Stuff like this really makes me wonder why these shows didn't just cut back to half an hour.

I don't think it's as financially attractive as many of us assume. I've been told that one reason soaps expanded was it saved them a LOT of money to produce one hour soap rather than two half hour soaps. I suppose they could have cut both ATWT and GL to 30 mins--otherwise the network would have to fill that other 30 mins which would mean paying for some sort of new show in an unpopular (on daytime) format--be it a talk show or whatever. But in the long run, from all i've heard, surprisingly it wouldn't be quite the money saving thing people would assume--I read somewhere it would cut budgets by 20-25%, not 50%. I mean that still is a difference, but...

I've never understood that, what made it more expensive to produce two 30 min. shows rather than one 60 min. show? Did it save the shows more money, or did it save the networks more money because there were less shows to fill the lineup?

I've never understood that, what made it more expensive to produce two 30 min. shows rather than one 60 min. show? Did it save the shows more money, or did it save the networks more money because there were less shows to fill the lineup?

I suspect it was ultimately about networks (plus, of course, back in the day if they had a higher rated 30 min show and a lower rates 309 min one, it made sense to cut the lower rated one and expand the longer one). But I suppose things like having to build more sets, have seperate crew and studios for both shows, etc.

I suspect it was ultimately about networks (plus, of course, back in the day if they had a higher rated 30 min show and a lower rates 309 min one, it made sense to cut the lower rated one and expand the longer one). But I suppose things like having to build more sets, have seperate crew and studios for both shows, etc.

Set, Crew and Studio space would be HUGE factors. Plus, there would be other factors with the unions, if you cut the show in half in the middle of contracts, it could serve to set talent (across the board) free, and they wouldn't necessarily want that, and how rates would be adjusted, might not just be splitting in half.

I still see nothing wrong with her refusing a pay cut in the middle of her contract. Yes that sucked for her co stars, but she was very just in refusing. She took the payout on deer next contract.

+1. Business is business. Those actors would've been cut anyway, and most of them were rehired or on heavy recurring until the end of the series. Kim Zimmer is not responsible for her co-stars mortgages. And they aren't responsible for hers.

Deidre Hall just ask Melissa Reeves

Eric Braeden once yelled so much on set, they had to take the kids off set

Hunter Tylo and hubby Matt can both be royal (and weird) pains in the ass

What was the beef between Deidre and Melissa?

I've never understood that, what made it more expensive to produce two 30 min. shows rather than one 60 min. show? Did it save the shows more money, or did it save the networks more money because there were less shows to fill the lineup?

With two shows you have two of everything. Two crews, two writing staffs, two casts. Its double everything.

Say it takes $5000 to produce a show for one day. To two two 30 minutes shows that would be $10,000. Upping from a half hour isnt usually a huge pay bump for anyone, so even if that $5000 went to $7500 (and its likely less than that) it saves $2500 a day. Thats why. Obviously these numbers are way, way off but just using a easy example.

As for who it saves, the show or the network, the answer is thats usually one in the same. While Days may be owned by Corday, Sony and NBC its budget is basically determined by what NBC pays for the right to air it. Its budget is what NBC puts in, basically, just like with shows NBC airs. Of course details like this can vary from show to show and network to network.

Many also asked how agame or talk is cheaper than a soap opera when the host(s) are paid more than a lot of soap stars, such as Katie, and the answer is the crew is smaller, its one set, one to a few stars, and far fewer tape days. The only reason Days is able to still go on w/ their current budget is how much off time they have now because in off time they are basically only paying the actors and the writers for their per episode that was taped in fewer days and shutting down production means no pay for the crew/hair/makeup/wardrobe/etc... usually anyways.

My bad, to be clear, I meant two 30 min. eps of the SAME show opposed to one 60 min. ep. e.g., two 30 min. eps of AMC opposed to one 60 min. ep.

Your response still applies though, because if you can get the price of one show for a full hour opposed to just half of one, that still means fewer casts and crews to be paid.

Going back into the future, I think CBS could've been success had it canceled GL, put ATWT at a half hour and then make Let's Make A Deal a half hour show. GL was already done creatively, but I could see ATWT getting things together. Also, in terms of who was really featured, they had a small cast which would be easy to transfer to half hour.

Going back into the future, I think CBS could've been success had it canceled GL, put ATWT at a half hour and then make Let's Make A Deal a half hour show. GL was already done creatively, but I could see ATWT getting things together. Also, in terms of who was really featured, they had a small cast which would be easy to transfer to half hour.

GL was certainly NOT done creatively. It was the slashed budget and lack of studio space (the latter of which ATWT was never made to endure) that buried it. GL was already on a creative upswing in February and March of 2009 before it was cancelled on April Fools Day.