PP: AMC & OLTL to air twice weekly

[Khan]

I've a feeling even ONE episode per week for AMC & OLTL would be too much for some people.

[DRW50]

I think it depends on who they're marketed to, how they're marketed. If it were me, I would market on the concept of soap operas that don't take as much of your time, but still give you plenty of punch. People who don't have the time or energy to watch five days a week, or four days a week, now have the option for two days a week.

[Vee]

I think the viewers can learn the UK system - 2, 3 days a week. If they don't now, they'll have to eventually - GH, etc.

[cassadine1991]

as well as other boards, Facebook and Twitter

it doesn't bother me.. lots of other shows I watch come on 2-3 days a week

[Khan]

As poor Cady McClain has had to learn this week.

[~bl~]

I have some questions though on the UK system, but the board ate my post.

In the UK were the shows on all year long?

Were their hiatuses and how did that work?

How was the cast and story distributed and would they go weeks/months without showing people?

In the US, the whole having a new/different show in the hours prior to prime time really hasn't been all that successful. I recall many years ago some stations would air syndicate shows before prime time and each night it was a different show...that experiment failed.

By making these shows twice a week, it doesn't guarantee that people who are casual viewers will watch every episode. I got SoapNet in 2000 (lost it last year) and even though all the ABC soaps (and later Days & Y&R and earlier the prime time shows...), I didn't watch every episode tho I had the opportunity to see them numerous times during the week.

[Vee]

The truth is that if this experiment - which is what it has been from the beginning, even in 2011 - can work, it means new life not just for GH someday, but for any number of soaps, if P&G ever releases its stranglehold on their properties (they don't want to make them, but they don't want anyone else to have them either). No matter how this was going to be done it was going to have growing pains and a lot of rocky start-up glitches. The key is getting through the first six months, the first year, the first two years, five years. This is the only viable future for serialized daytime-style soaps, IMO - this kind of online base leading to possible cable or network distribution.

If they can make it to FX USA, which is what it sure seems like it's being geared for, I think they have a very good shot. FX bought like two years of that horrible Charlie Sheen sitcom sight unseen.

[cassadine1991]

yeah when soaps first started back then on the radio, there lots of obstacles to overcome, and then the transition from radio to TV

[All My Shadows]

EastEnders currently airs four times a week (no ep on Wednesdays). If you were satisfied with four episodes AMC and OLTL each week, then congratulations, you've mastered the "British" soap format.

And, since we're being British, ffs! I'm trying to understand how watching TWO episodes a week is harder than watching FOUR. When there are less episodes, is it easier to just forget the show is there? It's not necessary to watch both shows -- just watch/do something else on days your show isn't airing.

And yes, italics is my bitchiest form of typing.

[All My Shadows]

Currently, yes, all of the major soaps (Coronation Street, Emmerdale, EastEnders, Hollyoaks) air all year. Corrie and EE always have, but when Emmerdale was a daytime soap from the 70s through the early 90s, it had hiatuses. Hollyoaks, I believe, originally aired in series/seasons.

[Dana]

I said my emotional goodbyes to AMC when it was canceled by ABC. I'm not really emotionally invested this time around (even though David Canary is involved in AMC again ), so I'm watching PP's struggles from afar with mostly emotional detachment. I have watched the first 3 episodes so far of AMC and I hope to watch more, but I'm trying not to get too attached at this point.

I do think online is the future of most soaps and probably TV shows in general (though far in the future for the latter) and cable may also be an answer, so I do hope PP's experiment succeeds.

[~bl~]

Maybe my question should have been when Corrie and Eastenders were on twice a week what days of the week did they air? The four day thing I think people understood.

If there are only two episodes it may be more easy to lose interest. Go a long time without seeing your favorites or being stuck in story nightmare land, you are more likely to be bored and tune the show out going from an avid viewer to a sporadic one.

For me it will be tempting to binge watch because until they adjust things, the episodes would have been edited/written to be on four times in a week and not two.

[All My Shadows]

Corrie aired Mondays and Wednesdays (first year was Wednesdays and Fridays). When EastEnders premiered in 1985, it was only Tuesdays and Thursdays, so it's basically identical to what PP plans to do with AMC and OLTL.

[Khan]

That's primarily why I've suggested trimming the casts even further (allowing most, if not all, characters to be featured every episode) and picking up the pace of stories.

It'd also help to pen more umbrella stories so the characters can feel more connected to each other.

[DRW50]

Corrie aired on Monday and Wednesday.

Corrie, for most of those years, had a tight ensemble, usually everyone had something to do (although the cast expanded enormously as the years passed), and there was a good balance of kitchen sink drama and different types of comedy (sly wit, slapstick).

Eastenders always had a big ensemble, but managed to make it work. They also had comedy (usually sillier type comedy) and very heavy drama. They aired Eastenders aired on Tuesday and Thursday.

I feel like both shows have enough of a cast to where they could squeeze two episodes a week through, but I do think they could make a few cuts. I'd say OLTL is the show that has the better ensemble for this format, although I'd make some cuts (Corbin Bleu, for instance).