Jump to content

When Did Each Soap Become a Hit


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 55
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Members

Just to start out with the right i dotted, it was not the sponsors, specifically not the producers, P&G who were in favor of the expansions. It was the networks, specifically first NBC, who were all about expanding from half hour to an hour, and then, in the case of NBC & AW, on to try 90 minutes.  Fred Silverman was the first one pushing the idea. Paul Rauch had been a company man, working for a network, who had crossed over to become EP at AW, working for P&G but still closely affiliated with the network. He was still essentially a company man. He was the second one pushing the idea. And, it was a big push! I learned that it was this difference, that NBC was the initiator from two sources. First, a book put out in 2020 by Elana Devine HER STORIES. It does not cover the 90 minute expansion but it is very detailed about the initial expansion from 30 minutes to an hour. Then, in a 2006 audio only interview between someone from WOST (org) & Pete Lemay. WOST stood for World of Soap Themes & used to be a rich resource. Pete was HW of AW & this guy caught him at an Awards ceremony & got him on tape. It's up on YT. Pete named Fred Silverman.  And, the most telling reason that it was not a temp thing to launch TEXAS, is that Pete Lemay would not have quit if it was just a temp thing.

"A half-hour seemed the ideal length for serials, but once the hour was tried with AW, the networks were impressed that the ad revenue would be greater if they simply expanded their most popular shows. An understandable notion, but it is not working." - Pete Lemay
"At NBC programmers admitted that they went to a 90-minute show 'because they couldn't come up with a better idea.'"
Edited by Tonksadora
Add 2 quotes.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Expanding The Doctors would have been a better idea.

Just recently GH had done just that and immediately improved ratings. Soaps are always imitating so why not follow ABC's lead?

Maybe one of the problems was finding studio space in New York. The Doctors was squeezed into a tiny studio at Rockefeller Center and it would be physically impossible to accomodate extra sets etc.

Edited by Paul Raven
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Thanks for all the info, everyone!   

(I'd just always assumed P&G had instituted the 1-hour format -- and then the 90 minutes -- as a method of increasing their daytime programming hours without the additional overhead of creating several new shows. I see that ain't the case.)   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I am sorely tempted to start a whole new topic: What Would Have Been Better Than The 90 Minute AW? because frankly almost anything would've been better! Smart money, expanding The Doctors to an hour would have been better. In extremis, doing nothing would have been better! Creating a new half hour soap might have been better. Investing in a soap writer's workshop might have been better. Innovating some way to improve on NY studio space & sets would have been better! Name a problem & a possible solution & there you have a "better", etc. It's just a shame that no one would listen to the people who saw this up front.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Among other issues,the 90 min AW started a half hour earlier, changing the timeslot AW had held since its debut.

So viewers again had to make a choice if they had previously watched CBS or ABC  at 2.30 to stick with that or  now switch over to AW. I'm sure a lot of viewers just tuned in at 3, figuring they could catch up over the next hour.

It really was bone headed move on so many levels.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • Members

I enjoyed early Texas once I could figure out what was going on. It's a shame it didn't work out, which I blame on them starting the show on AW. If you didn't watch AW (like me), it was incredibly confusing trying to figure out what was going on since all the storylines were in progress. 

 

The 90 minute experiment with AW was pretty insane. As many have said, expanding The Doctors could've been smart or just creating a new half hour soap. NBC was a nightmare when it came to their soaps. I do think Return To Peyton Place could've become a hit had it been given another year. Ratings were stable and from what I've read, the stories really seemed to improve towards the end. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



  • Recent Posts

    • 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.  
    • I totally understand your sloths concern about it and I agree with you. Let’s hope the show plays it’s cards right.    Further comments about the last few episodes: - I liked that one of the attendees was filming the scene. That’s realistic. I wonder if the writers will follow up with that.  - Martin and Smitty trying to drag Leslie out was very heteronormative, so perfectly in line with them two as characters lol.    As for the future: it’s obvious the Duprees will come to accept Eva one way or another, but the rivalry with Kay should be here for the long term   On the topic of acting: the only bad actors I’m seeing are Ted and Derek. Tomas hasn’t proven to be either good or bad, so far, but he’s certainly mediocre and uncharismatic. He sucks the energy out of the scenes and I don’t see any couple of women ever vying for him. 
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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