Jump to content


Welcome! Please take a second to register.


Photo

DAYS: TV Guide interviews Greg Meng


  • Please log in to reply
98 replies to this topic

#1 dragonflies

dragonflies

    Lifetimer

  • Members
  • 24,847 posts

Posted 10 April 2012 - 03:05 PM

http://www.tvguide.c...re-1045836.aspx
  • 0

#2 sungrey

sungrey

    Longing for a return to the old DAYS.

  • Members
  • 1,383 posts

Posted 10 April 2012 - 03:08 PM

Oh, crap. I have a feeling my association with Days is about to come to an end.
  • 0

#3 darraholic

darraholic

    Comin to snatch your babies.

  • Members
  • 3,680 posts

Posted 10 April 2012 - 03:09 PM

We all know DAYS will fire all the wrong people.
  • 0

#4 Eric83

Eric83

    SLAYONCE

  • Members
  • 9,308 posts

Posted 10 April 2012 - 03:12 PM

I bet the cliffhanger leading up to the Olympics will be weak.
  • 0

#5 Toups

Toups

    R.I.P. James E. Reilly

  • Administrator
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,523 posts

Posted 10 April 2012 - 03:18 PM

We all know DAYS will fire all the wrong people.

Drake Hogestyn, Deidre Hall, Peter Reckell, Kristian Alfonso, Christie Clark, Patrick Muldoon to start. Bank on it.
  • 0

#6 dragonflies

dragonflies

    Lifetimer

  • Members
  • 24,847 posts

Posted 10 April 2012 - 03:24 PM

Don't forget Matthew Ashford they ALWAYS fire him :(
  • 0

#7 Y&RWorldTurner

Y&RWorldTurner

    Lifetimer

  • Members
  • 20,210 posts

Posted 10 April 2012 - 03:35 PM

Honestly, is it a bad thing if they fired most of these people, especially the returnees?

I don't think they've much of anything for the show, let alone for the ratings.

Edited by Y&RWorldTurner, 10 April 2012 - 07:43 PM.

  • 0

#8 dragonflies

dragonflies

    Lifetimer

  • Members
  • 24,847 posts

Posted 10 April 2012 - 03:38 PM

Who has? That's always a weak argument people pull out.

Not much has helped ratings for soaps these days.

They should fire the pointless newbies, and even EJ, I wouldn't doubt James Scott is making some serious coin
  • 0

#9 sungrey

sungrey

    Longing for a return to the old DAYS.

  • Members
  • 1,383 posts

Posted 10 April 2012 - 03:44 PM

The point I made on the TV Guide website is that instead of rushing to whack the cast members, they should keep everyone and instead write compelling stories.

Right now, you're pretty much guaranteed more viewers walking depending on who gets let go.

This is the last thing Days needs. The show's signing a death wish.
  • 0

#10 Toups

Toups

    R.I.P. James E. Reilly

  • Administrator
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,523 posts

Posted 10 April 2012 - 03:44 PM

Honestly, is it a bad thing is they fired most of these people, especially the returnees?

Yes because then you limit the family connections, you lose that depth. Unless you want to use them as recurring but DAYS didn't do that the last time. Like when Grace died, they couldn't ask Deidre to come back for some back for some episodes? Okay fine, you don't want them in major storylines anymore but to not use them if they're available and willing to come back? I think that's wrong.
  • 0

#11 dragonflies

dragonflies

    Lifetimer

  • Members
  • 24,847 posts

Posted 10 April 2012 - 03:49 PM

What Toups said. I think the show is better off having these characters on the show. Cut some of them to recurring, I can live with that
  • 0

#12 sungrey

sungrey

    Longing for a return to the old DAYS.

