The write-up on the early 70s soap cancellations is bullsh!t, IMO. It fails to mention that, in the summer of 1970, there were nineteen daytime soaps on the air. That's way too many, and I don't blame the networks one bit for getting rid of some of them and adding some variety to their daytime schedules with game shows. Except for Secret Storm, all of the soaps cancelled in the early 70s were relatively short-lived anyway. I highly doubt CBS thought game shows were "in" and soaps were "out." They went from 8 soaps at the beginning of 1973 to 6 at the end of 1974. Not much of a "purge," if you ask me.

Part of the problem with canceling short-lived soaps is there's no real potential for the future. A number of them were increasing in the ratings when they were taken off, and were full of people who went on to big soap success later on.

In terms of CBS they did end up getting rid of their soaps that were different, and had the potential to be strong performers (or had been at one time). They also got rid of all of their in-house soaps. I wonder what might have been if they'd kept one or two instead of only having soaps that are licensed out and seemed to be heavily damaged by constant battles over control.

Ive always heard that Maureen's death on GL was the death of GL but never before it equated to being part of the decline of soaps in general. My question is that if she was so integral, reverered, loved and this was seen as a huge mistake, then why the heck didnt they ever bring her back? Did the show ever try and the actress refused? Was there any talks of having the character return?

Arrogance plain and simple. Execs and showrunners who won't admit that a decision like that basically fragmented the show and thinking they know better than the audience. GL was never the same. They referenced AlanQ and also Laura's disappearence from GH but do you see them back? Same reasons. I never agreed with killing off Dixie and I thought bringing her back the first time was a positive sign until the stories that followed then she died again (why???) and subsequent returns from the dead for her have been pointless.

Maureen returned several times in 1997-1998 - when Michelle talked to Maureen (a figment of her imagination - these scenes were some of Budig's best soap work), and when Vanessa went to a low rent version of Heaven. There were rumors that Ellen Parker would return as Maureen's twin, but then Ed was written out again and the whole thing was dropped.

As for GH having no heart, I do agree with that. There were a lot of characters who were deemed unnecessary that could have filled this void, like Tiffany, Lucy, or Lesley - I think doing just about nothing with Lesley was a big mistake, as she would have been perfect as a recurring character and a presence at the hospital.

What GH needed was someone who wasn't tied to the mob and who wasn't played by a bored actor always waiting for the exit door (the way Marcil does every time she returns).

Maureen returned several times in 1997-1998 - when Michelle talked to Maureen (a figment of her imagination - these scenes were some of Budig's best soap work), and when Vanessa went to a low rent version of Heaven. There were rumors that Ellen Parker would return as Maureen's twin, but then Ed was written out again and the whole thing was dropped.

I dont mean a ghost/fantasy but an actual proper return, retconning her death.

No, there was no talk of a retcon. They even did a story about Michelle dating the guy who'd gotten Maureen's heart. It would have been a twin.

I think they made the right decision not to go back there. What made Maureen special was all gone within the next few years after her death. They'd recast Michelle, Ed, Roger Thorpe was gone (they had a great relationship as he was the town pariah and she was his only real friend), her niece Bridget was gone...Maureen was best left where she was.

I agree cable played something of a role, I just don't believe it deserves a huge amount of blame for the rapid ratings losses of the last 10-15 years. Soaps did not give anyone a reason to watch. Viewers didn't want to leave - they were chased away.

\It's a two way street though--as ratings dropped, the execs got more and more obsessed with focus groups, interference, and all the things that have creatively gutted soaps. And so in turn viewers tune out less.

But I do think cable played a MAJOR role--it wasn't till the nineties that it was common for everyone with basic cable to have dozens of channels to wathc, not just the major networks, etc.

I don't want to clog up another thread with cable rehash so I will agree to disagree.

Control/obsession with soaps and networks started when they were at great ratings (look at what CBS did with Secret Storm when they bought it).

I also don't think Iris going to TEXAS was that huge of a mistake. I believe Beverlee McKinsey would have left AW whether she got Texas or not. I do agree the writing for her was poor. I think the biggest mistake was not transferring more AW characters. I don't understand why some of their castoffs, like Willis Frame, or underused Russ Matthews, weren't moved.

She was also written out of character, was she not? I think she would have left, as you say, anyway, hence her star billing with Texas--but it also sounds like Texas was poorly handled (maybe Rauch's original concept of a period, civil war era soap would have been more effective, albeit by the 80s the kinda risk networks were no longer interested in). People said the writing was very poor (though weren't the Corringtons oddly later, briefly, hired at OLTL? I never get why networks hire writers who have flopped though it's something that has happened at least since James Lipton's crap eras at AW and GL in the 60s--I mean they soon after let him create a soap!). It wasn't till I believe iris actually left and Pam Long, etc, got involved that people really took to the show, which I assume is why when it was canceled she was moved to GL

Apparently she was written out of character at first and then towards her last months she was written more like Iris of old. I think the character needed to grow and to change - Beverlee had played the vulnerable/viperous little girl for a long time and it seemed like even Lemay had kind of run out of material there. But it doesn't sound like Texas did it well at all. I have to admit the whole idea of Texas bewilders me - let's dump these people into AW for six months and then they'll disappear, and we'll expect any viewers who grew to care about them to follow them to a new show that is totally different in tone and content from anything they have seen on AW. And it sounds like Texas was just slapped together after Rauch's Civil War idea fell through. There seemed to be no reason why this was put on the air.

