VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: [1]23 ]
Subject: Re: SB: A Decade Later


Author:
"CCCapwell"
[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]
Date Posted: 18:30:11 01/16/03 Thu
Author Host/IP: cache-mtc-ac07.proxy.aol.com/64.12.96.76
In reply to: Trey-Trey 's message, "Re: SB: A Decade Later" on 10:37:35 01/16/03 Thu

>I think I would have a lot more respect for the NBC >network if they admit they made a mistake by cancelling >Santa Barbara. Instead, Passions is their biggest success >story in decades.

In 1992, NBC named a MADMAN to head Daytime. A man who later was checked into a rehab clinic! No joke! :)
He was so crazy, after canceling SB, he proposed to
also CANCEL DAYS and AW! He believed non-soap programming was the way to go! Thankfully the senior NBC/GE execs took him away from Daytime and replaced him. This is part of the reason Corday let Reilly do his crazy stuff, Burried Alive, Satanic possessions. Corday knew that madman was serious if he had his way, so he let Reilly go crazy and it worked! DAYS increased its ratings. Remember, back then it was DAYS AW LOV for bottom three rated soaps.

>although I don't consider The City a "failure". The City >wasn't given time to grow, even AFTER they brought in a >new diva(Jane Elliot's Tracy Q, which is MUCH more >recogizable to the ABC audience.) .....The acting was >solid, and the show had the right feel. Perhaps with a >different set of head writers(that KNOW the genre, unlike >those talentless hacks), the show could have become an >instant hit?

Very well said! Had CITY been given talented writers, it could have been a better show in terms of quality and ratings. ABC were idiots to not have given CITY more time, I agree, but another 2 or 3 years with those hacks, the show wouldn't have improved. In CITYs case it was the network that failed rather than the show itself.


>I think the next step for soap operas is Eastenders-type >of drama. Where it doesn't matter if the actors are pretty >models and the shows focus on realism. It may take several >years to get back to this, but I think that is the next >wave of daytime drama.

That type of show will never work in the United States.
As much as people complain about looks over acting ability
they won't watch a soap with unattrative people, they just won't! The key is very simple, hire good looking actors who can act!

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:
Subject Author Date
looks matter butkyra16:24:36 01/17/03 Fri



Forum timezone: GMT-8
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.