Talk:Hollywood Wives (miniseries)

Success or Disappointment

I just edited the lead of the article, which read that the series was "a ratings success". In reality, this was touted to be a blockbuster miniseries, and then didn't reach those expectations. It didn't do terribly (part 1 was 7th in ratings for its week; part 2 was 13th, part 3 was 2nd, for the following week) but it was kind of seen as underperforming. See, e.g., [1] and [2]. Interestingly, from the time this was article was created in 2009 until August 2017, the article said something like this "was one of the most watched miniseries of the 1980s."[3] Does anyone have such a list ranking the golden age of the miniseries, that would be amazing to read! In August 2017, an editor changed the article say the series was a "disappointment"[4]. Much of that was reverted and we ended up with the lead saying it was "a rating success", but with the objective ratings also included in the article. Anyway, I just thought this was all interesting. I love that there are folks in the world who will stand up for a tawdry opulent 1985 miniseries, and other people saying, "no, it was a disappointment." I am a big fan of tracking what is popular in pop culture over time; anyone looking for historical ratings for miniseries and TV movies should please check out Wikipedia:List of U.S. television ratings archives as a finding aid. Cheers.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 17:08, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

I think the issue here is that it's all a point of view. The "Desert Sun" source above says the first episode finished 7th with a 22 rating and a 33 share. Any miniseries that can finish in 7th, 13th, and 2nd place (especially in 1985 when those rankings would translate into uber-millions of viewers) can only be described as a hit. Was it a "Roots"-style blockbuster? No. Was it a success? Undoubtedly. Whether it was one of the highest rated miniseries of the decade, I couldn't say. The issue with sources claiming that "ABC were disappointed by the numbers" etc doesn't really seem to bear up to scrutiny. Were ABC executives actually quoted as saying that, or was the columnist who wrote it merely stating their own opinion? In the "Desert Sun" source above, it seems that its the rival network execs from CBS and NBC who were calling the ratings disappointing. But they would, wouldn't they. ABC's exec merely says the first part was just a little below their own share prediction but that it still won the timeslot by a significant degree. It would be interesting to know what the actual ratings for the final part were, since that's the one that finished 2nd for the week. It may or may not be higher than the first part which finished 7th, because the rankings are only relative to each week. I don't have specific ratings info, but I do know that Dallas finished at #1 that week (episode "Shattered Dreams") so if Hollywood Wives part 3 finished at #2 then it must have at least beaten that week's episode of Dynasty ("The Collapse"), and Dynasty was that season's number 1 show. 79.73.7.118 (talk) 02:57, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Creative Consultant

Collins has stated on several occasions that even though she was credited as "Creative Consultant", she was never actually consulted about anything by the producers. I recall on a (1986?) episode of the Wogan chat show, she took umbrage to the casting of Andrew Stevens in particular as he was nothing like the character she created in the book (who was described as a Richard Gere/John Travolta type). I've found a source stating - in her own words - she was never consulted but its not a great source and has been flagged (Daily Mail, scumbag UK newspaper). Google brings up another source in the Baltimore Sun newspaper website, but I can't access it from my country. Can somebody in the US do it? 79.73.7.118 (talk) 03:59, 20 February 2021 (UTC)