Actually, this is what is typically done when a network wants to keep a show but it isnt doing well/bring in the revenue needed. Or in some cases moving it to a night when "people wont watch" has more to do with what another network has on or trying to secure some viewers on that night. They cant just abandon a timeslot and the odds of a brand new show working somewhere where others wont is slim.

Frankly, I think it's a mistake to try and bring network truisms into this mix. This isn't network. Not even close. It's different than anything we've seen.

Yep in primetime here they cut episodes for the season and put the show on a day when they know people won't watch. Cutting episodes in half(per week) is defintely not good.

Honestly? You are talking ABCD mentality. If PP thought the shows weren't viable, they'd stop production. Save their hides. They don't have to worry about how to fill that time slot. Find replacement programming. How to keep their affiliates happy.

I didnt say chopping it in half mid way through a season, but reducing the episode order for next season. Its not really in hopes of saving it as much as it is of bringing it back for a final season as opposed to no season. Gossip Girl, Nikita, Private Practice, One Tree Hill, Fringe. Then there are shows like True Blood and Psych now getting fewer episodes to see how that goes, but that is cable. Of course there are the 13 week first season shows that become hits - Greys, Scandal - or even dont become hits but are renewed, like Happy Endings.

Then there is the supposed moving a show to a death night slot to kill it. Fridays is usually used. Blue Bloods, Nikita, Supernatural, Grimm, Last Man Standing, Fringe are just a few shows that have proved this wrong. People complained ABC was trying to kill Greys when they moved it to thursday at 9, i forget what was on at the time at cbs but it was huge, and that wasnt the case at all - it was about putting their strongest on so a weaker show doesnt get killed there (and they are doing it again this season with SHIELD vs NCIS).

When a network wants to kill a show they usually just cancel it.

I think what PP did is more along the lines of cutting down the episode order mid season, as this is effective immediately. I think it would be a different story if they announced plans to scale back months from now. Now I dont think they are trying to quietly cancel it, but I question whether they have complete faith in it. This decision doesnt exactly inspire much confidence

Frankly, I think it's a mistake to try and bring network truisms into this mix. This isn't network. Not even close. It's different than anything we've seen.

To be fair JP wasn't doing that, IMHO--he was answering a question about what networks do.

But I agree with you and this is what I was trying to communicate to Elsa--and why her examples didn't IMHO hold any weight here.

I never said that they will dump the shows now. I just get the feeling that they are no longer as devoted to the project. I expect a season with even less episodes than we hear now.

I apologize--I guess I misunderstood when you said they had entirely lost interest in the shows. To me that would mean just dropping them.

People complained ABC was trying to kill Greys when they moved it to thursday at 9, i forget what was on at the time at cbs but it was huge, and that wasnt the case at all - it was about putting their strongest on so a weaker show doesnt get killed there (and they are doing it again this season with SHIELD vs NCIS).

Had to point out that was CSI and Greys ended up weakening CSI and it got moved to get out of the way of the ass whooping they were getting. Ahh the good old days when I loved Greys.

Ok ill be moving on now lol

I actually have watched three OLTL and one AMC episode and (from that sample size) think that the quality is quite a bit better than I anticipated.

While PP so far has released a decent product, one has to remember that these are still unethical business people. Let us not forget that PP dropped the first revival attempt on the day before Thanksgiving 2011, after lying to the public for months that the relaunches were going to happen. Therefore, while anything is possible, people have every right to be pessimistic. I wouldn't believe one encouraging word PP, the actors and actresses, or the soap press (or anyone else who has a vested interest in these shows' success) says. That being said, I feel very sorry for the actors and actresses, who have to work for this dishonest company and are forbidden from telling the truth.

I agree with the sentiments of some others that certain AMC/OLTL fans (though not all of them) come off as very spoiled. Just be thankful that the shows are getting any sort of reboot (and, just as importantly, that they don't look like Peapack). Because OLTL's ratings increased after the cancellation, I can understand why it was given a second chance.

I honestly think it was a mistake to relaunch AMC, as any reason to do so was purely subjective. The ratings at the end were horrendous, and Prospect Park would have been wiser to just concentrate on OLTL. (If we use a criteria such as "it was a soap that broke new ground," then ATWT or even Generations would be deserving of a revival.) Perhaps Prospect Park decided to revive both soaps because the AMC fans would go bonkers if their soap was ignored.

Finally, if saving these soaps is so important, I don't think that watching all episodes (in a non-binge manner) is what will save them. I highly suspect that subscribing to Hulu Plus is what will determine their survival. Perhaps it was a mistake to even offer some episodes for free on Hulu. It is funny that people will balk at having to pay for AMC/OLTL, yet some of these people did not mind spending money to buy those Hoovers.

