AMC and OLTL Will Move Online!

[JaneAusten]

Again I get all the enthusiasm for PP but how is any of this different than someone coming to you to take a job with a startup company embarkoing on something brand new. There is always risk involved. All you need to do is look at the .com implosion and all the companies that went under in the late 90's early 2000's. I know because I worked for a big one that went under after tons of funding and promises of great things and yes people from the industry who knew what they were doing. And why Bergman. Why couldnb't you know A WOMAN be brought in. Brooke could be brought back as could Skye both were stong presences on the show at one time and they could even recast Skye with a strong named actress.

[Max]

Y&R is guaranteed to be on television for at least three more years, so that is at least three more years that Bergman will be receiving a higher salary at Y&R than at PP. And why on earth would you doubt that Y&R won't be moving online? Instead, it seems logical that Y&R will move online (after being cancelled by CBS) because it is way more popular than either AMC or the "red hot" OLTL (thereby creating a much larger outcry upon its future cancellation).

Vee, as I've stated many times in the past (even though we don't specifically know what PP will or won't due), I have based my prediction that the PP venture is likely to fail based on the law of averages, which states that the vast majority of business ventures fail. Honestly, you know that is why I feel this way, so I really don't understand why you want to go in circles (by asking me a question that you have previously asked me--and that I have answered--several times already).

[Vee]

Oh, sure. But if they get a cable deal, on television, it becomes a whole new game from the soap star's POV, at least IMO.

I got no problem with keeping Julia Barr or bringing on Robin Christopher. I love that. I wish Skye would return, even though I have heard that Robin is disinterested in returning to AMC. But in terms of a patriarch with gravitas, there is no one else. Michael Nouri as Caleb was mishandled, though he's a great actor. I'd also want to bring on a recast of Hayley to shore up the Chandlers - someone with a big enough profile for cable to match Kelly Ripa's shadow.

[Vee]

It would only move online if the Bells or Sony expressed an interest. One gets the sense these days that Sony wouldn't piss on Y&R if it was on fire unless it starred Maurice Benard and Steve Burton, and that Maria Bell might not know it's cancelled until she gets a text message during her mimosa brunch.

I do understand it's a long shot that Bergman would take the plunge, but I also think stranger things have happened in daytime. Like, say, AMC and OLTL getting cancelled and then revived, possibly on cable.

Because you state it as though it were a foregone conclusion, but I haven't seen any facts to back it up. All I do hear, honestly, is that you resent that it's these two soaps and not ATWT or GL.

[MontyB]

This leads me to ask, why do keep repeating the same thing that causes people to go in circles and ask you the same questions?

Anyway, I'm not feeling your bleak outlook. I'm more like wait and see what happens cause you just don't know.

[JaneAusten]

I find the idea of needed a male patriarch again sort of condescending in a genre dominated at one time by strong women. And I don't think Robin Christopher is that person. I don't think she's strong enough of a presence to anchor. I think they made a mistake bringing Jamie Lunar in as Liza. She could have been Skye.

And there is no cable deal yet.And even with that its still risky. I am not saying it won't work but I really think its kind of ridiculous thinking a veteran actor like Bergman would walk away from a show thats still on network daytime and despite the crappy writing still has almost twice as many viewers of the rest of the shows. Cliff Warner by the way was not what I would have called a patriarcal figure either.

Off topic - Michael Nouri is not a good actor.

[marceline]

I'd like to see a dynamic more along the lines of what GL did with Alan and Alexandra Spaulding. At various times, either one of them was perfectly believable as "the one" in charge of the family but the conflict between them added another amazing dimension.

[Vee]

Even when AMC was at its height, it had Adam and Palmer. I'm not saying it's not a genre for women or that women are not or should not be the heart of AMC. I'm saying there is a huge void in the show since Canary's departure that was never adequately filled.

I think Luner makes a good scheming Liza now. I just can't stand her as a lawyer. She needs to go back to working in television so the writers can play out all sorts of roman a clefs about Jill Farren Phelps, Gloria Monty, Angela Shapiro, etc with Liza as the domineering executrix.

He wasn't back then; Bergman is now. I realize it's a crazy idea and a long shot, but I think it's time for AMC to look at crazy ideas. Look at what their losses are likely going to be.

I disagree. I think he's been spectacular in other things, including Damages.

[Max]

And Vee, all I see is more and more baseless and vicious, personal attacks on your part. The only reason why I commented on what you wrote was because thinking that Bergman would leave Y&R for AMC is indeed a "crazy idea" (your words, not mine, see below).

[Vee]

I'm flattered, really, but nothing I said above was vicious or even baseless. I'm just saying I have yet to see an explanation for why you assume AMC and OLTL are doomed to fail.

[Max]

Vee, I never said they were doomed to fail. I just said--for the reasons I explained above (for the 1,000th time)--that they are likely to fail. Of course, that means there is a chance for success. Please don't put words in my mouth.

Although you will never believe this in a million years, I was just trying to be helpful by telling you about their high likelihood of failure, because I didn't want you and others to get burned by false hope. (Because I myself have gotten burned many times in the past by false hope.) Other folks here have been able to see my point, but you continue to act as if I am the enemy.

[Vee]

Okay - why are they "likely to fail" but Y&R isn't?

[Max]

This is a fair question. If/when Y&R goes online, it too is likely to fail (based on the "law of averages" explanation I gave earlier). However, it is less likely to fail (than AMC or OLTL) for two reasons: the first is the fact that Y&R will likely have many more viewers to begin with (if it leaves CBS in 2014), and the second is that Y&R (along with the other three remaining soaps on television) will have the luxury to see what worked--and what didn't work--with the PP venture. The sad fact is that the failure rate for AMC and OLTL will be the highest because they are the guniea pigs when it comes from moving from television to the internet. (Also, remember that GL was the only soap to successfully transition from radio to television, even though several others tried to do it.)

[JaneAusten]

In terms of Bergman on Y&R his CHARACTER Is in some ways a patriarch although I would argue that he hasn't filled the gap killing off John Abbott has had because Y&R doesn't write for the Abbotts as a family unit. CLiff Warner was not a patriarcal figure. You are trying to make this an actor issue its a character issue. And you know while I agree Canary leaving left a gap but it wasn't the loss of the patriarch that killed AMC it was the loss of a strong longterm vet who held together that part of the canvas. TO me its no diff than the impact losing Angie would be for the Hubbards. There was a time when there were no Chandlers. James Mitchell held the Courtlandts for years, Susan Lucci has held the Kanes for years, Ruth Warrick held the Tylers for years. I contended they should have just recast JR. I love JY don't get me wrong but they could have used his departure as an opportunity to reboot the character and recast with someone possibly with more commanding presence, more self confidence to fill that role and grow the character. Obviously they chose not to do that. I guess time will tell. Perhaps they decide to focus on the Castillos and hire a vet to fill a matriarcal or patriarcal role who knows.

[Max]

Vee, in fairness to you, I should add that despite the "craziness" of your idea, it would be great for AMC if Bergman did come back. But, for the reasons I already mentioned, that has very little chance of happening.

My idea for what is in AMC's best interest is equally "crazy": I would move it back to NYC (or to Stamford, CT, if one wants a lower cost alternative), because this move would allow Canary to return full-time. Unfortunately, the sad truth of the matter is that PP just doesn't have the money needed to move AMC 3,000 miles (again). Thus, because of Frons' idiocy, AMC will forever be stuck in LA.