Jump to content

Ratings From the 90's


Recommended Posts

  • Members

Only NBC ever tried to debut a 60 min soap and each of the 4 attempts failed.

However, launching a 30 min show was no guarantee of success either see Loving, Pt Charles, The City , Generations etc

Only B&B survived.

The whole premise of Texas was flawed. The setting gave it a poor man's Dallas feel and anyone tempted to watch would be major dissapointed if they were expecting any of the flavor of Dallas.

Taking away Iris from an already flailing AW and then changing the character was also a bad move for both shows.

Seeing how the Corringtons were New Orleans based and had already incorporated that flavor into SFT, why not launch a new 30 min soap 'Orleans' based there?

 

Edited by Paul Raven
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 887
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

  • Members

I think it gives us insight into how these execs minds worked at that time, in that place. We now know from the Beverlee McKinsey Canadian "City Lights" interview that TPTB decided that they wanted to spin-off the character of Iris to a new soap. They did not even discuss this with McKinsey until they were very very very far along in development. That seems hard to believe but that was the way it happened. They inadvertently gave her much more negotiating power than she would have had in usual negotiations. By the time they brought her into the loop they HAD to have her do this thing. And, in the meantime they had also conceived of trying to take advantage of the popularity of DALLAS. And that in a nutshell is how TEXAS came to be. 

AW would have been better off with Iris at home there. Vivien, too. 

McKinsey would have been better off with Iris still on AW

The brand new writers for TEXAS were hired & had nothing to do so they put them to work writing for AW for awhile. However, it does not seem that very much was learned about who Iris was & what she was like. 

Please register in order to view this content

 

Edited by Donna L. Bridges
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I agree.  Even a brand-new, thirty-minute soap can be a crap shoot.  I'd argue, however, that many of the later ones failed for very specific reasons.

LOVING failed, for instance, because it never had a strong enough identity or theme.

TC failed, because, even though it had MORE of an identity than LOVING, it still was a spin-off of a failed soap opera, and it didn't have a strong story to help launch it either.  (Morgan Fairchild and her boots arriving by helicopter is a great scene, but it's not a story.)

Both CAPITOL and GENERATIONS were well-structured, but their executions were all wrong.  Neither had good writing when they started.  (CAPITOL, however, did get better as time went on.  GENERATIONS, on the other hand, never got the chance.)

And PC, IMO, never got out from under GH's shadow, which is ironic, because it probably was more hospital-centric than GH had been in years.  Even when it became DARK SHADOWS: THE NEW BREED, it still felt to me like GH2.

B&B, on the other hand, survived, not just because of Bill Bell's skills as a storyteller, but also because it had a real, discernible theme: a family drama set against the backdrop of the fashion industry in L.A.*  B&B experienced some growing pains, of course, but I think you could see the potential from the start.  (Potential that, I'm sad to say, Bradley has squandered.)

You can blame NBC Daytime for TEXAS being an inferior version of DALLAS.  The Corringtons and Paul Rauch's original concept was for a soap set in the antebellum South, but NBCD wanted something that was more in line with DALLAS, which had become a massive hit.  Personally, I think the Corrington's original idea sounds intriguing, but I don't know how sustainable it'd have been as an ongoing, daily serial.

 

(*I think it would've made more sense to set it in NYC, the home of "Fashion Week," but whatever.)

Edited by Khan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

FWIW, I have it in notes that she began as HW in 1990 & cont'd through 1994. Of course it could be a discrepancy over nothing more than script dates & air dates. If the holiday show's credits show Pam Long, that was written in November, likely. Just a thought. 

Wendy Riche's concept was literally to begin & end the day with the hospital. She was having breakfast with Pat Fili Krushel & suggested either bookending or bracketing (I forget which word) with the hospital's West Wing full of interns. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Y&R December 12, 1990 Heather Tom debut.

Other big events on Y&R: Nikki begins mixing painkillers and alcohol. Lauren prepares to divorce Scott. Cassandra tricks Brad into marriage.

Y&R December 24, 1990 was rebroadcast on December 25, 2000.

What to watch for in 1991

Generations ends.

Big changes at Guiding Light: HW change from Pamela Long to Nancy Curlee, a slight cast purge, EP change from Robert Calhoun to JFP, the first Friend of Jill incident.

Deidre Hall returns to Days.

Gloria Monty returns to General Hospital.

