If they were to bring on any more OLTL characters on over to GH, these are the characters who should be on GH

44 replies [Last post]
liason4real
liason4real's picture
Offline
Last seen: 11 hours 17 min ago
Joined: May 10 2008
Posts:
I would rather not see any

I would rather not see any more OLTL characters brought over to GH. GH should think about bringing on Dr. Jeff Webber, Scotty Baldwin and his daughters, Lucy and Kevin, Ned, Dillon or even bring back Alan and Jake.

SwanQueen59
Offline
Last seen: 4 hours 46 min ago
Joined: Jun 14 2011
Posts:
There are enough

There are enough OLTL/Llanview transplants right now on GH. If they stop at the Mannings and McBain that' fine with me. As I understand, Natalie is a Buchanan and that is a fairly large family. Maybe I'm reading too much into this hypothesis, but if RC/FV started bringing them over, pretty soon they'd replace the Q's. That would make a lot of people resentful, to be polite. There are more than enough Q's to repopulate the canvas that have been out of circulation. See liason4reals' post above... Innocent

soapjunkie88
soapjunkie88's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 4 hours ago
Joined: Jul 3 2008
Posts:
liason4real wrote:I would

liason4real wrote:
I would rather not see any more OLTL characters brought over to GH. GH should think about bringing on Dr. Jeff Webber, Scotty Baldwin and his daughters, Lucy and Kevin, Ned, Dillon or even bring back Alan and Jake.

THIS!!!

Why do people keep asking for OLTL characters? GH has some awesome characters too that are not on-screen, that still have ties to the show and make way more sense on GH!

Alan would be great and so would Dillon, Ned or AJ. Jeff Webber is another character that would fit in.

So rather that any Llanview people I'd like to see Lucy or Bobbie again!!!!

david46208
david46208's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 days 8 hours ago
Joined: Jan 15 2009
Posts:
None I don't want to see

None I don't want to see anymore on the show! And the ones they got could take a hike down the reading railroad.

Yoryla
Yoryla's picture
Offline
Last seen: 18 hours 44 min ago
Joined: May 26 2012
Posts:
No more OLTL characters on GH

No more OLTL characters on GH canvas, thank You. We have GH vets who don't get enough airtime (Monica, anyone????)

GHLVR
GHLVR's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 30 weeks ago
Joined: Jun 27 2012
Posts:
As much as I loved OLTL I

As much as I loved OLTL I don't think they should bring any more characters over..except one..Blair. She is the only one for Todd! The only time Todd has ever been happy is when he & Blair are together. If that doesn't happen I guess I'll just have to get over it. Sad( I agree they should build the Q's back up that the other regimes have decimated. Would love for Alan, AJ & Jake to return! A Cassadine or two would be great also. Wink

DonnyA2001
DonnyA2001's picture
Offline
Last seen: 17 hours 59 min ago
Joined: Aug 5 2010
Posts:
I agree, there really does

I agree, there really does not need to be anymore OLTL transplants to GH. At least not right now. If there are, then only 1 really makes sense and another makes some sort of sense.

Blair needs to move to Port Charles. She just fits in! And Carly needs a friend!
It really makes some sense to bring Natalie to PC, even though I don't care for the character. I'd rather see her pop up and make an appearance and quietly leave, maybe to call things off with John. Maybe Natalie fell in love with someone else? I just don't see Natalie in Port Charles long term.

I actually like John and Natalie more than I like Natalie and REALLY hate that they would ever break up, but I love John with Sam and it looks as though that's what the writers want, so oh well.

REALLY want Blair permanently in PC. I would rather more old GH characters come back, particularly Kevin/Lucy/Scotty/Laura/Bobbie/Alan/Tony

thebookerman
Offline
Last seen: 9 weeks 6 days ago
Joined: Oct 12 2011
Posts:
I was not a OLTL fan, but I

I was not a OLTL fan, but I am actually in favor of more of their characters coming over.

Todd Manning is a great character and tends to have at least one memorable line every show. He's a good addition to the show. The McBain, Sam and Jason love triangle is interesting, even if they've really been writing Jason poorly. Starr's cute and her relationship with Michael is good, young love. I can't really complain about what they have done with any of the characters ever since they ended Starr's revenge zombie phase.

If they have a good idea for another character from OLTL I am all for it.

The people who want all these past GH characters to return are full of it. Did you actually watch when they were on or did you just read their Wikipedia entries?

The problem with soaps is not evolving and moving forward. In the 70's there was your core cast, they were pushed out for the faces of the 80's, who were pushed out for the 90's generation and so on and so forth. Soaps have always remembered their family roots, and that is so important, but you have to move forward, not backwards.

If they had a major storyline with Elizabeth it is not practical or logical for them to bring in every single family members she has ever had back into the fold, like many of you claim you'd like to see.

soapjunkie88
soapjunkie88's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 4 hours ago
Joined: Jul 3 2008
Posts:
thebookerman wrote:The people

thebookerman wrote:
The people who want all these past GH characters to return are full of it. Did you actually watch when they were on or did you just read their Wikipedia entries?

Yes, I actually saw all the people in action I was talking about. And I don't see bringing on those old characters as moving backwards. It has to do something with the heart and consistency of this show.

These people were pushed back or written out by regime, not because their story was told or fans didn't want to see them on-screen anymore.
I never thought there was ever someone who could down-size the destruction of the Quartermaine family with commenting like this.

And of course the American daytime soap operas have to evolve and moving forward, but you do that by honoring the past and take old characters with you.

Bringing back old characters has to make sense! No doubt about it. And NO ONE talked about bringing back every character of someone's past. There are just fan favorites out there who were outed by regime and who are fan favorites - and who might just help this show if a good story for them is written.

Why should people invest in past OLTL characters but forget all about the old GH characters??? Makes NO sense!!!!

liason4real
liason4real's picture
Offline
Last seen: 11 hours 17 min ago
Joined: May 10 2008
Posts:
I could have added Nurse

I could have added Nurse Jessie Brewer's name to the list and several other characters that I watched over the years. It's too bad that Dr. Rick Webber was killed off the show, because I remember Alan/Monica/Rick/Leslie/Jeff/Heather/Susan/Scottie, etc. story lines and when Laura was a teenager with Scotty before Luke joined the show.

ConqueringBlue
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 11 weeks ago
Joined: Aug 25 2008
Posts:
thebookerman wrote:The people

thebookerman wrote:
The people who want all these past GH characters to return are full of it. Did you actually watch when they were on or did you just read their Wikipedia entries?

The problem with soaps is not evolving and moving forward. In the 70's there was your core cast, they were pushed out for the faces of the 80's, who were pushed out for the 90's generation and so on and so forth. Soaps have always remembered their family roots, and that is so important, but you have to move forward, not backwards.

I don't think wanting past characters to return means moving backwards and not forward. And I have wanted Lucy Coe to return for so many years now, if I hadn't watched the show when Lucy was on, why would I care so much about seeing her again? LOL They could've made Lucy Spinelli's mother and brought her and Kevin back to town. Although the time line wouldn't really fit, I could see Kevin being Spinelli's father, too (although kids are SORAS'd on soaps on a daily basis). Is TR back on Y&R? Because I would love more than anything for Robert Scorpio to come back to GH again, to fight Luke for Anna (especially after Luke sent him off to chase after a son that wasn't really his). I also would LOVE it if Robert ended up being Sam's father, connecting the Scorpio/Davis families again. I want Ned and Dillon to return, two of my favorite more recent Quartermaines. I would've rathered seen Scotty and Serena come to PC, and Serena could've hooked up with Michael instead of Starr. I don't mind Michael and Starr now, but it took a long time for me to warm up to her because I thought her acting was terrible when she first came over. That's not to say that I think the OLTLers are bad additions to the show, I just don't think we need more of them when there are so many other GH characters I'd love to see back. But then, Cartini could also get rid of Kate, Trey, Shawn, and TJ to make some room. Oh and speaking of Shawn, I thought he and Carly were a total bore, it boggles my mind that Guza and JFP got rid of Jax (who has always been amazing with Carly) in favor of that Shawn/Carly pairing. So I'd love to see Jax come back too lol Carjax is the only Carly pairing I've ever actually loved

Kbrumage
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 39 weeks ago
Joined: Jul 13 2012
Posts:
I'd love to see Roxie, David

I'd love to see Roxie, David vickers, and Dorian. Mainly to bring more humor to the show. Glad to see the Todd Manning wit back on gh! For the younger crew, how about Destiny? She could be related to Epiphany- in fact she never knew her birth mom, so... Hmmmm... I also think David Heyward (AMC) needs to come to gh with his hidden patient- Robin!

thebookerman
Offline
Last seen: 9 weeks 6 days ago
Joined: Oct 12 2011
Posts:
Woah, okay, a lot to get to

Woah, okay, a lot to get to in that post.