ANdyet AMC has been ranking higher on the Hulu charts than OLTL. Although, like the ratings between AMC and OLTL in the end the difference really doesn't amount to much (to call AMC's ratings horrendous is kinda hysterical--especially the end. I mean horrendous compared to what?) I suspect AMC does have, cliche or not, the bigger name recognition--even without Lucci it's the one the media has picked slightly more on, and the one I hear from friends where their parents who haven't watched for ever are now giving it another chance. I think it was smart to launch both at once for name recognition--the two make a bigger impact together, even if PP didn't seem to understand that regardless, some people would watch one over the other.

AMC still had better numbers than ATWT, for example--and for whatever reason its cancelation had a bigger fanoutcry (though I admit this was partly due to AMC and OLTL being booted at the same time.)

I agree with most of your post though--although I do think PPhas done some shady things, not launching the soaps the first time IMHO is not one of them. It did show how ill prepared they were, but they realized they simply couldn't do it--and then spent nearly a year working hard to see how they could. I'm sure many companies would count as being as unethical as them.

I think there's also the fact that, wrong or right, PP thougth they would be taken more seriously if they launched with TWO shows, not just one--with two they have a brand to build on. Add to that, I'm sure they banked on Susan Lucci joining (remember the shady thing they did where to try to pressure her into signging last year they reportedly leaked to the press that maybe they would just go with OLTL and wait and see with AMC.) Her name probably would have gotten more media attention, etc.

DOn't get me wrong, I am not foolish enough to think AMC was doing well (though I think--perhaps the nostalgia factor it did get slightly higher finale ratings than One Life), but to act like the final two years of OLTL had really great ratings and the not very different OLTL numbers were "horrific" is just not true.

Edited May 17, 201312 yr by EricMontreal22

And I guess you will soon get to find a new hobby. Imaginary online PP spokesperson with anger issues is getting old and it propably won't be needed for much longer.

This is a general discussion, I was not offensive in my comments so far, but I have had quite enough of lonely scared guys pretending to be Drucilla Barber online. We are here to discuss the PP situation here, not your desperate need to be noticed and have a fight,

And please stop editing your posts hours after I have answered them. I understand it takes you a while to find a proper answer, but it's kind of pathetic

Thank you!

I'm just wondering how long it will take before we here some lame ass excuse and the shows are gone once again.

Perhaps it was a mistake to even offer some episodes for free on Hulu. It is funny that people will balk at having to pay for AMC/OLTL, yet some of these people did not mind spending money to buy those Hoovers.

I 1000% agree with this. The shows should have been exclusive to Hulu Plus. For the most part, I think soap fans (the ones who are watching all the episodes of one or both shows) are loyal and although some would have griped, most would have ultimately paid. It might not even have been a bad idea to offer the first two weeks for free as a preview and then do this. Ughh I wish SON posters were making business decisions for PP.

 

I actually have watched three OLTL and one AMC episode and (from that sample size) think that the quality is quite a bit better than I anticipated.

While PP so far has released a decent product, one has to remember that these are still unethical business people. Let us not forget that PP dropped the first revival attempt on the day before Thanksgiving 2011, after lying to the public for months that the relaunches were going to happen. Therefore, while anything is possible, people have every right to be pessimistic. I wouldn't believe one encouraging word PP, the actors and actresses, or the soap press (or anyone else who has a vested interest in these shows' success) says. That being said, I feel very sorry for the actors and actresses, who have to work for this dishonest company and are forbidden from telling the truth.

I agree with the sentiments of some others that certain AMC/OLTL fans (though not all of them) come off as very spoiled. Just be thankful that the shows are getting any sort of reboot (and, just as importantly, that they don't look like Peapack). Because OLTL's ratings increased after the cancellation, I can understand why it was given a second chance.

I honestly think it was a mistake to relaunch AMC, as any reason to do so was purely subjective. The ratings at the end were horrendous, and Prospect Park would have been wiser to just concentrate on OLTL. (If we use a criteria such as "it was a soap that broke new ground," then ATWT or even Generations would be deserving of a revival.) Perhaps Prospect Park decided to revive both soaps because the AMC fans would go bonkers if their soap was ignored.

Finally, if saving these soaps is so important, I don't think that watching all episodes (in a non-binge manner) is what will save them. I highly suspect that subscribing to Hulu Plus is what will determine their survival. Perhaps it was a mistake to even offer some episodes for free on Hulu. It is funny that people will balk at having to pay for AMC/OLTL, yet some of these people did not mind spending money to buy those Hoovers.

Are we not beyond the ludicrous rivalry between these two shows that somehow one show "deserved" the relaunch more. You make some valiad points re: PP not being trusted, but you lost me once you said "AMC had poorer ratings than OLTL, so it shouldn't have been relaunced." We are talking miniscule differences in ratings lol, if that even matters.

