what did bransen do at amc? he wasnt anything great there, and gh definitely want help him better. in fact, he would add to the boringness already on there. but this is frons ruining abc. those choices besides chappelle and tognoni(its her old role) actually stink. no offer for kz,rn,jd,rr,ga?
the only hope daytime has is for atwt to turn around because only y&r is relevant lately.
'Guiding Light' signing off? Will you miss it? Mar 30, 2009, 04:34 PM | by Lynette Rice
Somebody book the Elks Lodge for the retirement party to end all retirement parties: It appears The Guiding Light, TV's longest-running daytime drama, is on the verge of cancellation. An insider close to the sudser confirmed a report that the low-rated series (a mere 2.17 million) will likely be dropped from the eye's daytime schedule once its contract expires in September. CBS will have to make a decision within the next few weeks to give the show time to craft a goodbye for fans -- but it also needs time to hunt for a replacement. A game show or a Tyra Banks-like chatfest are the most obvious candidates, because it seems all but certain that CBS won't follow Light with another daytime drama -- why dump more cash into a dying genre? -- which is why all fans of daytime dramas should be crestfallen (not to mention scared as hell) about this latest development.
I've never watched Guiding Light -- I'm a Jack-Abbott-loving, why-can't-Victor-stick-with-women-his-own-age fan of Young and the Restless myself -- but I will mourn its loss, regardless. The death of any daytime soap is a major blow to the genre as a whole. Daytime sudsers have taken a beating for many years now (their prime-time counterparts are stealing all the thunder, man!) but stalwarts like General Hospital and Restless have managed to hang on because there are still women (and men) out there who can't go a day without them. But those numbers are dwindling, as evidenced by the networks' desperate attempts to keep their soaps relevant (more telenovela-like, short story arcs! More young stars! More multi-platform gimmicks!) Light thought it came up with a clever way to keep the gals engaged by going gonzo with its low-cost, hand-held camera work (see the clip below), but the tactic only managed to alienate its already anemic fan base (it's now the least-watched soap in daytime). It's no wonder that CBS has finally decided to turn out the Light for good.
What do you think? Will you miss Guiding Light? Do you think the genre's days are numbered?
Posts: 5378 | Location: New York/California | Registered: September 30, 2006
Originally posted by east/west: 'Guiding Light' signing off? Will you miss it? Mar 30, 2009, 04:34 PM | by Lynette Rice
Somebody book the Elks Lodge for the retirement party to end all retirement parties: It appears The Guiding Light, TV's longest-running daytime drama, is on the verge of cancellation. An insider close to the sudser confirmed a report that the low-rated series (a mere 2.17 million) will likely be dropped from the eye's daytime schedule once its contract expires in September. CBS will have to make a decision within the next few weeks to give the show time to craft a goodbye for fans -- but it also needs time to hunt for a replacement. A game show or a Tyra Banks-like chatfest are the most obvious candidates, because it seems all but certain that CBS won't follow Light with another daytime drama -- why dump more cash into a dying genre? -- which is why all fans of daytime dramas should be crestfallen (not to mention scared as hell) about this latest development.
I've never watched Guiding Light -- I'm a Jack-Abbott-loving, why-can't-Victor-stick-with-women-his-own-age fan of Young and the Restless myself -- but I will mourn its loss, regardless. The death of any daytime soap is a major blow to the genre as a whole. Daytime sudsers have taken a beating for many years now (their prime-time counterparts are stealing all the thunder, man!) but stalwarts like General Hospital and Restless have managed to hang on because there are still women (and men) out there who can't go a day without them. But those numbers are dwindling, as evidenced by the networks' desperate attempts to keep their soaps relevant (more telenovela-like, short story arcs! More young stars! More multi-platform gimmicks!) Light thought it came up with a clever way to keep the gals engaged by going gonzo with its low-cost, hand-held camera work (see the clip below), but the tactic only managed to alienate its already anemic fan base (it's now the least-watched soap in daytime). It's no wonder that CBS has finally decided to turn out the Light for good.
What do you think? Will you miss Guiding Light? Do you think the genre's days are numbered?
I will miss it terribly. Words can't even express.
