DAYTIME’S TWO BIGGEST PSYCHOS RETURN!

written by Tom Smith, June 15, 2003

...is how some might tout the impending returns of Head Writers James E. Reilly and Megan McTavish to the shows that put them on the daytime map. But, here at SWI, I have a lot more class than that. I will examine all the facts surrounding these decisions, and after a thorough pondering of the particulars, will give my judgment in a reasonable manner.

(Did I mention that I’m on new medication today? It’s very relaxing.)

Let’s start with Mr. Reilly. After weeks of speculation/rumor-mongering, it was finally confirmed in none other than the June 3’rd edition of Variety, that James E. Reilly was returning to oversee Days. Here are lengthy extracts from the article written by Josef Adalian:

"NBC and Sony Pictures Television have inked a five-year deal worth nearly $500 million to keep hit sudser "Days of Our Lives" on the Peacock through May 2009. In addition, former "Days" head scribe Jim Reilly -- who left to create NBC sudser "Passions" -- has signed on to oversee writing on both skeins. Ken Corday will continue to exec produce "Days," the saga of the Horton and Brady families created by his parents nearly 40 years ago.

"Both pacts were engineered on the Peacock side by NBC senior VP of daytime Sheraton Kalouria, who's also been doing some dealmaking on his own behalf: Exec has just reupped for another three years as head of the daytime unit.

"Peacock now will shell out roughly $1.7 million-$1.8 million per week for "Days," down from the nearly $1.9 million the net had been paying. That figure still makes "Days" the most expensive sudser in daytime and is well above the $1.2 million NBC paid for "Days" five years ago.

"Days" remains a solid daytime performer, ranking first among women 18-34. Its numbers have slipped during the past 18 months, however, and the skein has surrendered its former hold on first place with women 18-49.

"Key to the "Days" deal was convincing Reilly to oversee both shows. Scribe helped the sudser soar to the top spot among women 18-49 during his first go-round as head writer from 1992-97, and with "Passions," he created what appears to be a long-term franchise for NBC.

"Corday had some initial concerns about Reilly splitting his time, but Kalouria said all parties ultimately realized it made sense to bring back Reilly.

"What Ken and I both agree on is that Jim is the right guy to be the creative leader overseeing the next wave of stories for 'Days,' " Kalouria said. "We saw in Jim someone who had a proven track record, and we wanted to bring him back."

"Corday also said he welcomed Reilly's return.

"I had qualms about it at first only because it's a huge task to write five shows a week, and now you're asking him to write 10 shows," he said. "But Jim has the appetite and the skills, so away we go."

In case you don’t speak Varie-tiese, here’s the translation: James E. Reilly will be in control of writing on both Days of our Lives and Passions. Whether he will be "going it alone" (i.e., is Dena Higley already out of a job?) isn’t clear yet. NBC wanted Reilly back at Days. Getting Reilly back was a key part of renewing Days for another five years. NBC Daytime vice-president Sheraton Kalouria has also signed up for another three years in his current position. Also, NBC will be paying more money to air Days.

Now, let’s look at the good and the bad sides of Reilly’s return.

THE GOOD:

--A proven ratings track record. Reilly took Days to number 2 in the ratings, and created the demo lock the show has today.

--New viewers. No doubt that Reilly brought in a lot of new viewers to Days, something that daytime is always in need of. In fact, Reilly’s DAYS run was probably the last time a soap achieved a significant influx of new viewers.

--Humor. The main reason why Reilly got away with things that no other writer would even dare is the tongue-in-cheek, "Naked Gun" style of humor Reilly brought to his outrageous plots. His storylines were absurdly twisted, and clearly not to be taken seriously, which is a refreshing change from say, recent storylines from "All My Children", which demands that you not only take them seriously, but bow at their feet for being the crown jewel in daytime. Yet, Reilly’s Days humor wasn’t the self-conscious "humor" of Passions, which tries to be wacky and irreverent, but is actually just dumb.

