WTF!!!!!

EXCLUSIVE: Here is a great holiday gift for soap fans: I’ve learned that Prospect Park has revived its plan to continue cancelled ABC daytime dramas All My Children and One Life To Live online. I hear the company behind USA hit Royal Pains has inked deals with SAG-AFTRA and DGA for the soaps’ production, eyed to begin in the first quarter of 2013.

http://www.deadline....ine-web-series/

Although Dallas didn't actually reboot. It was off the air for over 20 years. It utilized the existing cast it could and then used legacy children. It's now using even more of the previous cast. Had it come back 10 or 20 years ago it would be a different story. And any time I've heard that approach suggested to you in the past you react like somebody tossed acid at you.

These shows have been off the year for less than two years, which is a very different situation, and daytime has always been a different animal than a primetime soap. It can certainly change and revolutionize itself as it has many times before, but that doesn't mean cutting out the core characters or families, anymore than Dallas did. Which is why these shows won't cut them out, either.

Edited January 31, 201312 yr by Vee

I thought a reboot was basically taking something and doing it all over again with same characters and whatnot.

To me Dallas isn't a reboot but a continuation in alot of ways

I thought a reboot was basically taking something and doing it all over again with same characters and whatnot.

To me Dallas isn't a reboot but a continuation in alot of ways

So do you see Dallas as a resurrection more than a reboot? Because I can see the argument for that.

I gave my definition for what I think of as a "reboot" but I'm completely open to other definitions.

Edited January 31, 201312 yr by marceline

So do you see Dallas as a resurrection more than a reboot? Because I can see the argument for that.

I gave my definition for what I think of as a "reboot" but I'm completely open to other definitions.

You said a reboot was "re-imagining everything and starting from scratch", which IS correct but that's not what Dallas is, it's a continuation of the show just 20 ears later.

You said a reboot was "re-imagining everything and starting from scratch", which IS correct but that's not what Dallas is, it's a continuation of the show just 20 ears later.

I was iffy on whether to define Dallas as a reboot or a resurrection. I'm willing to accept I called it wrong.

I guess by those standards AMC/OLTL have to be classified as resurrections and not reboots. I don't know whether that's good or bad.

Edited January 31, 201312 yr by marceline

While I tend to reserve "reboot" for shows like 2011's Charlie's Angels or Ving Rhames as Kojak, I think Dallas falls into both categories. It retains cast members from the original and is in many ways a continuation, but there have been some retcons and de-SORASing, not to mention the sheer number of years that have passed since the original. Even though the focus has shifted to the younger generation (a natural soap opera progression), one thing I would not call it is a "revamp" (save that for Loving/The City or Central Park West/CPW).

While I tend to reserve "reboot" for shows like 2011's Charlie's Angels or Ving Rhames as Kojak

I hated the former and was completely unaware of the latter but I see what you mean.

Personally I'm torn. I love some of these characters and I want to see their stories continue but at the same time, I truly believe that things have to change if the genre is going to survive.

Edited January 31, 201312 yr by marceline

Things can always change without annihilating the core of the show. That's why Dallas was a success, for one.

I was almost at the Empire 25 today! He seems like a nice man, I just hope they don't get screwed.

Edited January 31, 201312 yr by Vee

Thom Racina's video Message

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10200388579787985

Thanks for sharing that. I'm somewhat amused by how Thom Racina acts in this video.

ITA. But that goes back to a question I asked a while back: are these shows reboots or are they resurrections?

IMO, a reboot means re-imagining everything and starting from scratch like Dallas (the best model for PP to follow), Star Trek: TNG, Battlestar Galactica or the gawd-awful attempts to bring back Bionic Woman, Wonder Woman and Knight Rider. A resurrection is pretty self-explanatory. Bring the show back as close to it was: Family Guy, Arrested Development and Firefly (in the form of the movie, Serenity.)

I want these shows to be reboots. I think that's their best chance for success.

Wouldn't Dallas be a mix of the two? Bionic Women, Batlestar Gallactica, etc, didn't have direct connections tothe original (Star Trek did more so but I'd call it a genuine sequel). This is all confusing me

I think they haven't been gone long enough to be full on reboots, but I wouldn't mind if they had more of the reboot elements you mention.

*edit* SOrry Marceline, I see others already picked on you about the terminology I do want changes, but more with format and content than structure. Remember when PP first announced this nd people half joked about a show set in Pine Valley with a bunch of brand new 20 year olds, etc--ie AMC in name only. That would make no sense--for me a reboot is more like when a movie is remade--elements from the original are used but you don't have any actual connection (except maybe character or location names sometimes) with the past, zero knowledge of any of the past is referenced or aknowledged, etc

Edited January 31, 201312 yr by EricMontreal22

The UK has great success with their soaps and huge audiences and they add new families all the time. I know it's a different market, but I do think their soaps are better for it. Now I wouldn't want the same turnaround, but I'd certainly prefer them cut one or two families out and add an entirely new family if they were having trouble getting actors from certain families. I don't think viewers would react poorly to it either.

