Jump to content

ALL: Resting long term characters


Recommended Posts

  • Members

The ratings increased(after years of flopping) late 2011/2012 when Kim Scott and Jacqui were anchoring and driving stories. It is a fact fan engagement went up. If Kim were still on. Her and Jacqui would be the stars.

it reached a decade high the 2015-2016. And whom were the leads? Steffy Maya and Caroline. 
even now Thope and Sinn are the B&b couple with the most vocal fandom and engage. This Thope video on IG had 2 million views. And Sinn video on FB had 16.5 million views. The most engagement a post on each platform had gotten in recent years. I have receipt for my claims. So if it makes me ageist so be it

Please register in order to view this content

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 72
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Members

 

Spencer and Trina during their run. Was that shows most popular couple. To the point where their popularity translated mainstream for one. They were even featured and voted in a poll against prime time couples. That’s how strong their social media presence was. 
Ciara and Ben was days of our lives IT couple for some time. Though polarizing. Their fandom was pretty vocal.
the Thomas and Hope pairing on B&b is very controversial. But they had a strong media presence. And creates a lotta debates intensity and dicusssion. Which keeps these shows relevant.

Don’t have any examples from YR because they are way too obsessed with their vets being front/center. This is why they have a weak prescense compared to the others. Nolstagia keeps that show alive. But it isn’t evolving.

Vets are essential but I don’t want to see them front and center at the expense of younger characters. With the same plots younger characters could be having. At that. They had their time for decades. These soaps need to evolve and focus on their future. They need to put in more effort in casting and stories for younger characters. And I agree the casting. More specifically for the 20s set has been weak. But like I said if that makes me ageist then. Idk. But I stand by this.

Edited by Boldsoaps
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Ageism is not a good look, darlings. And we still don't have any real proof or argument why older characters should not be leading. Just screenshots out of context and disgusting narrative how old people need to be in the shadow, once they "had their time".

Just one fact that you may not know - in YouTube, Facebook, Instagram etc there are algorithms that make clips and channels popular. This is especially true when the content has more racy nature - it gets views and clicks, yes, but that is the same for every show on Earth. You will find that on YouTube the most watched clips are the ones with the shirtless guy or a couple in bed. In fact the most watched video EVER on Bold's official YouTube channel is this one - it has 21 million views and the thumbnail are two naked VETS, Taylor and Thorne in bed.

 

Please register in order to view this content

This in no way proves that younger or just sexual things in nature should be the focus of every show. This is just something that happens and is normal for these media platforms.

When you look deeper you will find that the staying viewers and the ones that watch the commercials and ARE the target audience of the shows are not the people clicking on the naked videos or more racy scenes, but the plain normal folks, yes, sometimes older folks who watch these shows for the storyline and the characters.

So all of this is yet again a derailment and nothing that can't be debunked. If you look closely into most soap operas you will find that older characters have intricate histories and some of them have contributed to the show's success in ways that can't be measured by Facebook likes.

I will end this like this - if you say the name Stephanie Forrester in Europe, people smile and laugh and know who this is instantly. This has happened to me in Germany, Italy, Greece and Bulgaria. When then... you say some other name, be it a 55 year old or 22 year old character on the show... pretty much nobody even remembers. Stephanie has always been an older character. A vet.

I am not saying people don't recognize younger characters, I am saying that vets have an important place and their influence sometimes can not be measured by clicks on media platforms where the most watched videos are always racy and youth oriented.

Older people are not entities anyone should be speaking in a manner like this. These are not some cows that need to be up for slaughter once they reach a certain age.

I am not going to engage anymore with now this self confessed ageist. I just think the other point of view needs to be said too.

Edited by Maxim
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

There is no if about whether you are expressing ageism. It is there for all to see, repeatedly, I might add. Now, about Spring, I was a huge Sprina fan, you see I am quite capable of loving people from ALL ages. And that is the hill I sill stand & die on, multigenerational soaps. Anyway, good to talk to you. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

B&B videos on the channel. with not just the most views but most engagement. Steffy/ Hope centered. Yet I’m suppose to believe they’re not keeping this relevant? When their fandoms are the most active.

Please register in order to view this content

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Deflection, again. Nobody here has ever claimed younger characters don't have vocal fan bases or disputed their importance. The issue rose from a another statement that is still hanging naked and unsubstantiated and that was... that older characters should not be leading in soaps. 

And I'm putting this just for some context. Businesses and companies know who watches TV.

Please register in order to view this content

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Again we are in streaming era. A lotta the younger gen don’t watch TV. They stream. Which I mentioned before. If you’re going by Nielsen. the 18-49 demo is the KEY demo. Which keeps the shows on air. So viewers, younger or older than that. Are irrelevant.
And streaming can save these shows. If there is a strong enough social media presence. which is why that’s vital. Which is why the focus should be on ther shows future and target demo. Anyways we don’t agree so. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

You're talking about 2 things that do not go together, as if they did. Streaming is one thing. The Nielsen ratings is broadcast ONLY. 

Like for GH, the Nielsens count broadcast only. Those watching abc.com, or on the app, or YouTubeTV, none of them are counted. And, then, you have Hulu, which also is not counted in the Nielsen ratings. Fortunately, often GH is their #4. 

I also dispute your claim that it is younger viewers who show up in engagement in social media. I find all ages involved with different platforms. Recently some fans have collated the statistics on Jarly fans versus JaSam fans versus Liaison fans. Most of the time Jarly fans are winning. Some times JaSam fans pull ahead. Liaison fans never seem to. 

