Members Max Posted November 20, 2011 Members Share Posted November 20, 2011 If one is to rank the five remaining soaps based on the size of their budgets--along with the size of the budgets that AMC, ATWT, and GL had at the end--what do you think the ranking would look like? My guess is that it would resemble this: 1. Y&R 2. B&B 3. GH 4. AMC 5. OLTL 6. DOOL 7. ATWT 8. GL I feel pretty confident about where DOOL and the P&G soaps rank. Also, I am sure that GH, AMC, & OLTL go in that order when it comes/came to the size of their budgets. What I am not sure about is if the Bell soaps have a bigger budget than the ABC soaps, or if Y&R has a bigger budget than B&B. (It is sort of difficult to compare B&B with the others since it is a half-hour show. Perhaps the best metric of comparison would be the budget per minute, as opposed to the total budget.) Given that ATWT had a lesser budget than DOOL, I think that soap actually deserved praise for having better/more realistic looking sets. Also, given DOOL's budget constraints, it was a huge mistake to re-hire Dee and Drake. (The ratings further bear this out.) In addition to the relative budgets of each soap, it would be most appreciated if anybody could make an educated speculation on the total dollar amount of their annual budgets. On this matter, I have no idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Saving ATWT Posted November 27, 2011 Members Share Posted November 27, 2011 I read, somewhere, that Days came in at 100,000 per episode. Also, Caddy (ex Roseanna) said that Goutman did ATWT on the lowest budget out of any soap. Maura West said about the same. With this being the case, I do give Goutman some credit for making the show look good right even though the writing was insanely bad which had nothing to do with cash. ABC never starved their soaps but I'd bet that Y&R spends the most. I do notice that they are using less sets this year as well as overusing the bar and motel sets. Genie's house looks like crap, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members GregNYC Posted November 27, 2011 Members Share Posted November 27, 2011 Until moving to Peapack, GL was more expensive than ATWT because GL filmed in Manhattan, while ATWT filmed in Brooklyn. The Brooklyn studios were cheaper than the Manhattan studios. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Eric83 Posted November 27, 2011 Members Share Posted November 27, 2011 Why did they move ATWT to Brooklyn when GL was the lower rated soap? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members GregNYC Posted November 27, 2011 Members Share Posted November 27, 2011 In the late 90's, when Paul Rauch was EP of GL and Felicia Behr was EP of ATWT, GL had higher ratings than ATWT in women 18-49 demos. Also, another factor was that Chris Gotuman worked in the same Brooklyn studios for AW. When he was announced EP of ATWT, it would be a smooth transition to move ATWT to Brooklyn since he previously worked there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members CSF Posted November 28, 2011 Members Share Posted November 28, 2011 ATWT moved to BK in 1999 when Goutman took over. They moved into AW's old studios. I know a few years ago before all the budget cuts Days had a budget of around 1.8 million a week, GH 1.3 a week, Y&R 1.25 a week. I'm sure someone else on here can confirm better than I can. I would rank the 5 remaining soaps based on budget as GH, Y&R, OLTL, Days and B&B. B&B is 30 mins and only films like half the year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members juppiter Posted November 28, 2011 Members Share Posted November 28, 2011 Why indeed. In 1999 P&G had 3 soap operas. One of them got canceled. They then fired the entire production staff of their highest rated soap and replaced them with the staff from their recently canceled soap and moved their highest rated soap into the vacant studio of their recently canceled soap. Now P&G has 0 soap operas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Mitch Posted November 29, 2011 Members Share Posted November 29, 2011 Totally agree that ATWT looked good at the end considering the budget they had. I will always think Gautman was an ass for taking Bob and Kim's kitchen set and making it a set for WOAK (I mean, you still have the damn thing up, use it as the Hughes set still) I know it was ridiculous during the Marland years that everyone and their dog walked through the Hughes kitchen to tell everyone about their latest drama, but I liked it and it kept up with the old tradition of Nancy in her kitchen dolling out advice and kicks in the ass. My question is, could the shows have moved their studios out even further, say, rent studio space in another state...if its so expensive to shoot in New York just leave and go somewhere else. They werent using Broadway actors anymore and you can find dumb himbos and porny looking models who can't act anywhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members GregNYC Posted November 30, 2011 Members Share Posted November 30, 2011 NBC Universal talk shows, Maury, Jerry Springer, and Steve Wilkos, moved from Manhattan and Chicago to Connecticut, saving a lot of money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Mitch Posted November 30, 2011 Members Share Posted November 30, 2011 Exactley, so why didn't they do that with the soaps? Why film in Peapack while keeping that shitty studio space in Manhattan with three sets the size of closests and Wheeler's bright idea to create a 7 11 in a closet in the studio? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members jcar03 Posted December 2, 2011 Members Share Posted December 2, 2011 Of the remaing shows excluding OLTL, I say: 1. Y&R 2. GH 3. B&B 4. DAYS Even though B&B is a 1/2 hr, it probably just edges out DAYS for the budget. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.