Originally posted by east/west: 'Guiding Light' signing off? Will you miss it? Mar 30, 2009, 04:34 PM | by Lynette Rice
Somebody book the Elks Lodge for the retirement party to end all retirement parties: It appears The Guiding Light, TV's longest-running daytime drama, is on the verge of cancellation. An insider close to the sudser confirmed a report that the low-rated series (a mere 2.17 million) will likely be dropped from the eye's daytime schedule once its contract expires in September. CBS will have to make a decision within the next few weeks to give the show time to craft a goodbye for fans -- but it also needs time to hunt for a replacement. A game show or a Tyra Banks-like chatfest are the most obvious candidates, because it seems all but certain that CBS won't follow Light with another daytime drama -- why dump more cash into a dying genre? -- which is why all fans of daytime dramas should be crestfallen (not to mention scared as hell) about this latest development.
I've never watched Guiding Light -- I'm a Jack-Abbott-loving, why-can't-Victor-stick-with-women-his-own-age fan of Young and the Restless myself -- but I will mourn its loss, regardless. The death of any daytime soap is a major blow to the genre as a whole. Daytime sudsers have taken a beating for many years now (their prime-time counterparts are stealing all the thunder, man!) but stalwarts like General Hospital and Restless have managed to hang on because there are still women (and men) out there who can't go a day without them. But those numbers are dwindling, as evidenced by the networks' desperate attempts to keep their soaps relevant (more telenovela-like, short story arcs! More young stars! More multi-platform gimmicks!) Light thought it came up with a clever way to keep the gals engaged by going gonzo with its low-cost, hand-held camera work (see the clip below), but the tactic only managed to alienate its already anemic fan base (it's now the least-watched soap in daytime). It's no wonder that CBS has finally decided to turn out the Light for good.
What do you think? Will you miss Guiding Light? Do you think the genre's days are numbered?
I will miss it terribly. Words can't even express.
.....I never do this but here is Les Moonves number at CBS....call to complain that cancelling GL is a mistake: 212-975-4321....
Yes, it's beyond time to call. Thank you Chuck for posting that number here. I implore fans of the entire genre to write & call. Losing the grand dame herself will certainly be the beginning of the end days of American daytime television as we know it.
Please remember not to fly off the handle, but be as calm, direct, and reasonable while writing and calling. DO IT NOW!
Posts: 1337 | Location: New York | Registered: April 29, 2003
I called today and the operator will switch you to a comment line. She said there is no confirmation that they are cancelling the show but of course that's what she is going to say until and if there is an official announcement.
- Philip sentenced to a lengthy prison sentence for kidnapping and released like nothing happened THE NEXT DAY. Because Beth and Bill had a chat with the governor for five minutes? No, wait! It's because James slept with the governor's daughter and used her influence! Who the hell governs that way!?
- James Spaulding sets the land speed record for making me want to kill off a character. I never saw Zac Conroy on ATWT, but I want him to take his Zac-Efron-wannabe hair and get off my screen.
- Evil Edmund is back! ... Again ... Yawn. I was sick of this rerun the third time I saw it.
- I'm sorry, but I've never bought Reva's pregnancy. This character went through a menopause storyline a few years ago. Now seeing this infant Colin -- who has a teenage niece mind you -- is just weird.
- Dinah's lawsuit against herself was pointless, stupid.
- Mallet and Marina still aren't an interesting couple.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: 742,
"A movie is not good because it arrives at conclusions you share, or bad because it does not. A movie is not about what it is about. It is about how it is about it: about the way it considers its subject matter, and about how its real subject may be quite different from the one it seems to provide." - Roger Ebert, from the introduction to "Awake in the Dark" (2006)
Not viable enough for me. Frankly, the show took too long getting rid of Tom Pelphrey. I was in no hurry for a replacement. And though I liked John Driscoll, he didn't really leave a void that needed to be filled. Why not just tell stories about the remaining characters? The last thing we need is more young hair models to take attention away from the talent.
"A movie is not good because it arrives at conclusions you share, or bad because it does not. A movie is not about what it is about. It is about how it is about it: about the way it considers its subject matter, and about how its real subject may be quite different from the one it seems to provide." - Roger Ebert, from the introduction to "Awake in the Dark" (2006)
Am I the only one laughing out loud during those scenes in "Bosnia"? I wonder if the New Jersey Turnpike is just over those hills.
"A movie is not good because it arrives at conclusions you share, or bad because it does not. A movie is not about what it is about. It is about how it is about it: about the way it considers its subject matter, and about how its real subject may be quite different from the one it seems to provide." - Roger Ebert, from the introduction to "Awake in the Dark" (2006)
He played Leo last summer. He was the boy who gave Liberty spiked brownies and Brad ended up throwing him in the lake almost killing him. He did die later I think, he wasnt on long and didnt really have more than a handful of meaningful scenes.