@SoapJunkie88: What do you consider to be the heyday of soaps? The 80's? If so, there were a lot of new characters made that became the stars of the show. Victor Newman was not the focal point of Y&R when he came in in 1980, but he eventually took over as the lead. Same thing can be said for a lot of people. Sonny Corinthos was a small, supporting character and he eventually became the lead. People got pushed out along the way, and people did not complain about.

The ratings are declining because no show has been able to create that new superstar character, that new lead. You have to try though. Your idea to stop the ratings freefall is to bring back people from the past, instead of creating new stars, instead of making the next Victor, Sonny, Luke, Reva and Erica.

In what world is that not moving backwards?

@ConqueringBlue: I liked Carly and Shawn. I think too many people on here just want the hottest love scenes they can possibly get, and don't care about any other aspects of the relationship. There was something different to Shawn and Carly. Carly saw Shawn as more than a bodyguard, as a smart person with a lot to offer, and Shawn saw Carly's heart and not just her wealth or her power or her kids. They had a genuine connection and for some reason they chose to ignore it for what they thought would be better love scenes with Carly and Johnny.

Now, I am in favor of Robert coming back. There's a lot they could do with him and Tristan Rogers has proven he can still act at a high-level. I'm all for that past character returning.

soapjunkie88
soapjunkie88's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 4 hours ago
Joined: Jul 3 2008
Posts:
thebookerman

thebookerman wrote:
@SoapJunkie88: What do you consider to be the heyday of soaps? The 80's? If so, there were a lot of new characters made that became the stars of the show. Victor Newman was not the focal point of Y&R when he came in in 1980, but he eventually took over as the lead. Same thing can be said for a lot of people. Sonny Corinthos was a small, supporting character and he eventually became the lead. People got pushed out along the way, and people did not complain about.
The ratings are declining because no show has been able to create that new superstar character, that new lead. You have to try though. Your idea to stop the ratings freefall is to bring back people from the past, instead of creating new stars, instead of making the next Victor, Sonny, Luke, Reva and Erica.
In what world is that not moving backwards?

I've said nothing against new characters. If created well I'm all for them. I think there are a lot possibilities. But I don't get the point in bringing on other characters from AMC and OLTL. These characters have a rich history too. So if anyone should returning it should be old GH faves. That's all I wanted to say.

And on these shows you have to have some continuation. And that's provided by these popular characters from the past. Again, I don't say that I want the cast full of old faves ... I just try to make the point that some more wouldn't hurt and that I rather have some with GH history than more OLTL/AMC characters, who come with a back story of 20 or more years from their show.

thebookerman
Offline
Last seen: 9 weeks 6 days ago
Joined: Oct 12 2011
Posts:
But we know GH fans are

But we know GH fans are watching. There are people who don't necessarily watch GH but watched AMC or OLTL. One former OLTL'er might be enough to get them to give GH a try, which is what we need, more people sampling the show and becoming fans, but I doubt one former GH'er would.

Yes, I agree with you, ignoring GH's past to pimp out OLTL characters is not the way to go, but let's not forget the rich history those shows have either. We don't have to pretend they're gone forever, we can let those stars shine one more time, now in Port Charles.

SoapArmageddon
SoapArmageddon's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 hours 12 min ago
Joined: Jan 22 2011
Posts:
Natalie could be brought on

Natalie could be brought on to be killed off quickly in order to make John a single dad who is struggling to balance a crime-fighting career with raising an infant son.

liason4real
liason4real's picture
Offline
Last seen: 11 hours 17 min ago
Joined: May 10 2008
Posts:
If RC had simply gone with

If RC had simply gone with Brody being the baby Daddy for Ryder and Liam then there would be no issue with John staying put in Port Charles instead of killing off Natalie/Liam (spoiler).

EricasEvilTwin
EricasEvilTwin's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 weeks 5 days ago
Joined: Jul 15 2008
Posts:
I have a question - is this

I have a question - is this how soaps are written - that you think of the character and then you write the story or do they think up a great story starting with who they already have and then go from there adding in characters. I would think its the latter so then all this is sort of moot. I sort of think you start with okay i want to tell the story of who sams dad is.....hmmm who do we have as a possibility....who could i create as a character or resurrect - robert, jeff webber, david hayward, jimmy lee holt, new random quartermaine blah blah blah and then you think of which story is the best and then you say can i get the right actor and/or recast and then you fill in the details.

I guess what Im saying is I dont mind todd or john being added and I dont mind bring back qs or lucy or whoever AS LONG AS IT MAKES SENSE FROM A STORY PERSPECTIVE. I sort of think if you tell great story viewers will come whether its oltl characters or gh characters or a mix.

ConqueringBlue
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 11 weeks ago
Joined: Aug 25 2008
Posts:
@thebookerman Re: Shawn and

@thebookerman Re: Shawn and Carly, it's not about wanting to see the hottest love scenes, IMO, it's simply about chemistry. And I didn't see any romantic chemistry between Carly and Shawn, while I always felt that Carly sparkled with Jax. It wasn't about the sex scenes with Carjax, it was about the every day, and I felt that Jax always brought out a better side of Carly that no one else has. And considering how aggravating Carly can be at times, I think she needed that in her life. I also hated that Shawn was still involved with the mob. I didn't care whether he had a good heart or not, he still worked for gangsters, which is another reason I didn't like Carly and Johnny together, either. After everything that has happened to Carly's children because of her association with these dangerous men, she should want to stay as far away from them as possible, not date one right after another. ESPECIALLY after Michael was shot and in a coma for so many months. You'd think that would've been a wake up call and made her realize she needed to distance herself from gangsters altogether, but she hasn't, which is the main reason she lost Jax.

Also, in regards to GH trying to pick up some possible OLTL fans, it doesn't seem as though that has worked all that much. There have been a few weeks GH has been up in the ratings, but then they've fallen back to where they were. There hasn't been any huge drastic upswing, not like there was the week of Sonny and Brenda's wedding, which I believe was the biggest rise in ratings GH had seen in years. Which, IMO, proves that former GH fans are still willing to tune back in if there's a story they want to see play out for their old faves. Many people who hadn't watched GH in years, and didn't even tune in for Brenda's return (which doesn't really surprise me considering how crappily it was written, with that Balkan nonsense) still tuned in to see her marry Sonny finally. These fans aren't going to tune in to see a OLTL character pop up on GH.

Also, even if I had been a OLTL fan I don't imagine I would be all that thrilled with how their stories have been playing out on GH. Starr's bf and child were immediately killed, Tea's baby is supposedly dead, John has cheated on Natalie, why would OLTL fans want to tune in to see their faves destroyed on another show? If RC wants to bring them over, give them closure and a happy ending and then send them off for the OLTL fans, then that's fine, but long term storywise, I would still rather see old GH faves back in Port Charles.... Just my two cents

thebookerman
Offline
Last seen: 9 weeks 6 days ago
Joined: Oct 12 2011
Posts:
No one is saying adding

No one is saying adding Dorian Lord for example would be better for the show than a great storyline, or a big wedding. If we were listing things that the show needs to improve on it is the writing.

Do I agree with how they have written some of the OLTL characters at first? No, but I am fine with their situations now, and I don't understand why you assume they would "destroy" them.

gato1
gato1's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 4 days ago
Joined: Oct 29 2009
Posts:
Amen Bookerman! I have been

Amen Bookerman! I have been saying this for years! The reason soaps are going down the drain is because the dont/cant/wont create any new tentpole players, think of the past 10 years...who are the breakout characters?
YR-Adam Newman & Billy Abott
Gh Patrick Drake & Dante(?)
BB-No one comes to mind, maybe Steffy?
DAYS- EJ Dimera, Actually DAYS is the worst offender, All they do is bring past characters back, it fizzles, they bring other characters back, it fizzles, rinse and repeat. Think about it, how many times has Jack D. come & gone?? They never know what to do with him. I am not blaming any actors, only the lame writers.
This is an awful track record when u consider that daytime soaps have so much time to develop new characters.

david46208
david46208's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 days 8 hours ago
Joined: Jan 15 2009
Posts:
@thebookerman & Gato: There

@thebookerman & Gato: There is no correlation between bringing over characters from one canceled soap to another with gaining in the ratings. Not even AW characters who popped on up ATWT as away to try to sell that show to AW fans did anything for their ratings. In fact those characters were not a around that long.

Shows like AMC and OLTL (Nixon) or B&B and Y&R (Bell) were soaps generally cut from the same cloth, with each duo of soaps created by the same person. So the creators of those soaps could consult or help to plot crossovers that would or could work.