The UK has great success with their soaps and huge audiences and they add new families all the time. I know it's a different market, but I do think their soaps are better for it. Now I wouldn't want the same turnaround, but I'd certainly prefer them cut one or two families out and add an entirely new family if they were having trouble getting actors from certain families. I don't think viewers would react poorly to it either.

It's not necessarily a bad thing, but I do think the viewers would react poorly to it.

One new family is fine (and it sounds like they could be going there)--though a soap cliche like Maya being a long lost Castillo sibling might be a bit much (we only saw Mama Castillo in that web-episode, right?)

If you start the new show off though with, like, two whole new families, it's a bit jarring.

I do think OLTL seems, from all we know, in much better shape at this point--a lot of familiar cast and characters, two much loved writers, one with huge connection to the show, etc, so I get where some of this is coming from. On the other hand, AMC did need some major overhaul character wise, and I'm even willing to give this HW (though I hope we still get the potential co-HW announcement) a chance since her crime seems to have been writing a soap, with someone else who's not here, that is infamous for having huge intereference from its owners, that people found boring. As long as some of the show is recognizable (and if used well Opal, and the Hubbards would do that for me--though I still am holding out for Brooke), and new characters are integrated, I actually welcome them trying the show in a fresher way.

But the endless comments from people after one leaked casting script info, for example, then chiming in "Well OLTL looks great, but this has caused me to decide I will never watch the new AMC", which we all know is never true anyway, just seems hysterical (in all senses of the word) to me.

In regards to SORAsing certain kids--if they do make them older teens, since it sounds like, for example, JR and Bianca will be recast, can't they castthem slightly older too? And wasn't JR (and Jamie) themselves rather quickly SORAsed from about 8 to 14, and then even quicker 17-18? Of course their parents (well at least Adam) seemed older, but I don'tremember it being that much of a shock.

And yeah, I had good things and bad things about both AMC and OLTL's final 3 months or so (though I prefered AMCs, but will grant OLTL had been in more stable shape for longer), but a part of me thinks if the argument is AMC is gonna be nothing like before, and OLTL is so OLTL is gonna be the much better soap--I sorta wish neither of them would be much like before. Recognizable *yes*, but...

ICAM!

AJ and Miranda would both be 9 in real time and the actors who last played them were a year or two older already so aging them to 14 isn't that big of a deal. High school just feels so drastic since the characters were nothing but props previously. It's not like they had mini stories of their own like Emma did with Annie or like Matthew did on OLTL. Maybe Agnes is of the mindset that they better start showing the new generation in case this fails and this is their one chance to do so. She'd want to have the legacy continue in our heads with the new generation.

In any case, I hope they cast actors that are close to age 14 and aren't really 18 year olds masquerading.

Exactly, it's not like they're aging them from 6 to 16! I also hope they cast young teens in the roles since it's always obvious when they hire older kids.

I think they should have Opal raise Jenny. I think that might make an interesting story.

I'd love that. Opal could find herself fighting her instincts as she tries not to make the same mistakes again as a mother.

Oy, reading Twitter gives me a [!@#$%^&*] headache.

I'm glad it's not just me! I have no interest in joining twitter.

Although Dallas didn't actually reboot. It was off the air for over 20 years. It utilized the existing cast it could and then used legacy children. It's now using even more of the previous cast. Had it come back 10 or 20 years ago it would be a different story. And any time I've heard that approach suggested to you in the past you react like somebody tossed acid at you.

These shows have been off the year for less than two years, which is a very different situation, and daytime has always been a different animal than a primetime soap. It can certainly change and revolutionize itself as it has many times before, but that doesn't mean cutting out the core characters or families, anymore than Dallas did. Which is why these shows won't cut them out, either.

They do need to keep the core families, but there's plenty of room to change which characters they focus on. With the 1/2-hour format, both shows will need to trim the casts from where they were when they ended.

The UK has great success with their soaps and huge audiences and they add new families all the time. I know it's a different market, but I do think their soaps are better for it. Now I wouldn't want the same turnaround, but I'd certainly prefer them cut one or two families out and add an entirely new family if they were having trouble getting actors from certain families. I don't think viewers would react poorly to it either.

Personally, I think that's a terrible idea! US soaps are a different animal than UK soaps and always have always been. Imo, the best writers have played out all the beats of a story with the ripple effects on each character, which resonates more with viewers if it's a family we've known for years.