I want to like this show so much, especially since it's going off the air, but everything that isn't Olivia/Natalia is just awful. Today's show -- and it looks like several to follow -- is devoted to Bill and Lizzie's romantic getaway to Universal Studios, where a whole scene was spent watching the two of them dueling with lightsabers. It reminds me of one of those special, family-vacation episodes of "Family Matters" or "Growing Pains," except cheaper and dumber. Where is this new-and-improved "Guiding Light" everyone has been talking about?
"A movie is not good because it arrives at conclusions you share, or bad because it does not. A movie is not about what it is about. It is about how it is about it: about the way it considers its subject matter, and about how its real subject may be quite different from the one it seems to provide." - Roger Ebert, from the introduction to "Awake in the Dark" (2006)
Originally posted by 742: I want to like this show so much, especially since it's going off the air, but everything that isn't Olivia/Natalia is just awful. Today's show -- and it looks like several to follow -- is devoted to Bill and Lizzie's romantic getaway to Universal Studios, where a whole scene was spent watching the two of them dueling with lightsabers. It reminds me of one of those special, family-vacation episodes of "Family Matters" or "Growing Pains," except cheaper and dumber. Where is this new-and-improved "Guiding Light" everyone has been talking about?
Well you can't exclude what you like about the show and just judge it what you don't like and act like that's the whole show. LOL?
WILLIAM PETERSEN: Well, this is a shock. The only explanation for this is that somehow in the last year, every one of you tried to act with rubber gloves and tweezers.
Posts: 6623 | Location: NY | Registered: December 01, 2002
With respect to engaged actors Robert Bogue and Mandy Bruno: their Guiding Light characters, A.C. Mallet and Marina Cooper, are so ill-suited I have been turned off since this coupling emerged.
I wish nothing but the best for the real-life couple … but Mallet and Marina make no sense.
I always thought that Bogue's best on-screen chemistry, of the romantic kind (of course), was with Emmy-winner Gina Tognoni's Dinah Marler. I am also one who believes, from a character standpoint, that Mallet's truelove was Harley Cooper; but that duo worked best when Mark Derwin played A.C. from 1990-93 (his leading lady, Beth Ehlers, was on from 1987-93 and 1997-2008). Years after Derwin's exit, and with Bogue taking on the reactivated role in 2005, I saw that Mallet and Dinah worked for the times.
With Marina, GL never found the right dance partner for the character while the role has been portrayed by Bruno. I like the bubbly actress plenty, but the other figures on the Springfield canvas did not make a strong, romantic connection with Marina. Alan-Michael, as played by Michael Dempsey, was odd. Cyrus, as played by Murray Bartlett, was a little intriguing but with no signs of greatness. But ultimately, little has worked.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: DS0816,
I agree with you, DS0816. I like Mandy Bruno well enough, and I like Rob Bogue too, but this coupling doesn't work well on-screen. And though I make no judgments about the real-life couple, the obvious age difference is off-putting on-screen. Maybe that's why none of Bruno's couplings have worked on the show. The writers turned her into a police officer in a second flat, and since then they've been pairing her with men who are too old for her. Cyrus, Alan-Michael, now Mallet, and if I remember correctly Danny before them.
The problem with that, however, is that it leaves no one to pair her with romantically. She's too old for the young set, and she's too young to be picking from the pool of grownups like Mallet and Cyrus. (Then again, I don't think Cyrus has ever or could ever be a viable romantic lead, since he's a total creep.) But maybe that's okay. I don't see why characters must be paired off all the time. Romance is the backbone of daytime soaps, but why not let a character like Marina be single for a while and explore storylines that involve just her, instead of passing her off from one suitor to the next?
Of course, I suppose it's too late for that. With the show ending in less than four months, it appears Mallet and Marina will have to be the endgame.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: 742,
"A movie is not good because it arrives at conclusions you share, or bad because it does not. A movie is not about what it is about. It is about how it is about it: about the way it considers its subject matter, and about how its real subject may be quite different from the one it seems to provide." - Roger Ebert, from the introduction to "Awake in the Dark" (2006)
Bruno's romantic pairings don't work because she's as dry as wall paint. She's better off as a talk-to character. Michael Dempsey shouldn't have been axed. Alan-Michael should've stayed and Marina should've been recast.
Originally posted by syrus80: Bruno's romantic pairings don't work because she's as dry as wall paint. She's better off as a talk-to character. Michael Dempsey shouldn't have been axed. Alan-Michael should've stayed and Marina should've been recast.