Now when it comes developing new characters. Any soap has the most success when they age some of the numerous children their female characters birth over the years. Thus, those "tentpoles" should 75% of the time be extensions of characters already on the canvas. That way they are immediately tied to the canvas.

For example the fact that the Kish couple on OLTL had no ties to the canvas was problematic from its roots, if you are looking at it from writing standpoint and translating it to the fans, having at least one of the two lovebirds closely related to a veteran character could have eased the blow of watching 2 brand new characters eat up the screentime from the vets.

The other way would have been to bring back Billy Douglas a popular character from the 90's as a way to establish the presence of a gay character on OLTL. From there they could have built a romance. And this would have worked because the fans already know this character and remember the storyline that touched fans hearts back in the 90's. Plus, Billy has history with so many of people on the show that it would ripped for drama.

Contrast that with Days who did a good job with the Will and Sonny characters. So you see tying people to the canvas is works more often then not.

Yet if a soap is going envelope new families and new characters with no ties to the canvas you have better have long story and a dynamic actor/actress to make it work. You need to know where you are going with these characters for the next 5 years or more. That is even if they don't make it that long (if the audience rejects them).

GL brought on the whole African American Boudreau family (Mel, Remy, Felicia and Clayton) to critical acclaim and fan raves. They even had 2 talented soap vets Shari Headley (ex- Mimi, AMC; ex-Heather Eagle, B&B) and Richard Biggs (ex- Dr. Marcus Hunter, Days) as the heads of the family. And in no time that family fizzled out. Mel (Yvonna Wright) was at first the only character getting any serious air-time and then after several recast it was Remey (Lawrence Saint Victor) at the end.

OLTL unsuccessfully brought on 'project Pat and company' via the Evan's family. When what they should have done was to fully re-invest in characters like RJ (make him the central villain) age his grandson to a teen or young adult, keep Rachel and actually hire a 'smooth brotha man brotha' to play her new love interest instead of Carlton Banks and Roc! Because Daphnée Duplaix Samuel who played Rachel had that "it" thing going about her that made such actresses as Renee Jones (ex-Lexie, Days) Victoria Rowell (ex-Dru, Y&R) and Tamara Tunie (ex-Jessica, ATWT) so good.

So see you have to build the brand from within before you start looking outside. And then you have to know what you are doing and who you are casting.

And when it comes to writing. You have to keep the show inline with its original intent. And by that I mean when Ron C. went all Passions on OLTL (GH too) when the stories that went a bit-over-the-top were grounded in good history and infused socially relevant topics (OLTL).

Only Bill Bell, Agnes Nixon or Douglas (paired with Gloria Monty) could come on and totally revamp a soap successfully. But writers like Sally Sussman Morina and say Lorraine Brodrick knew how to look at the history of a soap build from there.

So i'm putting all this on record. Because instead of bringing on T.J. (and i'm all for racial diversity), they should have looked at the history of this soap and brought back a young adult SORAS'd Tom Hardy Jr. (as played by say Lawrence Saint Victor) serving his residency out at General Hospital. Then his mother Simone (Victoria Rowell or Yvonne Wright) could have returned and have them create a Simone/Shawn/Carly triangle. I could see V. Rowell and Laura Wright playing enemies on screen. And what a great way to tie in the African American audience with an popular actress who has proven herself. Also a V. Rowell casting is good for press and an Image award.

And see all I did was dig into the history of a show and pull story and some castings from there.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mi5WXsfZjtc&feature=channel&list=UL

thebookerman
Offline
Last seen: 9 weeks 6 days ago
Joined: Oct 12 2011
Posts:
@David, that's all great, but

@David, that's all great, but again you're underestimating everyone. How about we approach things with some positivity?

If there was a good storyline to bring over someone from a past soap I am all for it. If there is a good storyline for a past GH character I am all for it.

But the writing needs to be there. You can't just say, "Hey, they should really bring Blackie Parrish back!"

And we need to keep coming up with new characters. If you want to get new fans you need someone they can connect with from day one. If they see a character's journey from the beginning they are more likely to relate to it and get emotionally invested in it than someone who has been on the show for 30 years. Not to say we should push aside the legends for the noobies, but a show needs to constantly evolve and blend the old with the new.

I just don't think people give new characters a chance. Historically, the majority of the legendary soap characters had really lame beginnings, but they powered through them. These days if they botch the debut storyline the internet calls for their head. Give things time to play out. Time with the new characters, time with new storylines and time for writers to watch their arcs come to life.

david46208
david46208's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 days 8 hours ago
Joined: Jan 15 2009
Posts:
@thebookerman: Reality is you

@thebookerman: Reality is you are not going to get many new fans. This model of soap opera is pretty much on its last leg. The best you can do is try to retain the viewers you have for as long as possible. Thus, there is no need for characters from other soaps. No need for Dorian Lord,David Hayward etc.

I've written about this many times under other postings. Daytime will cease to exist as it is. That's just going to happen. But what we need to do now is look toward the future, since the genre is not dead only the model. People just don't have the time or the interests to invest in a 260-265 episode a year drama. That fan base cannot be recreated. What I have said and will repeat briefly here is that daytime should return with 80 episode telenolva style drama's. That way networks and advertisers have 3 month soaps to work with. It shrinks the budgets. If the soap is successful and has fan demand they can bring it back for another season with a new storyline or leave the current drama with a cliffhanger. That's the way daytime needs to go.

So if you are trying to save a business model that is as outdated as our educational system you're going to be spinning your wheels. Look toward the future and a new model.

A new soap revolution will happen. It just won't be with the remaining four.

I'm just keeping it real.

thebookerman
Offline
Last seen: 9 weeks 6 days ago
Joined: Oct 12 2011
Posts:
I think primetime 80 episode

I think primetime 80 episode cycles can work, I think I suggested something similar when All My Children ended. I disagree with you regarding the five day a week, 52 weeks a year schedule not being plausible anymore though.

If I had to list three reasons why soaps are dying it is because:

1) Low attention span of the public.

2) Lost viewers in the past/inability to watch during the day.

3) Changing tastes of viewers.

----

To explain how to combat this:

We need storylines that have viewers hanging on the edge of their seats. Is character A going to die? Is B going to catch C and D in bed together? Is the murderer going to get away with it? Etc. etc.

Right now there are some good storylines, but is there anything that makes you say, "I have to be in front of my TV every day at 3 PM to watch it!"? No, you'll DVR it, you'll watch it live if you can, or you'll watch it on the internet.

Remember, when these soaps were getting huge numbers people had jobs, and classes during the day too. Yes, there were a lot more housewives at home because of the economy, but there was no internet, there was no VCR. People found a way to watch it live, or follow the storylines if they could not do watch it every day.

I think the main problem is that people are not as invested in soaps as they once were. When I say soaps here I'm not just referring to daytime dramas, I'm also talking about Desperate Housewives, Gossip Girl etc. These shows are getting canceled or not doing good numbers. The cop dramas and period pieces, and dark shows are what people are into these days.

Although it was criticized, General Hospital was actually somewhat ahead of the trend when they decided to shift the focus from the hospital to the mob. You lost some long-term viewers for sure, but you also opened the door for a new generation to get involved. A little bit of the negative stigma (albeit unfair) attached to soaps was gone when you made the main character a crime boss.

If you have a super villain, a Gus from Breaking Bad for example, battling with Sonny for over a year, I can guarantee you would get mainstream interest, and if done correctly it would make GH appointment viewing again.

You're not going to suddenly add 6 million new viewers overnight. It is going to take time and patience, but you have to take risks and take chances at this point. I would much rather see General Hospital and the other shows go out with a bang, and go out trying to be innovative than so slowly trudge along until the network finally puts them out of their misery.

david46208
david46208's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 days 8 hours ago
Joined: Jan 15 2009
Posts:
@thebookerman: Here is my

@thebookerman: Here is my response:

"We need storylines that have viewers hanging on the edge of their seats. Is character A going to die? Is B going to catch C and D in bed together? Is the murderer going to get away with it? Etc. etc.

Right now there are some good storylines, but is there anything that makes you say, "I have to be in front of my TV every day at 3 PM to watch it!"? No, you'll DVR it, you'll watch it live if you can, or you'll watch it on the internet."

No matter how good the writers are in this day and age. We are not going to get type of viewership back necessary to keep these soaps on air that require $50 million plus a year to produce and thus require advertisers to pay large sums for ad space to cover the cost. There is just not that 5 to 10 million plus group of people waiting for good writing to come to a soap so they that they tune in. Not today.

---------

"Remember, when these soaps were getting huge numbers people had jobs, and classes during the day too. Yes, there were a lot more housewives at home because of the economy, but there was no internet, there was no VCR. People found a way to watch it live, or follow the storylines if they could not do watch it every day."