Edited September 8, 201114 yr by CarlD2

I really don't believe that Maureen Bauer's death was as responsible for GL's demise as the conventional wisdom states. Rather, what really caused irreversable damage to GL were all those idiotic sci-fi storylines involving Reva. If GL had remained traditional, it could have recovered from Maureen's death.

If Iris had never been spun-off to Texas, I wonder if/when AW would have lost the title of NBC's most popular soap to DOOL. (AW still remained the most popular soap on the network even after the 90 minute expansion.)

Edited September 8, 201114 yr by Max

The write-up on the early 70s soap cancellations is bullsh!t, IMO. It fails to mention that, in the summer of 1970, there were nineteen daytime soaps on the air. That's way too many, and I don't blame the networks one bit for getting rid of some of them and adding some variety to their daytime schedules with game shows. Except for Secret Storm, all of the soaps cancelled in the early 70s were relatively short-lived anyway. I highly doubt CBS thought game shows were "in" and soaps were "out." They went from 8 soaps at the beginning of 1973 to 6 at the end of 1974. Not much of a "purge," if you ask me.

I agree. I get Carl's point--maybe they should have kept a few of the more adventurous soaps--Secret Storm was by all accounts decimated by that point, but Where the Heart Is was on an upswing under Labine/Avila, and it sounds like Love is a Many Splendoured Thing (even if it foolishly dropped its original interacial bravery) still had potential.

ABC quickly dropped both Best of Everything and A World Apart (I think that's what it was called lol), but having read about them and seen two episodes of World, they really started badly and it makes sense that they kept AMC, despite terrible ratings early on, instead. 19 soaps IS too many, it worked in the radio days when they were all 15 minutes, but with 30 minute shows, that's simply too many, and it would never have been sustained. I'm sure the networks knew that and were just trying to see which ones were working and quickly got rid of those that weren't, and while far from brave, it made sense to largely keep the long running ones.

I don't want to clog up another thread with cable rehash so I will agree to disagree.

Control/obsession with soaps and networks started when they were at great ratings (look at what CBS did with Secret Storm when they bought it).

I do think media interference, which IMHo started in the early 80s full force when they realized how much moolah was in soaps) is the number one thing that killes soaps.

Apparently she was written out of character at first and then towards her last months she was written more like Iris of old. I think the character needed to grow and to change - Beverlee had played the vulnerable/viperous little girl for a long time and it seemed like even Lemay had kind of run out of material there. But it doesn't sound like Texas did it well at all. I have to admit the whole idea of Texas bewilders me - let's dump these people into AW for six months and then they'll disappear, and we'll expect any viewers who grew to care about them to follow them to a new show that is totally different in tone and content from anything they have seen on AW. And it sounds like Texas was just slapped together after Rauch's Civil War idea fell through. There seemed to be no reason why this was put on the air.

I really think it was one Hell of a rush job--I guess they wanted somethign that would in theory appeal to AW viewers to fill that 30 mins AW at 90 mins really didn't need.

Oddly to me as dysfunctional as the Q;s were I always felt they brought humor and yes heart to the show more than Laura did. I like Laura and I'd rather see her than so many others but I still believe to this day Alan dying and subsequently AJ and Emily and even Lili hurt the show more than Laura add in Tracys family completely gone too. I am not saying losing Laura did not hurt I just dont know that that act more than anything else killed GH

I don't know about you but something within me died when they killed off Emily and Georgie, which in and of itself was odd because I was not very interested in their most recent storylines before they bit it. But it wasn't just that they died so much as in the way that they died and what it did to the show. It's like once they died with them they snuffed out whatever brief light and hope the show once had. GH needs characters like them, characters who are rich in history and are also more or less good characters who try to bring out the best in very difficult situations. They need ingenues and they need heroines that are likable and amiable to the audience. Not just where they killed off but the way in which they were killed off was horrendous.

It was very hard to see them go but to see them so brutalized in such a heartless way in their finale moments was beyond hurtful. I don't think GH has ever been the same. It never recovered. I think they have tried to fill the voids with Robin, Elizabeth and Lulu but none of them can accomplish what either of those actresses did. They weren't great dramatic actresses but there was something about them and their characters which made you feel there was some semblance of heart and goodness on the show. It was a sense of purity and warmth in who they were that made you like them. Elizabeth has been tattered and torn down so much that I don't believe she can ever realistically be this for the show and even at her brightest she was never an Emily or a Georgie. She was in her heart a bad girl. Robin and Lulu are both too cold and clinical to be this either. So that leaves GH with a heartless show. Laura's loss was a painful one but that is only part of the problem. They keep killing off anyone who is even remotely like Laura. That won't let her legacy thrive in any form or state. They keep killing Laura over and over again because they keep killing characters that are most like her. That is the real issue with GH.

I never agreed with killing off Dixie and I thought bringing her back the first time was a positive sign until the stories that followed then she died again (why???) and subsequent returns from the dead for her have been pointless.

Yeah Dixie has been misused for years now. I think that's more actor meddling then anything else though. Cady made it known that she wasn't interested in playing Dixie the way she had previous years and she wanted Dixie to be portrayed differently and that's what we got.

Edited September 8, 201114 yr by Skin

I do give Cady a bit of the blame--nobody seemed to know ho to write for the Dixie that she wanted to play, but really one back from the dead is enough for a character--once you do it continuously it loses any interest (some would argue this is true of any back from the dead, I know)

Edited September 8, 201114 yr by EricMontreal22