Jump to content

More than two daytime soaps surviving on borrowed time?


Recommended Posts

  • Webmaster

 

GH is not cheaper than DAYS. Not sure where you got that from. Whether NBC pays a license fee for DAYS and ABC doesn't for GH since they own it has nothing to do with production budget. DAYS' budget is peanuts compared to GH's. With that said, I don't know who he spoke with or when, but that doesn't mean GH is safe because he said so. The person he spoke with could work for GH and have been told by some executive the show is safe, doesn't mean it is. Susan Lucci went on national television (Good Morning America) and told Robin Roberts her show was safe, both financially and creatively. Where is All My Children today? How long after she said that did she learn she was misinformed?

 

I'd rather someone with fresh ideas who doesn't cater to doppelgangers, who's the daddy or back from the dead type bull shit storylines be in charge of a soap's writing. Right now, Hollyoaks has a storyline where five men are possibly at fault for the death of a woman. Four of them are gay or bi-sexual. Soaps are lucky to have two gay characters and under no circumstances are willing to make them bad people since they fear a backlash. I hate how writers try to appease fans because they fear they'll alienate a fan base. They forget that 95% of the time the fan base exists because they (the writers) themselves created that character or coupling based on a storyline they concocted. I'm not saying for them to ignore the fans, but write to write and not because of fear.

 

Kill off a character and mean it. I don't care how popular an actor is, you are telling a story. Your show existed before that actor and will survive well past him/her. 

 

Right now no one has balls in daytime to do any of that. No writer. No producer and no executive. Daytime needs new life breathed into it. Sadly, no one who wants to do any of that will be given the chance. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 30
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Webmaster

 

Yes, and that's understandable. My problem is when they retcon the decision to appease the vocally loud. 

 

Todd Manning is one of the most popular characters in the history of soaps. But he's a sadistic rapist. Regardless of how he changed his life around with both Blair and Tea and the birth of his daughter, Starr and later Jack, Todd is still a rapist who along with his friends took the innocence of Marty Saybrook. Should the soap have brought him back and redeemed him? Hell no. By letting characters come back to life and characters who have done the worst ever to human kind be the show's star or lead romantic, soaps are letting themselves fall to the wayside and die. People want fantasy, sure, but when you give in to a select group who have the loudest voices you are giving credence to those who laugh at the genre and don't take anything that happens seriously. When a primetime show does this, it's sporadic. Daytime, it's a plot point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Correct. It's kind of sad that the most complex male characters DAYS has ever had are Bill Horton and Jack Deveraux, having that sickeningly distinct commonality among them. A double edged sword for me is that they are my personal two favourite male characters as well, and the situation with Bill is very much due to being from a different time period (just look at The Doctors re-runs for proof of that). So, though Bill would probably be my very first return if I were in power, in spite of my love for Jack and Matthew Ashford, I would continue to let the character rest in peace until, at the very least, the canvas rehabilitates itself significantly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I wonder how overseas soaps, those in the U.K., Australia, Mexico etc do in relationship to their other daytime shows and prime time. 

 

The artform of soaps - 1 hour long, 5 days a week, every week all year with no hiatus or reruns - just aren't enticing to the U.S. culture anymore. Once the remaining four are gone, the genre won't come back. The hours will either be used for cheap talk shows, entertainment gossip, Dr. Whomever, or a game show.... OR handed back over to the local affiliates so they can air infomercials of Courtney Thorne-Smith revealing how she got rid of her turkey neck with a miracle cream. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

It would be interesting to know how soaps are streamed. One advantage soaps have is a huge inventory of back episodes. Unlike the past, if a new viewer starts watching, depending on the show, there are plenty of full episodes available online. 

 

Im actually surprised that P&G hasn't licensed it's huge library to Netflix, Hulu or CBS All Access. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

The huge number of episodes soaps have is probably a blessing and a curse. Lots of episodes means they are potentially sticky (and all streamers want to keep viewers in their ecosystems), but it also means that those episodes need to be edited, music licensing issues need to be dealt with, etc. Maybe from a cost-benefit analysis it doesn't work in PGP's favor. It's not like putting up a few hundred episodes of St. Elsewhere.

 

I know Britbox has most of the U.K. soaps, but they are only streaming new episodes, not going back in time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

I agree that there are issues - particularly the music licensing, but that's been overcome by prime time shows (they replace the original song with a similar genre song that's been licensed). The thing is that a lot of shows like TEON, which was sort of licensed through AOL years ago, could instantly go up (that show never used music and probably has only has 7 years of episodes (1800 or so). Most soaps only started keeping episodes starting in late-1970s. 

