Both were limited-run TV series that aired on ABC during the second half of the '70s.

They were both mini-series. So I would not consider them primetime soap operas. Unless we were to define all mini-series as soap operas.

7 hours ago, Tisy-Lish said:

They were both mini-series. So I would not consider them primetime soap operas. Unless we were to define all mini-series as soap operas.

@Tisy-Lish Do you think both Rich Man, Poor Man and Rich Man, Poor Man Book II had soapy content even if they weren't bona fide soap operas?

8 minutes ago, FlyRightOrchestraGuy said:

@Tisy-Lish Do you think both Rich Man, Poor Man and Rich Man, Poor Man Book II had soapy content even if they weren't bona fide soap operas?

RMPM was originally conceived as a finite, 12-hour saga, with specific starting and ending points.

It did continue from episode to episode, and its focus was on interpersonal relationships, romance, family conflicts, feuds, character development and tragedy. It certainly did have many soapy elements, and the audience became immersed in its characters' lives the way viewers became immersed in the lives of soap opera denizens.

Ultimately, however, I never really considered it a true soap opera since I knew it had been conceived as a finite "novel for television" which would reach its conclusion in a few months.

The original RMPM was a smashing success. That, unfortunately, lead to the heinous Book Two. The second year was crippled by the mass exodus of most of the lead characters from the successful miniseries, and painfully bad writing. (Nina Laemmle, who swiftly massacred Days of Our Lives when she took over that series in 1980, was listed as executive script and story consultant 🤮).

So in the end, I wouldn't classify RMPM as a soap, but rather as a short-term serialized drama with soapy features.

22 minutes ago, FlyRightOrchestraGuy said:

@Tisy-Lish Do you think both Rich Man, Poor Man and Rich Man, Poor Man Book II had soapy content even if they weren't bona fide soap operas?

Well, I dislike the term "soapy content". I believe that term is demeaning to the soap opera genre. But if you mean RM,PM was a continuing story focused on romance, drama, and a bit of suspense, then yes. But nearly all mini-series ever produced for American television featured that type of content. So are we going to reclassify all mini-series as soap operas?

I really believe the television mini-series was its own genre. The mini-series was different and distinct from episodic primetime dramas, and distinct from primetime soap operas. Mini-series thrived on American TV for around 15 years, and then disappeared.

I won't be offended if you disagree with me. I'm just offering my opinion.

17 minutes ago, Tisy-Lish said:

I really believe the television mini-series was its own genre. The mini-series was different and distinct from episodic primetime dramas, and distinct from primetime soap operas. Mini-series thrived on American TV for around 15 years, and then disappeared.

This is the best-possible way to put it. Miniseries were part of a genre unto themselves.

Sure, they had themes similar to what we see on soaps (romance, drama, suspense) but those elements run throughout pop-culture in general, not just soap operas.

20 hours ago, vetsoapfan said:

RMPM was originally conceived as a finite, 12-hour saga, with specific starting and ending points.

It did continue from episode to episode, and its focus was on interpersonal relationships, romance, family conflicts, feuds, character development and tragedy. It certainly did have many soapy elements, and the audience became immersed in its characters' lives the way viewers became immersed in the lives of soap opera denizens.

Ultimately, however, I never really considered it a true soap opera since I knew it had been conceived as a finite "novel for television" which would reach its conclusion in a few months.

The original RMPM was a smashing success. That, unfortunately, lead to the heinous Book Two. The second year was crippled by the mass exodus of most of the lead characters from the successful miniseries, and painfully bad writing. (Nina Laemmle, who swiftly massacred Days of Our Lives when she took over that series in 1980, was listed as executive script and story consultant 🤮).

So in the end, I wouldn't classify RMPM as a soap, but rather as a short-term serialized drama with soapy features.

@vetsoapfan A certain Facebook friend of mine has told me the following regarding Rich Man, Poor Man Book II:

it's not the first one. it's not perfect. it's a soap opera. there are things wrong with it. but it's a lot of fun. and william smith is the main villain. he's a tour de force.

1 hour ago, FlyRightOrchestraGuy said:

@vetsoapfan A certain Facebook friend of mine has told me the following regarding Rich Man, Poor Man Book II:

Everyone has the right to have and voice an opinion.

I cannot agree that Book II was "a lot of fun," except for masochists, LOL.

(Sorry, I couldn't resist!)

And then NBC tried to get in on the act with the Beggarman, Thief miniseries which flopped.

48 minutes ago, Paul Raven said:

And then NBC tried to get in on the act with the Beggarman, Thief miniseries which flopped.

OMG, it was horrendous! What an awful decision it was to go ahead with that project!🤢

49 minutes ago, Paul Raven said:

And then NBC tried to get in on the act with the Beggarman, Thief miniseries which flopped.

