a soap actor's schedule?

LOL! I can't imagine that any of them could.

That makes sense, but (and I'm not trying to stir anything up by this comment) what does that mean about OLTL? Does the fact that it has a .1 to .2 demo and HH higher rating point mean they don't need those familiar faces? Is Erika enough of one? (By all rights, she should be, but I don't think I could show a picture of her to a non soap fan and they'd know who she was).

What the "insider" and I use that term lightly said, is PP does not believe they have a chance of being able to sell AMC to any cable network without Susan Lucci because AMC and Lucci are almost synonymous. It doesn't mean they don't need others but they feel part of the AMC "brand" is Erika Kane. So while Cameron Mathison might have a decent Q rating hes not identified enough with the show so to speak. I think OLTL is in a diff situation. They still have long term legacy characters around like Viki, CLint, Blair who are sort of identified with OLTL while people like Ted King from what I read and Easton believe it or not have more recognizable face outside of OLTL. Not that they are popular but they have done enough work I guess outside of the soap to be more recognizable. Take that for what its work. The issue with AMC is who are the powerhouse legacy characters aside from Erika? THey don't exist. rumor is that OLTL is also "recasting" Jessica with someone more recognizable than Bree adding to the Q rating factor. It could justify PP tabling AMC for the time being and retooling it so to speak which doesn't sound like something they were planning for at this point.

It's so sad that you feel the need to put this caveat in everytime you mention OLTL.

For Bravo, the numbers should speak for themselves. IMO, the interesting part comes in figuring out (and selling) the cause for those ratings. Is it the writing? Is the actor(s)? I'm sure that lively debate is taking place somewhere.

Sadly, AMC needs Lucci's star power. Plus I have no doubt that Bravo would love to have SuLu as one of "their" stars so PP isn't just offering them a show, they would be offering them Susan. I think she knows that and wants to be compensated accordingly. Good for her. After watching the men at ABC get treated like they were what soaps were all about, I like seeing Susan hold this much power.

I absolutely have no issue with SL demanding more. Good for her she owes no one anything. And guess what you are worth exactly what the market can bare. People balk and snark at Lucci like she is a crappy actress so has no right to demand anything. Tell that to Jennifer Aniston or Sandra Bullock who are not exactly breaking down the walls of Method Acting. I want someone to show me where great acting has EVER defined popularity and star power. Kate Winslet, Cate Blanchett great actresses but put them up against Sandra Bullock and who would pull in more fans at the box office?

As for Bravo, the network's success has pretty much been built on reality television so acting, writing, personalities? I guess read that as you may and to which piece of the puzzle has been their target to success at this point. Top Chef, Real Housewives, Americas next top model. Its all reality with some scripted reality TV

Edited September 8, 201114 yr by JaneAusten

I absolutely have no issue with SL demanding more. Good for her she owes no one anything. And guess what you are worth exactly what the market can bare. People balk and snark at Lucci like she is a crappy actress so has no right to demand anything. Tell that to Jennifer Aniston or Sandra Bullock who are not exactly breaking down the walls of Method Acting. I want someone to show me where great acting has EVER defined popularity and star power. Kate Winslet, Cate Blanchett great actresses but put them up against Sandra Bullock and who would pull in more fans at the box office?

+1

Of course, there is no doubt that Lucci is by far AMC's biggest draw. Yet even with her as part of the cast (and I apologize for offending her many fans), AMC still became the lowest rated soap. Thus, I doubt getting her on board guarantees much of anything in terms of success. (Obviously, AMC's chances of success on PP are much lower without her, however.)

Of course, there is no doubt that Lucci is by far AMC's biggest draw. Yet even with her as part of the cast (and I apologize for offending her many fans), AMC still became the lowest rated soap. Thus, I doubt getting her on board guarantees much of anything in terms of success. (Obviously, AMC's chances of success on PP are much lower without her, however.)

True but she's the most recognizable person in soaps so if you're going to try and sell a show to Bravo, it helps to have at least one person on it that doesn't automatically make the potential buyer say, "Who the hell is that? And why should I care?" I look at it as just trying to sell the show, not a matter of whether or not it will succeed. Whether the show succeeds or not is going to be about more than one person. Even Susan Lucci.

Edited September 8, 201114 yr by marceline

True but she's the most recognizable person in soaps so if you're going to try and sell a show to Bravo,it helps to have at least one person on it that doesn't automatically make the potential buyer say, "Who the hell is that? And why should I care?" I look at it as just trying to sell the show, not a matter of whether or not it will succeed. Whether the show succeeds or not is going to be about more than one person. Even Susan Lucci.

Yep and certainly Allison Sweeney's star power these days(yes she has the second highest Q rating to Lucci) hasn't helped Days either has it. Films and TV shows with well known actors bomb all the time. So it takes more than the face and name.