Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 5.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members

My comments were constructed as a response to JaneA's post/argument and not intended to be applied broadly. Yes, audience erosion is a problem, and the platform is important in the general sense that the product has to conform to the rules and conventions of the platform. However, Jane raised an important point. If the soaps are not working on TV, why should we think they will work any better on the internet if the form stays exactly the same? The point is that soaps are not in trouble because they are on TV, they are in trouble because, as Carl corrected, the people who run television have made extremely bad decisions. If the executives at PP make the same bad decisions, the programs will continue to fail. It all comes down to producers giving an audience what it wants. Soaps have largely been failing to do that for over a decade now, and it should come as no surprise that the trajectory of precipitous decline in soaps has coincided with the dumbing down of daytime. There is a trajectory alright. Put a load of crap on the air, market it toward a fraction of your total audience -an audience whom you mistakenly assume are too stupid to notice- and watch the numbers the nose-dive. It is not rocket science. Even better, attempt to blame the decline on too many channels (if you gave the audience what they wanted, they would not surf the other 200 channels for something better) OR claim it is because no one is home to watch, when we all know that unemployment is higher than it has been in decades.

I am not sure what your point is with this statement, but EastEnders and US soaps are apples and oranges. I have watched EE since it premiered, and although it is a shadow of its former self, US soaps are not even in the same league. When US soaps are transmitted in the UK, continuity announcers have a field day pointing out how inane the stories and characters are. Any UK soap at its worst can be taken more seriously than the weekly faked deaths, evil twins/impostors, plane crashes on deserted islands with demented villains running amok. I mean, really.

One final thought, if the soaps are working for you now, super. I am not attempting to insult anyone. I am also not saying that there is not a place for pure entertainment that has no other value. The problem is when everything on the air is designed that way. And, while the soaps are working for a significant amount of people, there obviously are not enough of them to keep the genre going. Someone has to offer something else to those of us who have been alienated. Soaps cannot survive unless they entice more people into watching, which means providing an alternative.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I love Marlee Matlin. She should make a cameo.

MarleeMatlin Marlee Matlin

All My Children fans have tweeted asking me to use my clout to help insure it's captioned when it moves to web. Happy to make noise for you!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Just found out this news, and all I can say is I'm overjoyed and shocked! I hope they cut the soaps down from the hour format though, despite what it says in the press release. I don't think episodes actually need to be that long. 30 minutes, 4 episodes a week, would be perfect.

Also I'm a little sad that P&G could probably have done something like this kind of deal with someone too but let their soaps die.

But wow! Wow!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Errol, I apologize for my rudeness, but if this is such a great deal for ABC, then why didn't P&G think of making a similar deal for its soaps? Was the only difference between the two situations (ABC vs. P&G) the level of outrage that the cancellations caused?

By the way, thank you for all of your hard work and great reporting on this story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Webmaster

It is my understanding that part of the money that Prospect Park needed to fund this venture came from the government, so yes I am saying that the government has handed out grants to production companies looking to invest in new media.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Webmaster

Not rude at all. The fact is that P&G wanted out. The timing wasn't right for this kind of deal to take place in 2009 or even in 2010. In 2011 and beyond, it is now necessary. We are moving more and more into the digital age and part of that is because our government is regulating when we are required to transition from different aspects of what we considered to be our daily average lives into a new world. People who don't watch TV via a cable box were forced to buy digital transmitters to even receive reception! Now they are allowing movie studios to change the window from "in theaters" to "in stores" or more precisely "on demand." It's the way of the future and that future is now.

I fully expect to see General Hospital transition to this new company next year when Katie comes on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I think poor Passions fans were used by DirecTV. That show didn't have a true shot. It was also the first show on DirecTV's 101 channel. Just judging by that, I think it's possible this could work in someway, but even Passions scaled back considerably. Luckily many actors declined to move, so it helps trim the cast. They also eliminated lots of extras and even had to recast a few roles when switching. I think it mostly worked and the show was still decent. I'm interested in this, especially with AMC, but both soaps will have to cut the casts and change drastically for this to make sense.

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.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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