Edited May 17, 201312 yr by Adam

"Dishonest company" compared to who? ABC? P&G? CBS? NBC? This is business. None of these people are angels, but I don't care about that and I never did - what I care about is whether the shows work for me as a viewer. And nobody is being held hostage or mistreated.

The fact is these shows are back, they're pretty good IMO and they're still running. What else am I supposed to care about? Honestly?

People seem to expect us to submit to all sorts of character judgments about these execs or the corporations involved as though there are white hats or black hats. There aren't any of the above. It's just money and product, and it has nothing to do with me until and unless it directly affects the quality of the program I watch. I happen to enjoy these programs, so everything else isn't that relevant to me.

I don't think PP are saints, far from it - I don't know how many times I've had to say that - and I was incredibly skeptical of them when they returned and disgusted with their prior conduct. But whatever their motives or choices, all that remains in the final analysis (for now, anyway) is that they got these shows back up and running and I find them good. That's all I have to care about here and now, today.

Edited May 17, 201312 yr by Vee

I actually have watched three OLTL and one AMC episode and (from that sample size) think that the quality is quite a bit better than I anticipated.

While PP so far has released a decent product, one has to remember that these are still unethical business people. Let us not forget that PP dropped the first revival attempt on the day before Thanksgiving 2011, after lying to the public for months that the relaunches were going to happen. Therefore, while anything is possible, people have every right to be pessimistic. I wouldn't believe one encouraging word PP, the actors and actresses, or the soap press (or anyone else who has a vested interest in these shows' success) says. That being said, I feel very sorry for the actors and actresses, who have to work for this dishonest company and are forbidden from telling the truth.

Lmao. Unethical? Liars? ABC sent Susan Lucci on a PR tour proclaiming the survival of AMC weeks before it was cancelled. People still watch GH. I think.

This comment is too absurd to merit response.

I just think the criticism of PP arises out of such a sense of entitlement. Soap fans are notorious for taking ownership of their shows, but they take none of the risks. If you don't like the shows or can't get into the format or platform, or whatever, then don't watch. But the outrage and claims of betrayal and broken promises is just plain silly.

Preach!

PP resurrected two dead soaps because the fans left behind by ABC's boneheaded move made them think it was a viable business proposition. ABC felt they were no longer viable. Both made business decisions.

Werk!

Maybe they're right. Maybe not. Either way, they are all in. They've made a huge investment. And taken the risk. It's their decision. Right or wrong. This isn't Disney the multinational conglomerate. This is a couple of well connected guys who took a chance and revived something I loved that I thought was lost forever.

Glory!

This is the only opinion I'll offer on the matter: Soap fans were furious when Oprah refused -- Flipcam video and all -- to take up the two canceled shows on her new network OWN. They were pissed off that someone who had an actual connection to one of the soaps (her cameo on AMC in the early 80s) would dare refuse to take on something that a major network deemed not viable and include it as part of her fledgling network. Prospect Park comes along, says they'll purchase the rights to the shows -- but put them on the internet -- then suddenly they become the evil ones because HOW DARE THEY NOT PUT THIS BACK ON TELEVISION?!?!

There's an elitist mentality that some (not all... note that I clarified that before any of you come at me, only for me to hand you your ass) of the Prospect Park detractors have had since day one. Moving the shows from network television to the internet is beneath them. They won't support anything Prospect Park tries to do with these shows unless it's done in a form of which they approve.

I truly believe that a majority of the know-it-alls that hated Prospect Park and their decision to keep this moving from the start would have all of a sudden sang a different tune if, instead of the internet, said they sold the shows to Bravo or something.

"Dishonest company" compared to who? ABC? P&G? CBS? NBC? This is business. None of these people are angels, but I don't care about that and I never did - what I care about is whether the shows work for me as a viewer. And nobody is being held hostage or mistreated.

The fact is these shows are back, they're pretty good IMO and they're still running. What else am I supposed to care about? Honestly?

People seem to expect us to submit to all sorts of character judgments about these execs or the corporations involved as though there are white hats or black hats. There aren't any of the above. It's just money and product, and it has nothing to do with me until and unless it directly affects the quality of the program I watch. I happen to enjoy these programs, so everything else isn't that relevant to me.

I don't think PP are saints, far from it - I don't know how many times I've had to say that - and I was incredibly skeptical of them when they returned and disgusted with their prior conduct. But whatever their motives or choices, all that remains in the final analysis (for now, anyway) is that they got these shows back up and running and I find them good. That's all I have to care about here and now, today.

Vee, stop bickering with that. You're only feeding into its unwarranted martyr complex. Just let it fall on its sword, bleed out and cease to be an issue.

No, that wouldn't have mattered. And it won't matter if they get a cable deal. These shows will have to be on a year or more before we stop hearing about it. (I hope they are, but if they're not after a year - it was still a good shot and a worthy cause, and IMO, so far, good shows which I never thought I'd see back so soon.)

Edited May 17, 201312 yr by Vee