Well, you are probably aware the Beggarman, Thief mini-series was based on the novel by Irwin Shaw, which was the actual sequel to his Rich Man, Poor Man novel. But the audience had already seen the ABC TV sequel (RM, PM Book II), which was not written by Shaw and not based on his actual sequel novel. RM, PM Book II took the story in its own direction, while Shaw's sequel novel (Beggarman, Thief) took a completely different course.

So any viewers of the two ABC mini-series who tuned in to Beggarman, Thief on NBC (including myself in my late-teens), likely thought "What the hell is this? It doesn't have continuity with what I've already experienced on the ABC versions." I remember getting about half-way through the first episode of Beggarman, Thief and turning it off because it seemed to have little connection to the earlier mini-series. It was completely confusing to viewers. But that was not the fault of the producers of Beggarman, Thief -- it was actually due to ABC's insistence on writing their own sequel to RM, PM which essentially made Beggarman, Thief irrelevant.

Now, I have no idea if Beggarman, Thief was a good sequel to RM, PM. It may have been wonderful, or perhaps it was dreadful. I just don't think the viewers gave it a chance. I certainly did not at the time.

59 minutes ago, Tisy-Lish said:

Well, you are probably aware the Beggarman, Thief mini-series was based on the novel by Irwin Shaw, which was the actual sequel to his Rich Man, Poor Man novel. But the audience had already seen the ABC TV sequel (RM, PM Book II), which was not written by Shaw and not based on his actual sequel novel. RM, PM Book II took the story in its own direction, while Shaw's sequel novel (Beggarman, Thief) took a completely different course.

So any viewers of the two ABC mini-series who tuned in to Beggarman, Thief on NBC (including myself in my late-teens), likely thought "What the hell is this? It doesn't have continuity with what I've already experienced on the ABC versions." I remember getting about half-way through the first episode of Beggarman, Thief and turning it off because it seemed to have little connection to the earlier mini-series. It was completely confusing to viewers. But that was not the fault of the producers of Beggarman, Thief -- it was actually due to ABC's insistence on writing their own sequel to RM, PM which essentially made Beggarman, Thief irrelevant.

Now, I have no idea if Beggarman, Thief was a good sequel to RM, PM. It may have been wonderful, or perhaps it was dreadful. I just don't think the viewers gave it a chance. I certainly did not at the time.

Well NBC were probably wrong to do it in light of that history. It's not like there weren't a heap of other books that could be dramatized.

Pt 1 15.8/25 Beaten by Football ABC and MASH/WKRP/Lou Grant CBS

Pt 2 11.1/18 Beaten by Three's Company/Taxi/Hart to Hart ABC and TV Movie High Midnight CBS

2 hours ago, vetsoapfan said:

Everyone has the right to have and voice an opinion.

I cannot agree that Book II was "a lot of fun," except for masochists, LOL.

(Sorry, I couldn't resist!)

@vetsoapfan You have to excuse me, vetsoapfan. Even though I have yet to properly watch Rich Man, Poor Man Book II for myself, I have become very interested in Kimberly Beck, who had a significant role on that miniseries. The aforementioned Facebook friend of mine has told me that Kim was very good on it. Did you catch any part of Kimberly's 1982-83 stint as Julie Clegg on Capitol? How about her four-episode stint as Claire Prentice on Dynasty during the 1986-87 season? How about her 1975 stint as Samantha Livingstone on General Hospital? Less than a year after leaving Capitol, she appeared as Trish Jarvis in the hit slasher movie Friday the 13th: The Final Chapter. Curiously, Kimberly never appeared on any Quinn Martin TV series, not even Barnaby Jones. Why was that? Another World alum Susan Sullivan, who played Kim's mother on Rich Man, Poor Man Book II, appeared in two episodes of Barnaby Jones. Even Robin Mattson guest-starred on Barnaby Jones as well as on the short-lived QM series Operation: Runaway before she began appearing as Heather Webber on General Hospital. Heck, Robin even appeared in an episode of the Bill Bixby TV series The Incredible Hulk. Kimberly never did despite being a Universal Studios contract player during the 1970s. Did Kim dislike the general horror genre that much before she did Friday the 13th: The Final Chapter?

By the way, Robin Mattson left the role of Heather Webber on GH at the same basic time that Kimberly Beck left the role of Julie Clegg on Capitol. I wonder if Robin was considered as a replacement for Kim on Capitol.

36 minutes ago, Paul Raven said:

Well NBC were probably wrong to do it in light of that history. It's not like there weren't a heap of other books that could be dramatized.

I cannot disagree. Although the RM,PM franchise was so hot during that time -- one network or another was likely to have dramatized Shaw's sequel.

Edited 54 minutes ago54 min by Tisy-Lish