Today 80% of women work. Young people have social media that takes up more of their time then it did in the past. You see back in the 80's and 90's. There were not all the social media platforms like Youtube, Facebook, Twitter, Google etc. There were not numerous gossip sites that gave you celebrity news as it happened. There was not the 24 hour news cycle either. Nor were there 500 plus cable channels to choose from for content. So back in the heyday, with a lack of options people could easily make time for a soap or pencil it in. What else did they have to watch? What else was competing for their time and energy? Not much.

---------

"I think the main problem is that people are not as invested in soaps as they once were. When I say soaps here I'm not just referring to daytime dramas, I'm also talking about Desperate Housewives, Gossip Girl etc. These shows are getting canceled or not doing good numbers. The cop dramas and period pieces, and dark shows are what people are into these days."

Primetime soaps are doing just fine. Look at series like Mad Men, Breaking Bad, The Borges, The Game, Single Ladies, Weeds, Vampire Diaries and the return of Dallas. Each of these shows has a series of continuing narratives that constitutes what a soap is at its roots.

Also each of these primetime soaps has a particular unique focus or take a different angle of telling certain story threads.

The Game/Single Ladies: Focuses on the lives of contemporary African Americans woman and their pursuit of love, life and happiness. This is something that they don't or no longer get to see in the mainstream. So it has a built in audience of African American women who lacked a presence on TV.

Mad Men/Breaking Bad: Created serialized drama that even your average macho man could get into and I could sell these shows to my circle of friends. They also took risk by telling tales that you would not normally see in the mainstream.

The Borges: Gives us the drama behind the Catholic Church in the old-world.

Weeds: Much like Breaking Bad this show's success was by having a suburban housemother be the largest drug dealer in her area.

And if we go back a bit, primetime soaps like The Sopranos, The Wire, OZ, Soul Food and even that show Queer as Folks were breaking new ground. Doing something that compelled people to watch.

One of the biggest draws to these types of soaps is that people only have to commit to 9-13 episodes a season. And the writers have long story. So there is an end in sight. You also don't have to deal with a series of Head Writers because the creator draws out the story in his/hers own bible from start to finish.

Another point is that these types of soaps don't have to worry about getting huge network numbers the way a show like Gossip Girl or Desperate Housewives did.

I never watched Gossip Girl past the first few episodes or did I regularly tune in to Desperate Housewives. And at their heart they were not breaking any new ground. They were just taking a modern approach to what had been done before. And that's okay. But all primetime serials have a lifespan and shelf space.

So instead of telling another tale of teen high school or cop drama, what you see are soaps following the lives of teacher turned cancer stricken Meth dealer, desperate to provide for his family when he is gone. You have a series that delves into the scandals at the Vatican. You had a series in the past (Entourage) about five men trying to make it Hollywood off of one man's potential success.

So these stories incorporate the basic elements of soap opera from a more compelling stance and infuse social realism into them.
---------

"Although it was criticized, General Hospital was actually somewhat ahead of the trend when they decided to shift the focus from the hospital to the mob. You lost some long-term viewers for sure, but you also opened the door for a new generation to get involved. A little bit of the negative stigma (albeit unfair) attached to soaps was gone when you made the main character a crime boss."

GH's change to focus on their poorly done version of Tony Soprano did nothing for GH. There was not a million or more new people who decided to tune in because of him or the subsequent storylines that all centered around and sprung off from him. The ratings (like for most soaps) continued to see year-to-year declines. And this was mostly because they moved away from what brought people there in the first place, "love in the afternoon." Also you did not have mothers passing down soaps to their children anymore. And things happened at one time when there were more constants on entertainment for people. Once those constraints were removed it was open season for TV, cable and now the web to cease on a potential market.
---------

"If you have a super villain, a Gus from Breaking Bad for example, battling with Sonny for over a year, I can guarantee you would get mainstream interest, and if done correctly it would make GH appointment viewing again."

First, Gus is not a super villain He's a realistic villain. Nor was Tony Soprano or Omar from The Wire a super villain either. These folks are fictionalized versions and takes on what exist in real life. Each of the creator/writers from Breaking Bad, The Sopranos and The Wire consulted with real life people who had lived these lives to make sure they got the stories as close to real as possible.

Sonny was head of the Coffee Bean mafia. Last time I checked Folgers and Nescafe were not in such a grew-some industry. And after all the years of speculating on what Sonny's actual illegal business was, the coffee business downgraded his entire existence.

Mobsters (in real life) are not killing people over caffeinated vs decaffeinated territory. They are selling illegal guns to teens on the street. They are battling over cocaine, heroin and crack markets.

So that does not compare to the shows I referred too. And Agnes and Bill's success was for mostly drawing on real life issues to drive their storylines. They looked in the newspaper pulled story from the hot button issues of the day in America or the world. That is why Agnes is the most popular writer, with the most socially relevant stories that impacted America. We don't need super villains or villainesses anymore. We need real life bad guys and gals.

---------

"You're not going to suddenly add 6 million new viewers overnight. It is going to take time and patience, but you have to take risks and take chances at this point. I would much rather see General Hospital and the other shows go out with a bang, and go out trying to be innovative than so slowly trudge along until the network finally puts them out of their misery."

You're never gonna get it with this model of soaps anymore. But since we do agree on the 80 episode model. They can start by spinning off series that focus on certain characters or a few families from existing soap operas and center around an entire 80 days stortline around them. That can work. Thus, getting between 1.2 to 3 million viewers at the average height won't be a problem because they are not committed to these types of soaps for 260-265 episodes a year. This also makes room for new writers to create a novela and get it aired. So that is where we need to go.

thebookerman
Offline
Last seen: 9 weeks 6 days ago
Joined: Oct 12 2011
Posts:
Two responses: You're still

Two responses:

You're still not explaining why we can't get that audience back to soaps. Their interest in social media isn't affecting their viewership of other shows. Yankees fans still tune in every day to see their team play, older people still plant themselves in front of their TV for the 11:00 news on weekdays. Fans of something have no problem making a commitment in 2012, we need to give them a reason to make that commitment.

And if you classify Breaking Bad as a soap, what isn't a soap? Single Ladies is doing terrible numbers, Degrassi isn't what it used to be. MyNetwork TV struggled with their cycle shows Fashion House and Desire and Nick has the same problem with Hollywood Heights. Grey's Anatomy is slipping, House and Desperate Housewives were just canceled. I love Breaking Bad, but you can't call that a soap. Any episodic TV show can't fall into that category.

I also think you're a bit misguided about why these shows are popular (Mad Men and Breaking Bad actually don't do very good numbers, but that's a different issue.) I watch Breaking Bad because it is different from the broadcast network dramas. It is edgier, it is more raw, its fresher.

People aren't watching because it only has a 13 week commitment. Have you met a Breaking Bad fan? They're as passionate about their show as anyone is about anything and they would watch it 52 weeks straight if they could. Now, the writers can't create enough high-quality content for that, but that goes back to my original complaint: THE WRITING.

We can save this genre but we have to accept excellence in the writing department and nothing else. If Ron Carlivati is fine catering to a small contingent of internet fans and does not have a plan to turn the ratings around, he is not the right fit for this show. They need to bring in someone with a vision and an idea to get the world talking again about it.

You mentioned social media. I am pretty sure Maxie was trending daily for a few weeks during her big prison storyline. People would be talking about GH on Twitter and Facebook more and more if they had a reason to.

david46208
david46208's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 days 8 hours ago
Joined: Jan 15 2009
Posts:
@thebookerman: "You're still

@thebookerman:

"You're still not explaining why we can't get that audience back to soaps. Their interest in social media isn't affecting their viewership of other shows. Yankees fans still tune in every day to see their team play, older people still plant themselves in front of their TV for the 11:00 news on weekdays. Fans of something have no problem making a commitment in 2012, we need to give them a reason to make that commitment."

I've explained it again and again. People don't have the time or the interest to watch a 260-265 episode daytime drama. And unlike soaps. Sports have seasons. Basketball, Football, Baseball etc. And most of these sports air their games at times when people can watch. Monday night football or weekend games. And when the games take place during the workday people take off or if they can follow it on digital radio or look-up stats and scores via their smart phones.

Look its a new world. A new day. People have options. They have more taking up their time. Also people are more willing to commit a 9-13 episode season of a primetime serial or reality TV drama then they are daytime.

Most people under 40 don't care about a daytime drama. And most don't even see that what they watch at night are soaps themselves simply referred to as serials.

And one more 'gain. When the options were limited to 4 to 5 networks of originally scripted content. You can easily see why a person could be drawn to a soap opera.