Edited by kalbir
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Ha! People have scoffed at me for saying she wastes no time, hits the ground running & does something to put her mark on the place on whatever she considers her first workday! The lady knows what she's doing putting the fear of god in folks upfront. Later on, she can, and does, show a human side. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

She was actually already back. Until I saw the Classic Soap Opera Digest News Tumblr, I didn't know this, but Gloria's first day was Monday, Dec. 3, 1990.

That being said, we can think of February 1991 as the launch of the "new" era, with the introduction of the Eckerts and some of the largest activity of the first wave of cast departures.

Edited by Franko
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

FROM THE VAULT: WEEKLY DAYTIME NIELSEN RATINGS: WEEKS OF 1/7/91-1/11/91 & 1/14/91-1/18/91:

Please register in order to view this content

FROM THE VAULT: WEEKLY DAYTIME NIELSEN RATINGS: WEEKS OF 1/21/91-1/25/91 & 1/28/91-2/1/91:

 

Due to the war, only 71 affiliates aired the full final episode of Generations.

Edited by JAS0N47
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



  • Recent Posts

    • Yes, I think that is the most likely situation.  TPTB were unhappy with the offer(s) they got from the tourism board in Finland, and decided the trip was going to be too expensive for P&G/NBC to finance alone.   I would also speculate a similar situation occurred a few years later with the planned location shoot in Egypt, which was also cancelled after the storyline had already started, and changed to Arizona.  
    • What else? #May4th

      Please register in order to view this content

       
    • In my usual account on my most used video hosting site with the video title  DAYS 1-8-15 Will & Paul Sex This is an edit I began when I was first teaching myself to edit & at that time I couldn't make it do what I wanted it to do. I pulled it up & finished it this morning. 
    • Or Megan is shot as retaliation for Dave's unpaid gambling debts...while Julie confesses she's the biological mother of Special Guest Star Barry Bostwick's little boy.
    • Finland seemed such an odd choice for a location shoot. ATWT went to Greece and later Spain while GL had Tenerife and there were others in that timeframe. But Finland not being a known tourist destination or offering the tropical/sunny atmosphere usually associated with location shoots seems off brand. Maybe they were negotiating a deal with a tourist association and it fell through.
    • I was talking about 1986, but the glimpses of 1982 are about the same. 
    • I skimmed some of the 1982 synopses; Steve was planning on an opening an office in Finland, and I think Jim went there as part of the preparation. That probably was a big issue; AW had already gone to San Diego that year, with Rachel/Steve/Mitch. And to upstate NY with Pete and Diana. I wonder if upstate was as expensive lol  AW in 1982 has always fascinated me, because of how messy it was 
    • That makes sense. What a messy time for the show. And any changes they made were mostly for the worse.
    • The transition from Neal to Adam was very abrupt, and to be honest my theory is that the character of Neal was designed so that we think he is super shady but then it turns out that he was on the side of good all along so Neal could have seamlessly become a hero of the BCPD with no need for Adam. I don't know whether Robert Lupone was hired on a short contract or if he was fired from a longer-term contract because they decided they wanted someone who was more of a leading man type, but I can imagine a scenario where Charles Grant did both the undercover Egyptian treasure/flirt with Victoria and the straighter-arrow day to day police investigation. But in my imagined scenario the MJ prostitution plotline probably doesn't exist and instead he probably continues a relationship with Victoria. The story seems very odd to me. I assume that David Canary would have been included only because a plotline where Steve is going to Finland in which only Rachel is seen in actual Finland seems unlikely. The synopses explicitly mention that Alice can't go with Steve but would whoever was playing Alice at that time have had the kind of clout to get the remote cancelled? It also strikes me as unlikely that production would have approved the expensive location shoot and *then* cancelled it only because of jealousy. It seems more likely that they rejected it because of the expense but then the jealousy part got added to the gossip speculatively, possibly because while it was being worked out they justified not including more castmembers because of the expense. 
    • My comment has nothing to do with cast resentment, but does relate to the Finland location shoot: It may be a coincidence, but Jim Matthews died in Finland in 1982.  Hugh Marlowe's final episode was in April 1982, but the character probably didn't die untll May or June. (I'm unable to find the character's date of death, only the date of Marlowe's final episode). SInce Jim and Rachel had very little interaction after around 1975, it is unlikely Jim's death in Finland had any connection to Rachel's potential visit, but the choice to have Jim die in that location at that time is a head-scratcher.  I'm sure the writers sent Jim on an extended trip (and off-screen) because of Marlowe's illness.  But Finland seems like a strange choice considering the (then) recently cancelled location shoot.  
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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