- This topic has 4 replies, 4 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 11 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
hope this isn’t the wrong place to post. This is sad how daytime shows are being eliminated along with all the jobs that are connected to them.
I think the writing is on the wall for all of the Soap Operas. I hate to think it, though that is the way the arrow is pointing as I see it. I just hope that when it does happen to Days the writer’s don’t leave loose ends or tie them up too quickly.
I’ve only ever watched "Days" so I’m not sure what the other soaps are like – although, several friends who watch other shows say that they are good too.
I’m wondering what the reason is for the end of the era of soaps – especially when it seems from "Salem Place" and other sites that there are a lot of die hard fans like me out there.
For instance, I love books, especially serial books where the characters develop in each book; I think this is the reason I love "Days" – you grow to love a story (or hate it sometimes) that never ends, you get to know the quirks of the characters, eventually, you are hooked and can’t stand to miss a episode.
If you think about it a lot of the shows on TV are in essence "soaps", i.e., from dramas like "House", "Bones", Law and Order, to comedies like "Fraiser", "Every One Loves Raymond" (I can’t think of any new comedies at the moment)…but it’s the same premise knowing the actors, their history, as the basic story line unfolds. I sure hope that "Days" stays!
1. Less woman stay at home these days
2. Many people "tape" their soaps and watch them later which until recently was not counted in the Nielson ratings
3. More channels to select from during the day. It used to be you only had a couple stations to choice from, now you can watch History, science, lifetime, etc.
4. It is much cheaper to create a talk show or game show, which can draw in just as big of an audience these days. For some reason we are obsessed with people real messed up lives. So why not replace a soap with a show that is MUCH cheaper to produce.
5. Budget cuts because of the above 4 reasons have made soaps lose viewers. They can’t keep all the expensive actors and actresses, they have less and not as good writers, and sets and other things are not as good.
These are just some of the reasons I can think of, but I am sure others can think of more.
I think you hit the nail on the head with # 2, all I’ve ever done in 19 years is tape and now DVR – but then I’m not in a Nielsen ratings family, you’d think though that there would be other ways for the networks to monitor, through their advertising, fan mail, etc.
There may be more women in the workforce since 1965, however in 2009, the economy and job numbers are wayyyyyy down over the last 12 months so more people are at home watching t.v. Plus there are retired women (and men) who watch the show – (there are lot’s of retired folks out there).
I have 134 t.v. channels to watch – still nothing on the "boob" tube
however, I still only watch/DVR just the shows that I like, just as a sports fan would watch or DVR mostly golf, racing, football, etc. I so agree with you, all those games shows are cheaper to produce I’m sure. The same as the endless parade of "courtroom judges" fare and those babbling talk shows – all less expensive by far. However, I’d watch an actor put out their lines in a cardboard box if the storyline was good and the actor could carry it off.
I think those "expensive" actors and actresses (but for their union card) would gladly take a pay cut (as they have all waited tables, been in construction, etc. to make ends meet) just so they could practice their craft, given the economy and times we live. After all, in Rome, Greece and England they have just a play, stage, actors and the audience – and some of those era’s greatest plays, still done today are classics – it’s not the fur coats that Viv wears, or Kate’s jewlery, or Victor’s mansion, it’s the story line and actors that we fans want.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.