Now do you understand?

No amount of writing is going to draw people back to watching or create a new generation of people tuning in 5 days a week for 1/2 to an hour a day. Most people today want something that is easy to follow without a major commitment. Primetime Serials/Reality TV and now the growing web series genre provide that.
------

"And if you classify Breaking Bad as a soap, what isn't a soap? Single Ladies is doing terrible numbers, Degrassi isn't what it used to be. MyNetwork TV struggled with their cycle shows Fashion House and Desire and Nick has the same problem with Hollywood Heights. Grey's Anatomy is slipping, House and Desperate Housewives were just canceled. I love Breaking Bad, but you can't call that a soap. Any episodic TV show can't fall into that category."

Actually I watch Breaking Bad. It is not an episodic show. It has storylines that play out throughout each season and ends with cliffhangers. It is a serialized drama which is basis of a soap opera i.e: stories that are played out over a course of several episodes verses having a first, second and 3rd act in every episode like a Law and Order or NCIS does. There is no nice tight end to each episode wrapping up the story.

MYTV Network struggled because they simply translated Latin Telenovela's into English and aired their soaps up against a power primetime brand in America. You have first have soaps created originally by Americans and next they have to air at a time where they are not competing against ER or Gray's Anatomy for example. So their model was completely messed up. They tried to completely repeat the Latin model even with time-slots. So it was not gonna work. You have to air them when soaps are traditionally aired, and this is during the day.

And as for other primetime soaps. I said it before all soaps have a life span. The problem with network television is that they want to keep pushing a show beyond its means just to keep the ad dollars coming in.

In today's world the average primetime soap should run 5 to 8 seasons at the longest and be done with it. It should not run until the writers run out of material and the ratings dip. Again, even in primetime there are hell of a lot of options. So the moment your show dips in the writing and/or the moment something more interesting comes along viewers will leave or jump ship.

Brand loyalty doesn't exist on Network TV anymore.

And by the way Single Ladies is doing well ratings wise. In fact it is up from last season overall. And each episode showed an increase in ratings not a decrease.

And one more thing. For every primetime serial you wish to point out as doing bad in ratings others are doing well. That happens. And as it bares repeating once more...It generally means they have been kept past their expiration date.
---------

"I also think you're a bit misguided about why these shows are popular (Mad Men and Breaking Bad actually don't do very good numbers, but that's a different issue.) I watch Breaking Bad because it is different from the broadcast network dramas. It is edgier, it is more raw, its fresher."

Do you understand what it takes to be an successful show on cable vs. network tv? Let me explain it to you. For cable if the average drama series has over 1 million viewers it is considered a success, given that most cable programming barely reaches between 50 to 500k in viewers. So creating these 9 to 13 episode drama series that can bring in over a million viewers per episode per season is a ratings and advertising success.

Network Television is free TV and reaches a wider audience. So the expectations are higher.

But Mad Men and Breaking Bad (like most cable serials) have a niche audience. And that is what leads to theirs and many others award winning success. Because they don't have the constraints of network TV and have creative freedom to write what they want.
----------

"People aren't watching because it only has a 13 week commitment. Have you met a Breaking Bad fan? They're as passionate about their show as anyone is about anything and they would watch it 52 weeks straight if they could. Now, the writers can't create enough high-quality content for that, but that goes back to my original complaint: THE WRITING."

Yes I am passionate. And no most would not watch a 52 a week series. Again people came and watched. And we only have a 9 to 13 episode season to commit to too. So it works. And the anticipation for the next season fuels hard-core fans fire more. Again every show has a lifespan. Just have to know when to pull the plug. That's how you go out on top.
---------

"We can save this genre but we have to accept excellence in the writing department and nothing else. If Ron Carlivati is fine catering to a small contingent of internet fans and does not have a plan to turn the ratings around, he is not the right fit for this show. They need to bring in someone with a vision and an idea to get the world talking again about it."

The soap genre is not dead. But you cannot save THIS MODEL. Its it is not sustainable. It just is not. That's the reality. Now soaps will return to the daytime at some point. And as I said the 80 episode novella style model will be what we get. And it is economical and not a financial burden on networks. It is also a greater good risk for advertisers.
---------

"You mentioned social media. I am pretty sure Maxie was trending daily for a few weeks during her big prison storyline. People would be talking about GH on Twitter and Facebook more and more if they had a reason to."

Young people are not checking for Maxie Jones on social media. Nor do they care. They are checking for Rihanna, Beyonce, Lady GaGa, Justin Bieber and Chris Brown.

Let's keep it real. All the trending in the world has not brought GH new viewers it never had before that can be measured in numbers or upped it ratings.

thebookerman
Offline
Last seen: 9 weeks 6 days ago
Joined: Oct 12 2011
Posts:
I meant to say every show

I meant to say every show that is NOT episodic cannot be considered a soap. My mistake. Yes, Breaking Bad is not an episodic TV show.

You're putting too much emphasis on the season concept. You watch a TV show, or you watch a sports game, or you listen to music BECAUSE YOU ENJOY DOING IT. Why do you need a break from doing something you like?

If you were to tell me that soaps might take a downturn in ratings in the fall once most shows come back and start their new seasons I will buy that. But they still have sustainability. The idea of following characters that you are passionate about week after week year after year is not an unfathomable idea.

Yes, you may experience ratings woes at times. I agree with you, people may need a "break" from the show. Whether they have a lot going on in their lives or they are just bored with the current storylines, they may stop watching for a bit. THAT IS OKAY. You haven't lost people forever if they stop for a few weeks, or a few months, or even a few years.

If people get excited about a character why does it matter if they are on a soap, or on a critically-lauded primetime drama? The negative stigma of soaps was there in the 70's and people still tuned in. Yes, you had less options, but people still watched is the point. Regardless of the number of options, if they did not like what they saw they wouldn't watch.

Soaps emerged roughly right after The Great Depression. Families had multiple jobs, but they gathered around the radio to listen to their stories. Our economic situation is not as bad as that. They then turned to the TV because there was an interest in it.

The genre has had some mistakes and failed to adapt, but the concept is not dead. It worked before, and it is still possible to get new viewers and bring back old ones. We have more methods to keep up than ever before, and it should be noted how much emphasis networks are putting in DVR numbers these days.

We need to find ways to get young fans interested. Is a soap their first choice of TV? No, but once again you act like it is impossible for them to become a fan. Have some faith and have some optimism. If the next great, original character appears on a soap and not on a Showtime or AMC series, or in a movie franchise, you can get people to watch.

Also, your idea that 80 episode soaps will return to daytime after 250 episode soaps go away is absolutely insane. What person says, "You know, I can watch this show every day in the afternoon for 3 months, but after that it's just too much." That number has worked with telenovelas because that is how long they have determined they can map out a storyline from start to finish in. Maybe American writers need to take note of that.

Let's just make up a random storyline as an example:

Episode 1: Carlos is worried that his girlfriend Raina does not love him anymore and is attracted to his business enemy Juan.

Episodes 2-79: Carlos and Juan constantly fight over the affection of Raina.

Episode 80: Carlos threatens Raina, before Juan saves her by shooting him. Juan and Raina think they are safe to run off and have a great life together before Carlos' family shows up and threatens to kill them.

Ignore that this is a terrible storyline that I just thought up off the top of my head for an example. You're saying you have no chance, ZERO CHANCE, to keep viewers watching for another 80 episodes immediately following the original run where they see if Juan and Raina can avoid the death threats of Carlos' family? That's it, because the 80 episodes have aired people will go back to doing something else on que like robots?

On an unrelated note, for most cable networks, a scripted series only getting one million viewers is a MASSIVE FAILURE. They look at 18-49 numbers first and foremost, but if the overall viewership is just a million, those numbers will be bad anyway. HBO and Showtime are different because they have 1,000 airings a week of their shows, plus DVR, HBO Go and the internet. But for TNT, AMC, USA, TBS etc. those numbers would not fly.

david46208
david46208's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 days 8 hours ago
Joined: Jan 15 2009
Posts:
@thebookerman: I love soaps

@thebookerman: I love soaps as much as the next. But the reality this genre as it is...is done for. I can't repeat it enough. The model is dead. Networks don't even want to pay 50 million a year to produce them anymore. Budgets continue to be chopped yearly. Advertiser are not paying what they use to pay when a soap was at a 8.2 or higher and when a canceled was at a 2.1.

Most people under 40 don't know or care about a stigma for a daytime drama. They just don't care for them. So with an 80 episode series, the silver lining is that getting a 1.2 or a 1.7 is not the death drill for a soap, it can be done at half the cost or less of the current model and actors are not locked in to upwards of $900,000 to $1 million or more salary. It is economical for networks and for advertisers. And whether a novella succeeds or fails it is no skin off their backs. The loss is less than the risk and loss networks have taken with daytime in recent years.