 

Because there is such as wealth of material, they could release existing shows going back a couple of years and add or for all the dead show, start from a certain point and add forward. I just don't get why all that material show sit in an archive - the beauty of streaming is that it is DEMO-PROOF - it doesn't matter whether you are 18 or 80 - your subscription fee counts the same. And since 'older' viewers are more likely to watch soaps or pick it up as a hobby during retirement, I bet the audience is there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Maybe they will in the future if the economics work out. It's tough: just using St. Elsewhere as an example, there were fewer episodes produced of that show in the entirety of its run than a soap produces in a year. So the sheer volume of content that would need to be reviewed/edited is daunting. And most primetime shows have been in syndication at some point, so they've already dealt with at least some of the licensing/editing/versioning issues that could impact streaming. Some of the soap production companies and networks may figure that it's all more trouble than it's ultimately worth, especially as streamers like Netflix and Hulu are focusing more on original content and lowballing studios and production companies for licensed content (especially if it's old and not seen as valuable).

 

You would think that Sony at least would be interested, given how protective they are against pirated Y&R and DAYS content on YouTube. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

It's true, the volume of episodes is massive, and if it's one of the soaps that used a lot of music, you don't just have to replace music for 15 episodes in season 1. It might be 230 episodes just for that first year. More! 

 

That being said, the soaps that already streamed before could easily go back up again, and they can always release each year in increments. Nothing's stopping them from putting Y&R's 1973 up and every six months (or whatever) updating with the next year.

 

In any case, I always thought the streaming services could get soaps for free and it would provide them with TONS of content for their viewers.

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

    • Well, no new episode tomorrow, but you should do a catch up. It's worth it!
    • *Gavrilo Princip has entered the chat* I haven't watched BTG in approximately two months because of the busy season at work, but now it's summer, and I'll have time to get back into it. Do y'all think that I should do the 21st century binge-watching thing and attempt to catch up on everything I missed or should I do the traditional soap thing and just start watching again tomorrow and figure everything out from there?
    • A few days late but this made me holler so bad and immediately took.me back 29 years when I first saw this. I still remember thinking Rick and Phillip were going hold each other and dance together LOL. Rick being there at least makes some sense as he was A-M’s second cousin and the show still at least recognized he was half Bauer, at least until Hearst left.  The whole Universal Studios wedding was over the top. I think someone wanted A-M and Lucy to be the next GL super couple but once Hearst left the A-M recast flopped and both were gone by early ‘97 with Lucy never appearing ever again.    Love the rest of your post, summer 1996 was the first time GL left me feeing…greatly underwhelmed until it inspired righteous indignation on my behalf once we get to the Gilly twist.
    • You're right. I think she was seen as too subtle or reserved.  As @soapfan770I liked Sheila on LA Law but she wasn't needed here, especially as Charley as a character only made sense with a more reserved and less conventionally attractive actress.
    • That's certainly one way to put it!  What blather. Kind of tells you they knew it was going to fail. I guess they were just throwing anything at the schedule and hoping they would be pleasantly surprised. Thanks for the article.
    • I would guess it's down to Kate Oates. Bowden is very much her type of leading man. She repeated all the stories she did on Emmerdale with his Ben.  I also think EE has become conservative enough that only a white, straight-acting gay man is going to get story.
    • Desert Sun, 13 April 1985 ABC’s 'Dark Mansions’ Loretta Young quits movie LOS ANGELES (AP) - Loretta Young, citing “creative differences,” has withdrawn from her role as the family matriarch in “Dark Mansions,” an ABC movie and projected series, a spokesman for the actress said. The Academy Award-winning actress had been due to come out of retirement to begin work on the two-hour movie on April 22. The movie goes into production on Monday. “Loretta Young will not be rendering services because of creative differences over the story,” her agent, Norman Brokaw of the William Morris Agency said in a statement. “The parting between Miss Young and Aaron Spelling was amiable despite the story differences,” the statement said. Miss Young had been scheduled to play the role of Margaret Drake, the matriarch of a Seattle shipping family in “Dark Mansions,” a contemporary Gothic drama. There was no immediate word from either Aaron Spelling Productions or ABC who would replace Miss Young in the role. “It’s true that we had creative differences over the way her character was developing,” Spelling said in a statement released by a spokesman, David Horowitz. “She's a great star and a great friend and I hope she always remains both.” Miss Young won an Academy Award as best actress in 1948 for “The Farmer’s Daughter.” She was the star of 94 motion pictures and was the creator, producer and star of “The Loretta Young Show” during television’s so-called Golden Age Miss Young had been scheduled to work eight days out of the four week shooting schedule. The movie, a pilot for an ABC prime-time soap opera, also stars Michael York, who would make his series debut, Linda Purl, Paul Shenar, Melissa Sue Anderson, Raymond St. Jacques and Dan O’Herlihy. Miss Young s last film was “It Happens Every Thursday” in 1953. She then took the unprecedented step of retiring from films to produce and star in "The Loretta Young Show" on television. She won three Emmy awards as best dramatic actress in 1954, 1956 and 1958. She was also nominated five other times. The anthology show ran on NBC from 1953 to 1961. In the 1962-63 season she starred on NBC in a dramatic show called “The New Loretta Young Show.” As we know Joan Fontaine took on the role 
    • If Claybon is married to a woman I'm the Archduke Ferdinand.
    • I do think Ben should come back. I think Max Bowden is all wrong for Ben.
    • Thank you, been waiting so long for this, and I appreciate how much work it is typing this all out and creating the charts for us!

      Please register in order to view this content

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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