I remember part of the argument was that AW was far more expensive than SB to produce. Did AW ever really do a cost reduction effort? I don't remember the show being pared down that much. I know David Forsyth, Anna Holbrook, and Kale Browne were let go at one time, but was it much more than that? I just feel like they could have made a bit more of an effort

NBC were going to cancel both anyway as they were planning on expanding The Today Show to three hours in January of 2000. I'm sure AW went first because not only was it more costly than SuBe, it had that timeslot after DAYS that they wanted PSNS to have. SuBe just slugged along the next six months, because it would cheaper to NBC.

Didn't they try to play like only one soap was going and pitted the AW/SuBe fans against each other? Just like AMC/OLTL.

Edited December 21, 201113 yr by Eric83

Rankings are not meaningless. As more channels offered more selection over time, ratings have dropped for decades among all broadcast shows. The best comparison for success is therefore in the rankings these days, since ratings are so much lower for broadcast shows than they were even 10 years ago.

And yes....OLTL is going out as the highest-ranked soap ever canceled, in viewers, households, and all key demographics. It's number one in women 18-34 season-to-date, and number two in women 18-49 season-to-date.

Uhm really? We dont even get the same numbers for soaps like we did back in the day.With all do respect, I cant understand how u can fix your fingers to type a statement like that. Although SFT was not high in demos back then, they went from a 6.3 or 6.4 to a 6.8 before CBS gave up on it. Now please tell me how that compares to OLTL and the statement you made?

NBC were going to cancel both anyway as they were planning on expanding The Today Show to three hours in January of 2000. I'm sure AW went first because not only was it more costly than SuBe, it had that timeslot after DAYS that they wanted PSNS to have. SuBe just slugged along the next six months, because it would cheaper to NBC.

Didn't they try to play like only one soap was going and pitted the AW/SuBe fans against each other? Just like AMC/OLTL.

YES they did. Sure as hell did.

Didn't they try to play like only one soap was going and pitted the AW/SuBe fans against each other? Just like AMC/OLTL.

And to make the fight to stay alive even more fun, for awhile there in 1998 there was serious talk about DAYS jumping ship from NBC to ABC (due to tense negotations with NBC). And to accommodate DAYS (which was coming down from its 90's heyday numbers, but still a strong No. 2 or 3 in the ratings), ABC would've cancelled Port Charles and reduced One Life to a half hour. Well, that was the speculation anyway.

Edited December 21, 201113 yr by Gray Bunny

Uhm really? We dont even get the same numbers for soaps like we did back in the day.With all do respect, I cant understand how u can fix your fingers to type a statement like that. Although SFT was not high in demos back then, they went from a 6.3 or 6.4 to a 6.8 before CBS gave up on it. Now please tell me how that compares to OLTL and the statement you made?

YES they did. Sure as hell did.

Would you guys please look up RANKED in a f*cking dictionary already?

Sheesh.....you're living up to the worst stereotypes about soap fans.

What's confusing? Capitol was 6th or 7th ranked when canceled. (I take it you need to look up "ranked.")

Umm no, but where here in the question does it say ranked? I could be misreading Johnny, but I'm pretty sure he's talking about quality as well as overall audience performance NOT ranking. I see how most on top is maybe being taken literally by you a meaning ranking number but I don't think anyone intended it to mean that. But maybe I need to look up the word strongest (any other suggestions of words I should look up that have no bearing on this discussion?)

And yes....OLTL is going out as the highest-ranked soap ever canceled, in viewers, households, and all key demographics. It's number one in women 18-34 season-to-date, and number two in women 18-49 season-to-date.

Lady, that wasn't the question. Nobody said ranking--and as others have said to judge a soap being canceled by where it's ranked is meaningless.

Would you guys please look up RANKED in a f*cking dictionary already?

Sheesh.....you're living up to the worst stereotypes about soap fans.

I just can't... Maybe you should start a "Is OLTL the highest ranked soap to be canceled"

Edited December 22, 201113 yr by EricMontreal22

Umm no, but where here in the question does it say ranked? I could be misreading Johnny, but I'm pretty sure he's talking about quality as well as overall audience performance NOT ranking. I see how most on top is maybe being taken literally by you a meaning ranking number but I don't think anyone intended it to mean that. But maybe I need to look up the word strongest (any other suggestions of words I should look up that have no bearing on this discussion?)

Lady, that wasn't the question. Nobody said ranking--and as others have said to judge a soap being canceled by where it's ranked is meaningless.

I just can't... Maybe you should start a "Is OLTL the highest ranked soap to be canceled"

Yea, all that Eric. Thanks. Some one has sense around here. Worst sterotype.LOL Ur the one that's upset. It is not I. Rankings, ratings it dont matter. . YES oltl got a ratings boost but it doesn not amount to the bump SFT got. a .5. OLTL .2 or three AT BEST.

Edited December 22, 201113 yr by aMLCproduction

I do find it surreal to be called the worst kind of stereotypical soap fan when arguing a genuine question about a soap (and I think it's actually interesting to debate and discuss which soaps went out the best both creatively as well as in terms of ratins, etc), when the person making the accusation is writing multiple posts claiming everybody's missing the point of the topic when she seems to be the one who is. But oh well, life goes on

I had to read the first post. Let me say this. RECENT years YES. OLTL is the strongest to go out recently. But does that say much?

Umm no, but where here in the question does it say ranked? I could be misreading Johnny, but I'm pretty sure he's talking about quality as well as overall audience performance NOT ranking. I see how most on top is maybe being taken literally by you a meaning ranking number but I don't think anyone intended it to mean that. But maybe I need to look up the word strongest (any other suggestions of words I should look up that have no bearing on this discussion?)