So yes writing is a very vital and important part of a good series. But for daytime (no matter what) you are not going to get some new legion of fans to watch the remaining four soaps. I give you an A for effort. But it ain't gonna happen.

We're living on borrowed time. That's just the reality.

Now as for ratings highs and lows. No soaps are not competing with primetime. They have an audience all their own. This is just a niche audience that thrived off of women being at home. You to remember VCR taping never counted as a ratings point. Not according to my knowledge. You can't monetize a video recording via a tape. So VHS was not doing anything for a soaps ratings even when they started to work.

What I meant by various modes of content to view was that compared to when there were just 4 to 5 networks of scripted content, there is no reason for an under 40 person to DVR 5 episodes of a daytime drama when they have 200 plus options which range from reality TV to primetime scripted programming to chose from.

I barely find time myself to watch Days and skim through GH. I don't record any of these shows anymore. I just go online and watch mostly through youtube to avoid all the commercials and slow connection speed from their websites.

And even when Days or GH is good, it is still a chore to watch. Because I have to try and carve out over 4 hours a week total per soap watch each episode. That means a total of 8 additional hours watching a soap. And I like many others, when I had nothing to do but go to school and come home. When the internet was just starting. When there was not a lot of choices to choose from in general. A soap could fill the void.

I mean I use to watch 4 soaps a day. Now I can barely juggle two. This is the life of Gen X and Y.

As the Neilsen reported:

"The television industry has been expecting — and dreading the day — that TV viewing peaks, and then either plateaus or slowly declines in the face of encroaching Internet and phone use. According to data that Nielsen will release on Thursday, television viewing as a whole is steady, in part because older Americans — particularly those over the age of 65 — are watching more than ever before. Digital video recorders deserve some of the credit for the uptick, since they let people stockpile shows.

But for three straight quarters, there have been declines in viewing among Americans under 35, even when DVR viewership is factored in, according to Nielsen data analyzed by The New York Times.

Adults ages 25 to 34, for instance, watched about four and a half fewer hours of television in the third quarter of 2011 than at the same time in 2010 — the equivalent of about nine minutes a day. Viewers ages 12 to 17 also watched about nine fewer minutes a day. The demographic in between, those ages 18 to 24, watched about six fewer minutes a day."

So this there you have it. This is about the business of daytime. And the business of following 260-265 episodes a year is not sustainable. It can no longer work.

Radio was once the big guns before TV. Computers and smartphone are now the big hit. And no they are not going to sit in front of a computer for 5 hours a week to watch a soap. In-fact the average user spends no more than 3 to 15 minutes on a single site per visit.

Even for a web series (which generally runs between 1 to 15 minutes in length), if you go beyond 15 episodes in a season it can be bit much. So any scripted content when trying to engage younger viewers needs to mirror their tastes and viewing habits. So the shorter commitment they have to have to watch a show, the more likely they are to engage it if it is good.

Also shows on TNT, AMC, USA and TBS don't have to have 10 million plus viewers to last. They don't even have to have over 5, 4 or 3 for that matter to last. In fac,t many shows on each network have been around for seasons like Southland with less than 2 million viewers for example.

thebookerman
Offline
Last seen: 9 weeks 6 days ago
Joined: Oct 12 2011
Posts:
We are just going to have to

We are just going to have to agree to disagree I suppose. It sounds like you are tired of soaps, which is fine, but you do not speak for every single person out there. I think there is an opportunity for a renaissance, and with the right marketing and business acumen it could be done.

I also have to question why you think someone would not watch Y&R for example, but decide to watch a new, short 80 episode show. Most of the fans still sticking around have been watching for some time. That also goes against your premise to, that younger people are not going to watch these shows. If people don't have the time for an established soap, one they grew up, or followed closely for decades, or know about the characters from....why would they start watching a brand new one?

david46208
david46208's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 days 8 hours ago
Joined: Jan 15 2009
Posts:
@thebookerman: "We are just

@thebookerman: "We are just going to have to agree to disagree I suppose. It sounds like you are tired of soaps, which is fine, but you do not speak for every single person out there. I think there is an opportunity for a renaissance, and with the right marketing and business acumen it could be done."

(*sighs*) I'm here. If I was tired I would not be here. I've just long since come to realize that the end is near.

At this point soaps are generally surviving on life-support. And it has been that way for years.

And since I have dealt with this in real life, I understand how some people feel when they don't see that grandma is not gonna get better and that by keeping her on life-support is just prolonging the inevitable.

That's the case here. All the data shows you what you refuse to accept. The golden era of the 260-265 episode daily drama series is over.

Everything hits a plateau, fizzles out and then returns. Daytime will return. But the model that currently exist now won't be it.

But let me point something out that you seem to overlook. I'm not just looking at this from a writing standpoint. I'm looking at it from a business standpoint.

I'm looking at the cost of production vs ratings vs advertising rates. So just because I want to see something, does not mean networks can afford to keep a show on air that is no longer turning a profit. You gotta be able to turn a profit and networks don't have 5 plus more years to spend 50 million dollars per soap to satisfy yours or my needs.

Television is about money first. It always has been. And at the end of day it will still be about money. And that's a check you can cash and take to the bank.
---------

"I also have to question why you think someone would not watch Y&R for example, but decide to watch a new, short 80 episode show. Most of the fans still sticking around have been watching for some time. That also goes against your premise to, that younger people are not going to watch these shows. If people don't have the time for an established soap, one they grew up, or followed closely for decades, or know about the characters from....why would they start watching a brand new one?"

You know why? Because the commitment is short. It's only 3 months or 13 weeks. It has a beginning, middle and end. Networks are not locked into year to year renewals or long term contracts with a soap that is not producing the numbers. They don't have to spends millions for head-writers and EP's. They don't have to pay Maurice Bernard, Eric Braeden or Melody Thomas Scott over 900,000 to 1,000,000 plus dollars in a long term contract. Ditto that for other actors too.

Days is renewed yearly. B&B and Y&R are given 2 to 3 year renewals respectively. GH is pretty much on a month-to-month basis (not matter what they say).

So if a 80 episode novella style soap is not successful then at the end of its run that's it. They wash their hands of it. And the metrics are thus realigned so that the ratings necessary for it to be a success are being developed as they go along.

Also, i'm not think so much for those under 40. As i'm thinking of those over 40 who are more likely to engage a Novella style soap. But with the Novella style soap networks have plenty of time to carve out a successful model to bring in multi-generational and multiracial viewers.

thebookerman
Offline
Last seen: 9 weeks 6 days ago
Joined: Oct 12 2011
Posts:
It's not that I'm refusing to

It's not that I'm refusing to accept anything. You're refusing to admit that the audience could return. You're saying there is 100% chance no one who doesn't watch a soap on 7/18 will watch a soap on 7/19 or in the future.

Any business model looks bad when things aren't going well. I could list you several shows with your beloved 13 episode seasons that lost money over the last 10 years. If the ratings were up they would be making money.

They need to find a way to cut costs. That includes actors, setting, crew etc. They need to find a way to get the ratings up.

For some reason you are obsessed with the idea that neither of those things can happen. Any show, or any business in general, can turn things around.

david46208
david46208's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 days 8 hours ago
Joined: Jan 15 2009
Posts:
@thebookerman: "It's not that

@thebookerman: "It's not that I'm refusing to accept anything. You're refusing to admit that the audience could return. You're saying there is 100% chance no one who doesn't watch a soap on 7/18 will watch a soap on 7/19 or in the future."

It can't return! Not for this model. Even the folks running this site. Everyone in the industry knows we are on borrowed time. So it is what it is.
--------

"Any business model looks bad when things aren't going well. I could list you several shows with your beloved 13 episode seasons that lost money over the last 10 years. If the ratings were up they would be making money."

Ask yourself this? Did it cost $50 million to produce 13 episodes? And if it was not a success ratings wise and ad wise was the cost of production vs ratings vs advertising rates the same as it was for daytime? A loss on 13 episodes of cable drama is a loss networks are willing to take, since the keep producing new ones. A loss of revenue for a the current daytime model is simply a loss and later a cancellation.

Let me give a few examples:

1. For Mad Men each episode cost a little less than the $2.84 million each episode to produce.

2. Breaking Bad reportedly costs $3 million per episode to produce, higher than the average cost for a basic cable program.

Each of these shows relies on ad space to be sold. So cost of production is cheaper by the dozen.
---------
"They need to find a way to cut costs. That includes actors, setting, crew etc. They need to find a way to get the ratings up."