There is no current activity for Jex & nothing has even started yet with Trio. Even then, in those fandoms you simply do not have one age of fan. Rather you have all ages. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Once again, deflection. I have never said that we weren't in the streaming era or that the younger ones watch primarily TV. You are grasping for straws trying to add some substance to your argument. I am again for millionth time asking (this time rhetorically) how does everything you say have anything to do with the statement that older characters should not be leading in soaps? We know the key-demo. This is nothing new. Did you decide that people 18 to 49 years old don't want or need to see older characters leading on their shows? How do you know this - did you have a poll or something? And how does younger social media presence equal older characters to be left in the shadows? You repeat the same things over and over while avoiding the question. I tried to explain how wrong and ageist you sound in the most respectful way possible. Now I realize I should have been more stern and not that respectful. My mistake. You know what you are, GOOD-bye. 

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

    • I can't fully remember, but I don't think they tried to get Beth Chamberlin back. I think Laibson/McTavish likely saw Beth as old news and wanted to move Philip on; either that or have her return only when Philip was closely tied to a new woman. Thanks as always for these recaps. I think I had stopped watching around this time and mostly kept up by reading in the soap magazines. Bridget's degradation was horrible to watch, as the character had grown so much over the years and was clearly regressed just to be a foil for a couple viewers had zero investment in. 
    • Having the majority of the cast on those low numbers is no way to tell story. And just 2 dayplayers for the month. So sad for the #1 soap.  
    • I believe it was. And this is actually one of the cases where I wouldn’t mind some dumb soap opera bringing back from the dead. They gave Mishael, Amanda, with all of Hilary’s connections but none of the personality except for fleeting moments. Hilary absolutely should’ve just left town. They decided to kill her and the baby. Just baffling,
    • That was Mal Young right? He thought a tragic death was a better option than crafting a story where Hilary leaves town. Was it a case of punishing someone who wants to leave? And then they have to jump through hoops to bring the actress back.
    • Ooo @TaoboiI will say I just watched Amanda give it to Abby and I loved it. Honestly just made me miss Hilary more. I will never understand or get over that decision to kill her off. Also call me crazy but I could definitely see the Damian actor playing NuTed on BTG. Very much still enjoying the Lily attraction.
    • I rewatched these episodes---they broke my heart. Somehow, Nola had seen Vanessa leave the hospital, and follows her home, and Maeve just lets out this primal scream---chills went down my spine. And knowing the history between them---never quite liking the other and always getting on each other's nerves (to put it mildly)---makes it a much richer to have them put it all aside in the moment and be family to each other. I've never seen/heard what Maeve thought of the story itself, but she did want a break, so it's not like she was fired and then brought back. Yes, Vanessa could be this stubborn and unwilling to ask for help. She'd pretty much always been an "I can do this on my own" type of woman, although when she first came to town, she would still run to Henry. But after she met Billy, she stopped relying on her father. It's part of the reason she (briefly) got addicted to pills after Bill's birth---she was determined to take care of him all by herself and became obsessed with the idea she was the only one who could. Of course, nothing before to this extreme. I should say, there's no way (IMO) they could've told this story---Vanessa letting her loved ones thinking she'd died---if her father Henry had still been alive. She never would've been able to do that to him. And it does chafe that she's letting Bill believe it, when her mantra had been all about protecting him since the day he was born. I honestly don't recall what I thought about it at the time. But now I'm thrilled she's free of Matt at least. LOL.
    • I had no idea Peter Reckell was 70. He doesn’t look or feel it and I guess I thought Bo and Hope were closer in age than 9 years. Wow even the new writers had to have Jack praise Leo. Melissa Reeves continues to slip back in effortlessly as Jennifer. I like Ari and Holly being old friends. Holly learning about John’s death reminded me of how John used to call her Nikki if my memory is serving me right. Doug who happily sleeps in high school Holly’s room shirtless and in his underwear is now asking about birth years. How old is he anyway?    The Cat and Chad romance is insulting. 
    • Her husband is Marty Levy. Chocolate Fortunes (her company) was started in 1987.  So that explains the mystery of 'Whatever happened to Pam Peters?' She had been running a successful business for decades.
    • KMH's Emily was a harbinger for the lack of dignity many characters would face in the last decade of ATWT. On paper, many of the stories given to Melanie Smith's Emily could have been extremely sleazy, but she was treated with respect and understanding in the writing. By 1996 the show went from often not knowing how to write for KMH's Emily to giving her outright reprehensible material. There were breaks from this treatment, but not enough, with even those breaks often being poorly written or just used to make her look even worse (like her grotesque rape story turning into her using her rape to destroy Margo's marriage).  By the last years I don't even know what the hell they were doing. Wasn't there some kind of mother-daughter whoring story with Emily and Alison? Wasn't Emily getting beaten up by johns? Whenever I think of how they wrote for KMH's Emily I'm reminded of Pauline Kael's quote about Ann-Margaret's '60s movie persona - calling her "dirty" and saying the people who made the movies "knew what men wanted to do to her."  Even as much as ATWT started hiring softcore actors in the mid/late '90s, the Emily treatment was on a whole other level. I have never known what audience they thought they were going to be attracting.
    • At this point the options are 1. Leslie is going to be caught out, arrested and jailed. Hit and run, blackmail etc. 2. She gets off due to lack of evidence. Second option keeps her on the show but how are they going to keep her a viable character? No one should want to have anything to do with her. If they keep her around, won't other characters come off looking stupid for putting up with her? I'm interested to see where they go with this character/story and hope not to be disappointed.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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