Jump to content

Question about Y&R being at #1


Recommended Posts

  • Members

It was--and to be fair it often was rated very closely to Y&R. It was around '95 when AMC started to slip (i remember I was shocked to see that in the SODs I was so used to seeing it constant) which was why McTavish with her increasingly outrageous plots was allowed to be fired by Behr who, though she helped hire her was reportedly beginning to be at odds with her. Of course ironically very soon after ABC fired Behr anyway... Days' climb also, I beklieve cut into the ratings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 19
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members

I think some peoples' assertion that time slot is the only reason why Y&R went to #1 and stayed there is, to say the least, cynical.

Like said above, it's bound to have helped.

But the best time slot in the world would not have made much of a difference had it been a terrible show.

I'm not going to speak about ALL MY CHILDREN's writing and which show "deserved" to be #1 more.

However, Y&R was known as a consistently well-written show; if you liked it, you always got the things that you liked, in every single episode. It had a cast that was well-balanced and had excellent production values (directing? Lighting? Music? Etc). Its slow pace would have been the kiss of death had it not been sort of an entrancing show. Veterans stayed on the show forever (giving it the aforementioned feeling of familiarity). Characters had arcs that developed and were resolved over the course of years and years. It did not have the fluctuations in quality that so many fans complain about on their own show (and style and tone helped it get through some occasional clunkers). The main characters were all different between them and mostly excellently acted. Each character had his or her own voice. Count in the fact that it was one man's vision for decades and did not change every few years (if not more often), depending on the new HW(s).

As the 90s progressed and we started seeing some crazy up and downs in terms of quality on most shows, Y&R kept it the same with minimal changes. It held on to its ratings well after the new millennium and my impression is that it started losing viewers at a much slower pace until the writing started to get really bad.

Sorry for the long post, but these "Y&R did not deserve to be #1" posts that pop up every now and then really get me going laugh.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

The funny thing about the timeslot is that outside of the East coast Y&R does not air at 12:30pm but instead at 11am for a very large part of the country. In fact CBS has always had a special 12PM ET feed so there would be no day behind Y&R shows(there use to be a couple exceptions). Y&R viewers in the Central and Mountain Time Zone where the show comes on at 11AM CT/10 AM MT see the show first before the east coast even does.

I think you've summed it up perfectly YRBB. Even when story on Y&R became sluggish or boring, the show could still be expected end up making up for it by delivering a punch or satisfying climax, at least until 2005 anyways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Good point about the timeslots.

Yes, that was definitely one of the biggest Y&R draws; you can become frustrated by the slow pace, or even find it boring but big stories ended BIG and with hugely satisfying climaxes which made it all worth it.

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.



  • Recent Posts

    • BTG: A-  DAYS: B+  Eastenders: C
    • There was a rumor that Jean will die and that’s probably why she’s back then
    • There has been some confusion about Michael & facial burns. Please see this post: https://bsky.app/profile/shallotpeel.bsky.social/post/3lqkrryu54226 I've chosen to put this here instead of the Classic Thread because it is now with the appearance of recast Michael that this has come up. Different places online, including at least one podcast, remarks have been made about how remarkable it is that he is without facial scarring. Other fans say it was clear from the first that he did not have facial burns. What is included in this post is 2 screengrabs where you can see his face at the hospital & a very quick edit of that day in the hospital. 
    • Put me in the LOVE KMH camp. As a poster alluded to above, her detractors seem to come from people who first experienced the 80s Emily actress. And that's often the case with soaps, myself included. I enjoy the original actor so much that I just never take to the recast. However, KMH played Emily far longer than the original - for almost 20 years - and when she had great material, she was great. I get the sense she didn't like playing the whiny oh-woe-is-me Emily which was all the material she got from about 1996 until she took over the Intruder in late '99/early '00 and got to play a stronger kiss-ass woman who didn't care what anyone thought of her. (Some would call that a bitch but, if a man was in that role, he'd just be called a smart and savvy businessman.) Her relationship with Hal was great. The transformation was done realistically and I thoroughly enjoyed those years the best out of all. Once the writers decided to break up those two, they went back to writing Emily half the time as whiny and pathetic. I preferred when the writers made her stronger.
    • Hahaha - I do. I've always been the type, though, that can't miss anything. I get FOMO, so I'll not skip episodes or fast forward anything. There are only a few TV shows I've dropped because they got so bad vs. sticking it out to the end.  The promise that GL 1997 is better is what keeps me going. I especially want to see the fallout of Blake's lie about her twins and then Annie's descent which I believe won Watros's Emmy.
    • Rita's rape is an episode i constantly search on YouTube hoping one day that it will show up. I always feel like I may have seen it, but I was only 6 at the time and can never figure any of the things I have vague recollection of 
    • FROM THE VAULT: NON-SOAP DAYTIME RATINGS: HIGHLIGHTS FROM FEBRUARY 1973 & MAY 1973:

      Please register in order to view this content

        FROM THE VAULT: NON-SOAP DAYTIME RATINGS: HIGHLIGHTS FROM AUGUST 1973 & NOVEMBER 1973:
    • The rape was in 1979 after they were married. Blake was the result of Holly cheating with him while she was married to Ed. I believe she was born in 1975. 
    • No. Ed and Holly were married and having problems. She had an affair with Roger and that's when Christina--Blake--was conceived. The rape happened much later, after Holly and Roger were married.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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