If they could have found away to get it up they would have been by now. Yet the world has changed. Peoples interests have changed. And ultimately what they are willing to commit to has changed. That's the deal.
---------
"For some reason you are obsessed with the idea that neither of those things can happen. Any show, or any business in general, can turn things around."

Other shows in the business are not required to try and keep a series on air forever. Come on now. Every scripted series comes to an end. So comparing a daytime drama's ability to turn around in comparison to others cannot work. What they do in primetime is simply turn the genre around by purchasing new drama series or revving a genre with new shows. They also try bringing back or rebooting a popular drama from the past. But for that to happen the series first have to have been canceled.

So again the soap genre is not dead, this model is dead.

thebookerman
Offline
Last seen: 9 weeks 6 days ago
Joined: Oct 12 2011
Posts:
Again, it is dead if the

Again, it is dead if the ratings continue to go down. If they can turn around, and the out of control costs can be stabilized that can be reversed.

There also needs to be greater effort put on finding alternative sources of revenue. Webisodes focusing on supporting characters could provide ad revenue through the ABC or CBS website. Finding more international channels to distribute your show can add revenue for little to no cost. And then you need to find other ways, not just by the content on screen, to bring in viewers. Maybe have a celebrity host a quick 15 minute wrap-up show on Friday afternoons reviewing the week that was, interacting with people on Twitter etc. You can have work within the ABC family to provide exclusive looks at other shows during the breaks. Advertise two minutes of that night's Modern Family, or a deleted scene from Grey's Anatomy the night after a new episode airs. Or you could go outside and have exclusive looks at some new movies coming out once a week.

Again, it's not that the model needs to be completely overhauled, it's that we have to adapt to changing needs in society. YOU are not interested in 265 episodes a year, many people are though. These shows are a daily part of my life and I know many others feel that way. Just read through any comments of episodes posted on Youtube or the network websites and you'll see.

david46208
david46208's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 days 8 hours ago
Joined: Jan 15 2009
Posts:
@Thebookerman: "Again, it is

@Thebookerman: "Again, it is dead if the ratings continue to go down. If they can turn around, and the out of control costs can be stabilized that can be reversed."

They can't afford to keep producing a 260-265 episode daily drama. It can't happen. They been cutting cost for years and it still doesn't work. When Port Charles was on air they tried taping for 6 months out a year doing 2 episodes per day and they still couldn't afford it.

What do you want the actors to do start hammering sets and rolling them on and off the lot?

Do you want them to start using $30 web cams?

GL went down to bare bones literally. They had actors changing clothes & doing makeup in cars, filming with cheap handy cams, using public restrooms and walking over to the McDonald's for lunch or a local restaurant. It was worse than community theater!

Most actors have been taking massive paycuts. Heck most of the black folk on Y&R get paid 50% of 50% of what everyone gets.

Soaps have laid off hairdressers, got rid of 20 year plus veteran script writers, directors, set-designers, cameramen etc. to cut cost.

Passions on NBC went through a massive cut to try and sustain cost and they couldn't do it. It was still too much money.

What more do you want them do?

This model can't work.
----------

"There also needs to be greater effort put on finding alternative sources of revenue. Webisodes focusing on supporting characters could provide ad revenue through the ABC or CBS website. Finding more international channels to distribute your show can add revenue for little to no cost. And then you need to find other ways, not just by the content on screen, to bring in viewers. Maybe have a celebrity host a quick 15 minute wrap-up show on Friday afternoons reviewing the week that was, interacting with people on Twitter etc. You can have work within the ABC family to provide exclusive looks at other shows during the breaks. Advertise two minutes of that night's Modern Family, or a deleted scene from Grey's Anatomy the night after a new episode airs. Or you could go outside and have exclusive looks at some new movies coming out once a week."

Again you have pay people to work extra to even produce webisiodes. The whole union strikes a few years ago was about making sure all parties involved get paid for their work no matter where it appears. So where does the money come from?

Also Sony has aired its soaps as did P&G do theirs and NBC too in other countries. Passions didn't make a full year in most countries it aired. And where it did last longer it was about four before they pulled the plug.

And for a soap to last it has to have ratings here in America where it began to matter. So just because B&B pulls in some revenue from overseas does not mean it is safe if the ratings not are up here. CBS does not get a lick of money from B&B's overseas airings. Networks set ad rates in America with companies in America. So that's where it all starts.

Example:

PASSIONS:

Canada - Passions aired in Canada for its entire NBC run, first on CTV in 1999 and then on Global TV in 2000.

Romania - Passions aired in Romania for seven years (1999–2006) on TVR1. NationalTV also started broadcasting the show in June 2009.They stopped in early 2010 because of low ratings.

South Africa - 1040 episodes of Passions aired in South Africa on e.tv from 4:40 to 5:30 PM Monday to Friday from September 24, 2004 to September 12, 2008. The series finished up early, because of the cancellation of the show's international licensing, due to the music copyright fees.

Australia - Passions was broadcast nationally in Australia on the Seven Network each weekday at 3pm, beginning in 2001 with the series' 1999 episodes. In 2005, the series was moved to an earlier 9:30 am time slot, before the show's international licensing was canceled due to the music copyright fees. Passions then went into re-runs in a 2am weekday morning time-slot, before ultimately ending with a "series finale."

Croatia - Passions aired in Croatia for two years on Nova TV, which broadcast 520 episodes until the 2005 cancellation of international licensing.

Bulgaria - The first 260 episodes of Passions aired in Bulgaria on TV 7 days from 2001 to 2002.

France - Passions aired in France for 2 months on TF1 starting on July 31, 2001, at 5:10pm CET after the end of Sunset Beach. The soap ended on October 8, 2001.

Bosnia and Herzegovina - Passions aired in Bosnia and Herzegovina for two years on Televizija OBN, which broadcast 520 episodes from 1999 to 2001.Show aired at 18:00pm CET ,the reasons for cancellation were low ratings.

Are you getting it now? Everything cost money. Nothing comes for free.

By the way ABC makes no money by advertising its own shows in-between soaps or vice versa. It's just free advertising. And networks only advertise things that are making money. Soaps ain't making money.
---------

"Again, it's not that the model needs to be completely overhauled, it's that we have to adapt to changing needs in society. YOU are not interested in 265 episodes a year, many people are though. These shows are a daily part of my life and I know many others feel that way. Just read through any comments of episodes posted on Youtube or the network websites and you'll see."

I'm not interested in it? If I have been watching all this long I must be. Yet the reality is with the continued decline in ratings more people are not interested in it to keep them on air. That ship has sailed. So you can try to put it all on me. But the proof is in the pudding. Emotions are not gonna change the facts.

Television is about making money. Networks don't have emotional attachments to these shows nor do they care about yours or minds. It's a business not a therapy session or a family. We fans may have connected with the soaps and each other. But the networks were only tied to it as long as it was profitable. And they treat all programming like that. So soaps have actually gotten special treatment over the years.

thebookerman
Offline
Last seen: 9 weeks 6 days ago
Joined: Oct 12 2011
Posts:
This is my last post here, as

This is my last post here, as this is really boring. Your own arguments continually contradict each other. Let's just look at your idea for an 80 episode soap replacing round year soaps.

Current soap
Budget: 60 million.
260 Episodes
Budget per episode: $231,000

Let's assume right now the network gets 50 million in advertising a year for this soap.
Ad Revenue: 50 million.
Average viewers per episode: 2.5 million
Total viewers per year: 650 million.

Obviously, there are different demographics that they look, but for sake of simplicity, this breaks down to: $.08 per viewer throughout the year.

---

Your proposed 80 Episode Soap:
Budget: 18.5 million
80 Episodes

We've seen these 80 episode soaps fail in the US in primetime on cable, and on network TV. Using your logic, people are less likely to watch during the day too. They also do not have the tradition of GH, Y&R etc. I'll generously give them 1,000,000 viewers, but I think 600,000 is more likely.

Average viewers: 1,000,0000
Total viewers: 80,000,000
Total ad revenue: 6.4 million
------

In summary, what on Earth are you talking about? The yearly soap loses 10 million on average throughout an entire year, and the 80 episode soap lost 12.1 million over a few months. That's not even including the additional costs a new soap would have as far as casting, producing a pilot, testing, research etc.

If you think every daily soap is dying, that's fine, but it's completely insane to think 80 episodes is doable.

david46208
david46208's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 days 8 hours ago
Joined: Jan 15 2009
Posts:
@thebookerman: So you got

@thebookerman: So you got several things wrong. So let me correct them as I go along.

"This is my last post here, as this is really boring. Your own arguments continually contradict each other. Let's just look at your idea for an 80 episode soap replacing round year soaps.