Lady, that wasn't the question. Nobody said ranking--and as others have said to judge a soap being canceled by where it's ranked is meaningless.

I just can't... Maybe you should start a "Is OLTL the highest ranked soap to be canceled"

Perhaps you not only need a dictionary, but a lesson in reading comprehension. I was repsonding to someone who said my quote that OLTL was going out as the highest-ranked soap in history was wrong. I merely pointed out it wasn't wrong. And it's still not wrong.

And as someone who hasn't watched these soaps I used to love for years, I'm amused that it only seems to be AMC fans who are bitching and moaning and having coniption fits that OLTL is going out stronger in the ratings than AMC did.

As I said, I haven't watched either show in years, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that AMC was put out of its misery, while OLTL had a premature execution.

Sorry--I guess I did either skim or miss where you were replying to *ranked* -- I assumed because you replied to my post which wasn't about that, that you meant the original question. Sorry about that.

For the record I am a huge OLTL fan--and there have been many periods (2001, 1994, ummm I swear there are others) I thought it was superior to AMC, but I don't think taken the last ten years (granted a huge chunk) of both shows that OLTL had more going for it, and I thought, as dull as much of AMC was last year and this Spring, that AMC was *creatively* the stronger soap. Numbers wise nothing seemed to work to improve AMC's ratings and honestly I think it going first makes sense, but part of the original question was about the creative aspect. (Which is worthy of discussion because it is so relative and based on personal opinion--you can't really argue numbers). I know and understand that has zero interest for you--as you say you haven't watched either in years so can't comment on that aspect, and you're right about the numbers. Again--sorry, I did get a bit more rude than I meant to after your dictionary comment (as well as the crazy soap fan allusion)

Edited December 22, 201113 yr by EricMontreal22

Both AMC and OLTL went up and down in the ratings in their last few years. In terms of quality, I'm not sure if anything was as bad as Pratt's AMC, but I can't say RC's OLTL did a lot for me either, although at least I could watch, which I couldn't do with Malone II/Higley.

A lot of the hype over OLTL seemed to be directed more towards the people who wrote and produced the show than towards the show itself.

Sorry--I guess I did either skim or miss where you were replying to *ranked* -- I assumed because you replied to my post which wasn't about that, that you meant the original question. Sorry about that.

For the record I am a huge OLTL fan--and there have been many periods (2001, 1994, ummm I swear there are others) I thought it was superior to AMC, but I don't think taken the last ten years (granted a huge chunk) of both shows that OLTL had more going for it, and I thought, as dull as much of AMC was last year and this Spring, that AMC was *creatively* the stronger soap. Numbers wise nothing seemed to work to improve AMC's ratings and honestly I think it going first makes sense, but part of the original question was about the creative aspect. (Which is worthy of discussion because it is so relative and based on personal opinion--you can't really argue numbers). I know and understand that has zero interest for you--as you say you haven't watched either in years so can't comment on that aspect, and you're right about the numbers. Again--sorry, I did get a bit more rude than I meant to after your dictionary comment

I forgive you

I don't really have a lifetime preference for AMC or OLTL either. I watched AMC first (from 1981), but OLTL longer (until 2003). AMC died for me when Felicia Behr took over in 1989 and took away AMC's unique identity as a more reality-driven show.

I really have no idea whether OLTL has been any good the last few years, lol. I loved OLTL from 85-87, but a more mature me enjoyed the 91-96 years even more, so I suspect I wouldn't enjoy an 80's-throwback version of OLTL at this point, especially one that I hear gave into the worst plot excesses of that era (88-90).

This whole conversation has become stupid. Some people are talking about quality, some people are talking about ratings, other people are talking about popularity, others are talking about rankings and dictionaries... Ugh!

The last half of Pratt's run at AMC was probably the worst (I feel crazy this over and over, but I did like his early months and the energy and comedy he brought back to the show before virtuallyeveryone acted out of character in a plot driven mess). I kinda enjoyed (in a masochistic way) some of Malone II when it was Griffith/Melone. It was bizarre throw-everything-and-hope-something-sticks but I liked some of the ideas, bringing back the college, even some of his attempts at gothicness in a campy way--then it got awful particularly when Griffith left, and I did find Higley often unwatchable (not just either WTF or offensive stories but paired with mind numbingly slow storytelling as well) and honestly I think that's the only time for OLTL I often would fast forward episodes (something I try to force myself not to do lol), or even not caring when I'd miss a day. So I guess even the worst of RC is an improvement on that for me.

I forgive you

I don't really have a lifetime preference for AMC or OLTL either. I watched AMC first (from 1981), but OLTL longer (until 2003). AMC died for me when Felicia Behr took over in 1989 and took away AMC's unique identity as a more reality-driven show.

I really have no idea whether OLTL has been any good the last few years, lol. I loved OLTL from 85-87, but a more mature me enjoyed the 91-96 years even more, so I suspect I wouldn't enjoy an 80's-throwback version of OLTL at this point, especially one that I hear gave into the worst plot excesses of that era (88-90).

(LOL, thanks) I started with AMC when Behr took over so I guess I liked that style--though I've come to appreciate most of the 80s AMC more through all the years. I admit AMC has been a show I've somehow managed to stay with through the worst (which for me was Passanate's solo run/Rayfield/Pratt) when OLTL sometimes has been harder to stick with (the 90s muddle it became when Malone left, Higley). But OLTL is for me the Gottlieb/Malone/Griffith era (especially '92-95, I felt the last year of Malone solo without Gottlieb and Griffith started to fall into his worst patterns) and that's probably one reason I don't relate fully to RC's cheaper version of the Rauch era camp.

This whole conversation has become stupid. Some people are talking about quality, some people are talking about ratings, other people are talking about popularity, others are talking about rankings and dictionaries... Ugh!

LOL You have a point--