  • Members
  • 1,383 posts

Posted 10 April 2012 - 03:52 PM

And recurring isn't necessarily a bad thing. Hell, some of the Guiding Light actors probably made more money on recurring in the final couple years.
  • 0

#13 dragonflies

dragonflies

    Lifetimer

  • Members
  • 24,847 posts

Posted 10 April 2012 - 03:52 PM

No it's not, I'd rather see them sporadically than not at all
  • 0

#14 AMCHistory

AMCHistory

    Veteran

  • Members
  • 1,667 posts

Posted 10 April 2012 - 03:55 PM

Is the note about cast members being dumped coming a surprise to anyone? First, the cast is huge. Second, the cast has to be expensive. Dee, Drake, and Missy could not have come back for pennies. Likewise, I do not see Sarah Brown and Ian coming in at union wage rate either.
  • 0

#15 Errol

Errol

    Editor in Chief, Soap Opera Network

  • Webmaster
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4,408 posts

Posted 10 April 2012 - 03:56 PM

I agree. Why immediately look to fire actors instead of learning how to write with what you've got and gradually insert or remove people. Just to do it in order to immediately increase ratings and attention won't help the show get renewed. It'll generate short-term interest, but not long-term viability.
  • 0

#16 quartermainefan

quartermainefan

    Lifetimer

  • Members
  • 6,183 posts

Posted 10 April 2012 - 03:56 PM

The hivemind of daytime and the certainty that only one way is right for every soap just never ends.


TV Guide Magazine: The late James Reilly brought Days some of its best ratings and greatest notoriety with premature burial, devil possession and other wackadoo stuff. There's been rumor that NBC wants to see a return to that. Do you see this happening in some form?
Meng: That worked at the time for the moment, but it's a different era now. We're finding people want more reality


Where are they finding these people? The people who went to see Twilight and Hunger Games or watch Game Of Thrones and watched Lost? Where are these throngs and why aren't they watching any of the soaps? Nothing in the current pop culture, or even the pop culture landscape of the last few years supports his statement or the vision of any of the soaps. A run down of the top grossing movies of the decade, the TV shows that became cult favorites like Lost, Battlestar and GoT, nowhere in current entertainment is there this insistence that people want babies, love triangles, and mundane reality mixed with the ho hum everyday. Considering their current audience is about 4 people, what have they got to lose going crazy?

Edited by quartermainefan, 10 April 2012 - 03:57 PM.

  • 0

#17 Y&RWorldTurner

Y&RWorldTurner

    Lifetimer

  • Members
  • 20,210 posts

Posted 10 April 2012 - 03:57 PM

But the thing is, the last time they cut these people (some of whom were cut before the last big firings), ratings soared and the budget had to have been less. Even if they later faltered.

Meng and others might think they need to trim the cast and focus on telling a real long-term story (well, as much as DAYS will be allowed to tell one), as they previously did with the baby switch a few years ago.

With ratings falling, especially the core demos, the show might not realistically be able to afford these people. They probably shouldn't have rehired them again knowing it would be too much of a financial burden in the first place.

Edited by Y&RWorldTurner, 10 April 2012 - 04:00 PM.

  • 0

#18 Eric83

Eric83

    SLAYONCE

  • Members
  • 9,308 posts

Posted 10 April 2012 - 03:59 PM

I honestly do not care if Drake Hogestyn is fired but leave Deidre Hall alone. John isn't needed, kill him off FOR GOOD.
  • 0

#19 AMCHistory

AMCHistory

    Veteran

  • Members
  • 1,667 posts

Posted 10 April 2012 - 04:03 PM

But the thing is, the last time they cut these people (some of whom were cut before the last big firings), ratings soared and the budget had to have been less. Even if they later faltered.


... and that was under Tomlin too right? Initially, with the shock of so many big name departures the show did seem foreign to me. But about a year into it, I did realise that I liked seeing some new faces in more prominent roles (most notably Suzanne and Maggie).

But I did feel like something was missing. The familiar feel was gone, and you could see they were slowly rebuilding it by filling out some of the families (e.g., reintroducing Justin/Adrianne, bringing back Missy(.

I would love for them to try and play with the current cast. Frankly, I do not think the cast in the problem with DAYS. It's a great character mix, and no one is egregiously untalented. Any characters who are let go at this point will be sad.
  • 0

#20 dragonflies

dragonflies

    Lifetimer

  • Members
  • 24,847 posts

Posted 10 April 2012 - 04:03 PM

For what reason? The death would be pointless, and a pointless death isn't going to do anything for the ratings or the show.

I'm not a fan of killing off vet characters unless it's absolutely necessary, cause 99.9% of the time it has no long term effects
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users