Current soap
Budget: 60 million.
260 Episodes
Budget per episode: $231,000

Let's assume right now the network gets 50 million in advertising a year for this soap.
Ad Revenue: 50 million.
Average viewers per episode: 2.5 million
Total viewers per year: 650 million.

Obviously, there are different demographics that they look, but for sake of simplicity, this breaks down to: $.08 per viewer throughout the year."

You should have worked with $50 million. But let's keep it here. So I can use the next part to show the fallacy in your logic.
-------------------------------------

"Your proposed 80 Episode Soap:
Budget: 18.5 million
80 Episodes

We've seen these 80 episode soaps fail in the US in primetime on cable, and on network TV. Using your logic, people are less likely to watch during the day too. They also do not have the tradition of GH, Y&R etc. I'll generously give them 1,000,000 viewers, but I think 600,000 is more likely.

Average viewers: 1,000,0000
Total viewers: 80,000,000
Total ad revenue: 6.4 million
------

The salaries of actors, EP's and Writer's on current daytime drama's are generally factored into the cost to produce a soap per year. Think if you subtract MTS (around 900,000) and Eric Braden's (around 1.2 million) salaries from the total cost of production of Y&R that takes us down to 57,900,000.

Now let's assume that long term vets like Peter Bergman & Jeanne Cooper are each making $800,000, Michelle Stafford $700,000 (due to her status) and Sharon Case, Jousha Marrow, Doug Davidson and Christain J. Lablanc are making around $500,000. If we subtract their salaries from the 57,900,00 then we end up with 54,100,000.

And some of the heavy hitters on contract like Debbie Morgan, Stephen Nichols and Genie Francis would be a total say $2,100,000 for all 3.

EP, Maria Bell get's 34k a week that's about $1,76,8000.

We end up with around $51,823,200.

Include 2 co-headwiters at about say S1,300,000 and we're at about $49,223,200.

Also we have not even included 24 other contract players and 2 heavily used recurring characters and 17 other recurring characters whom most range from 1 to 18 years with Y&R....You don't want those numbers to be factored in.

We also have not included scriptwriters, Admin staff, directors, set designers, makeup/hair artist, camera people, etc.

So if we use your number for the cost of production of a Novella style soap $18.5 million, it's 1/3 of the cost of production compared to a 260 episode soap opera.

You don't have to pay actors big salaries to do a Novella style soap. The most expensive actor would generally make the daytime average of about $150,000-200,000 for doing the series if they are a lead and from $50,000 to 120,000 if they are supporting or another lesser recurring character. And I'm sure like they did with HH's on Nick that they would use a mix of known and unknown actors.

The EP's and writers are also not not making anywhere close to what they do on a 260 episode daytime drama.

The advertisers would thus pay around the same amount they do for ad space during a regular soap for the new model or even a bit less. Thus, the savings for the network and/or the production studio is worth it.

------
"In summary, what on Earth are you talking about? The yearly soap loses 10 million on average throughout an entire year, and the 80 episode soap lost 12.1 million over a few months. That's not even including the additional costs a new soap would have as far as casting, producing a pilot, testing, research etc.

If you think every daily soap is dying, that's fine, but it's completely insane to think 80 episodes is doable."

So in summary, when you look at the cost factors, the network is spending less. So the risk with going with a soap that could average over 1 million viewers that only last 3 months is an investment risk that is far better from a business perspective then a daytime drama.

thebookerman
Offline
Last seen: 9 weeks 6 days ago
Joined: Oct 12 2011
Posts:
What........??? So, not only

What........??? So, not only are actors going to do this for a smaller percentage, but they're going to take less money per episode to do it? No, that's not happening. If anything, they're asking for MORE per episode when you run a shorter season.

I am far from an expert on telenovelas, but there are several "big" names that show up on a few different projects a year. They are definitely not working for minimum contracts like you would lead me to believe.

As for the writers and producers, I disagree. You need people who are good at their job as you have to win them over from the very first episode, otherwise the project is a complete bust. They definitely have quality talent behind the scenes.

And no, the risk is not lower. The networks know what they are getting year in and year out with these established soaps. You have no idea what to expect from a new show. Best case scenario you lose a lot of money, worst case scenario you lose a **** ton of money.

If you don't think people are going to watch a soap with rich history, somewhat recognizable actors, and something they have grown up with, what makes you think they are going to watch one that has none of those qualities?

david46208
david46208's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 days 8 hours ago
Joined: Jan 15 2009
Posts:
@thebookerman:

@thebookerman: "What........??? So, not only are actors going to do this for a smaller percentage, but they're going to take less money per episode to do it? No, that's not happening. If anything, they're asking for MORE per episode when you run a shorter season."

That's correct. Eric Braeden could not reap 1.2 million for 80 episodes of a 3 month drama series. Nor could others. A new model means new negotiation methods. A Novella is not treated like a traditional daytime drama. In the traditional format they negotiate upwards of 3 or multi-year deals. In this model they are not going to payout high expenditures to actors. Those who want to work will adjust to the cost factor.

When soaps moved from the radio to television actors who had appeared on the radio soaps took pay cuts to get in on the new model called Television. Popular actors are getting pennies on the dollar to do a web series. And many are working for free because they see the possibilities for web soaps and they get more diverse roles. So getting 200k to work on Novella is not going to be a problem with them.
----------

"I am far from an expert on telenovelas, but there are several "big" names that show up on a few different projects a year. They are definitely not working for minimum contracts like you would lead me to believe."

Telenovella's are a billion dollar industry in Central and South America. They've been around for decades. When you are making that kind of money popular actors and actresses can require and request Hugh-payouts and negotiate multi-series contracts.

The long-term success of Novella's here will ultimately be the marker for future salary and budget increases. But they will never mirror daytime as we now know it again.
-------
"As for the writers and producers, I disagree. You need people who are good at their job as you have to win them over from the very first episode, otherwise the project is a complete bust. They definitely have quality talent behind the scenes."

I said nothing about the quality of the writers and producers. But they won't be making anywhere close to 2 million or 200k for that fact. Once a writer/creator has proven themselves with a few successful series under their belt bidding wars by networks will start to ensue and then they can go to the highest bidder.
------------

"And no, the risk is not lower. The networks know what they are getting year in and year out with these established soaps. You have no idea what to expect from a new show. Best case scenario you lose a lot of money, worst case scenario you lose a **** ton of money."

Yep the networks know what they are getting year in and year out with the current lineup. A sinking ship where they are losing money. Because they they are paying out 50 mil to produce a soap that is not turning a profit. If you are spending more than you are bringing in or just barely breaking even investors are not happy. The cheaper it cost and the less commitment the investor has the more likely they are to go with it.

When network exes sit in a board room and go over their televisions line-up's they are looking at if the cost of production vs ratings is equating to higher ad rates and thus bringing in profit.

So thus like with a reality TV show if it does not turn out to do well they can move on to another series because the commitment short.
-----

"If you don't think people are going to watch a soap with rich history, somewhat recognizable actors, and something they have grown up with, what makes you think they are going to watch one that has none of those qualities?"

Networks don't care about rich history. Almost every canceled soap had rich history. Come on now. Leave the emotional connection out of it. This is purely about business.

You're not going to be able to go up to Les Moonves (President of CBS) and appeal to him because Y&R has rich history or because you could not live without Nikki, Victor or Kathrine. You wanna see rich history go to youtube and check out the clips. This is a business first and always has been. It is a cutthroat world out there.

You and I are just a ratings number. And when that number goes down finales are in the air. See in primetime this is just the way it has been. Why are we entitled to special treatment? Especially when the lowly rated primetime series bring in more money than a daytime soap and still gets canceled.

So a novella is not trying to hook a viewer for 50 or more years to it. It is like a novel. You read it from page 1 to page 500 and then you are done. That's the commitment factor. And in this day and age that is the model that has the most optional ability to work.

otalia4ever
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 17 weeks ago
Joined: Apr 13 2009
Posts:
Will they be changing the

Will they be changing the title of GH to OLTL 2.0? Don't care to see any of the OLTL characters on the show. Don't get me wrong, I watched OLTL till the end of their demise.

The only people I would love to see is Todd 2.0 and Tea.

GHLVR
GHLVR's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 30 weeks ago
Joined: Jun 27 2012
Posts:
WOW..LMAO..that last post is

WOW..LMAO..that last post is soooo definitely in the wrong place!!! Shock Wonder what thread that belongs to? LOL

gato1
gato1's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 4 days ago
Joined: Oct 29 2009
Posts:
When did penis size come into

When did penis size come into this???

david46208
david46208's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 days 8 hours ago
Joined: Jan 15 2009
Posts:
@gato1: I don't know...I

@gato1: I don't know...I think that poster is a spammer.