--Easy to follow stories. No, soaps don’t have to be written on a fourth grade level for the audience to understand them. (In fact, that school of thought combining with the increasing educational background of their audience is causing a major disconnect between viewers of soaps and the folks that produce them.) However, it is nice to have storylines that can be explained to a new viewer, in, let’s say, five minutes! Hey, it’s even better to have storylines that viewers can explain at all! Reilly’s stories, wacky as they were, could be easily summarized. "What’s wrong with that lady?" "She’s possessed by the Devil." "Hey, why’s that guy going to the gas chamber?" "Well, you see he was set up for murdering a guy, but he didn’t. And now, his girlfriend is going to the guy’s father, who has the proof, to beg for his life." Great. Now, explain Princess Gina, or the alien twins. Subsequent writers have attempted to duplicate the outrageousness of Reilly, without following the KISS philosophy. They created absurdly complicated storylines no one could follow, and weren’t really worth following. And the constant writer changes, and other stops and starts haven’t helped. ("Yeah, I know we said we were finally going to resolve this decades long Stefano/Bradys feud, and we spent months building up to it, but let’s just drop it." Yes, it’s always a good idea to casually announce you’re dropping stories to the ever-shrinking circulation of soap magazines.) To non-viewers, casual viewers, and daily viewers alike, the post-Reilly message was loud and clear: Days is a show that’s hard to follow, and not worth following. Well, the ratings reflect the receiving of that message.

THE BAD

--Reilly is nuts. Okay, I just felt like getting that off my chest.

--Young people are fickle. NBC clearly wants a young-skewing audience, and believes that getting Reilly back to Days will achieve that goal. But, what young people are into changes every five minutes. What worked in 1997 may not reach them in 2003. Reilly’s Days was lengthy, simplistic, tongue in cheek storylines, with two-dimensional characters. If we take the WB as the pulse of what teens and twenty-somethings want from their TV viewing, today’s trend is more well-rounded characters, heavy romantic entanglements, family drama, with just a dash of a gimmick. Reilly is all gimmick.

-- Passions. Passions makes the best arguement against Reilly‘s return. Unlike John Conboy or Michael Malone, Reilly did not disappear for several years, leaving behind only fond memories that left us anticipating his return to daytime. Reilly left Days to create and write Passions. And, if the past four years of Passions are any indication, Reilly’s writing is lazier, more cardboard, and more gimmicky than ever before. You may counter that Days and Passions are two separate shows, and Reilly will adjust accordingly. Or that Reilly will have more checks and balances at Days (Ken Corday’s baby) than Passions (Reilly’s baby). I argue that NBC putting Reilly in charge of writing an entire network’s daytime lineup will give him an even bigger ego than ever, and embolden him to be more reckless with both shows than he’s been in the past.

As for checks and balances, over the past several months, Ken Corday has been railing against the Reillyism (my word, not his) that had taken over the show. He has declared that Days needs to get back to basics, and has even taken some steps in that direction. It seemed to be working, with the duo of Peter Brash and Paula Cwikly routinely making silk purses out of sow’s ears like Sami Scams Austin part 12, and the Hope/Lexie baby switch madness. So, what happened? Muttering something about budget expenses, Corday has since axed Cwikly/Brash and promoted Dena Higley, who so far has written basically non-events like the Salem earthquake and mystery goop. But, when it came to a showdown with NBC, Corday blinked. Do you think that Reilly will take Days back to its’ roots? No, but NBC wants him there, and is willing to pay the big bucks to get it done. And in a era where soaps may really be coming to an end, signing this deal will keep Ken Corday, and hundreds of other folks employed for the next five years at least. Product be damned, it’s a good business decision for Corday. Of course, he’ll now have to do yet another 180 and support whatever nonsense Reilly comes up, and will like an even bigger, more contradictory fool than ever. But, that doesn‘t seem to bother Mr. Corday.

So, what‘s the bottom line? I can see the appeal of wanting James E. Reilly to helm Days. But, I think Reilly’s best days are behind him, and NBC giving him this much power won’t inspire him to heights of new greatness. Also, I can’t help but wonder what’s driving all this. If you are only as good as your latest rating, well, Days, as convoluted and unwatchable as it’s been, has maintained significantly higher Household and key demo ratings than Reilly’s Passions, unless you count 12-17 year old females. Overall, it seems to me that there’s more going against a Reilly return than for it. But, NBC is notoriously short-sighted. Speaking of which...

Several weeks ago, the stunning announcement was made that Ms. McTavish, formerly of All My Children, Guiding Light, All My Children, One Life to Live, and General Hospital, would be taking over the Head writer position of....All My Children. McTavish recently spoke to Soap Opera Weekly, about life in Pine Valley the third time around:

SOW: How will you alter the direction of the show?

McTavish: I wouldn't say 'alter'. I am trying to take it back to the show I wrote before, one that offered payoffs to big stories, with a lot of twists and turns that encompassed romantic couples. I'm taking it back to what it once was---certainly what it was the two times I wrote it before. All My Children is a very unique show that blends outrageous story with very dramatic, social-issue story. I am taking it back to what it was in its glory days.

So, there you have it. McTavish sees her previous tenures at AMC (both of them) as the glory days of the show. I will admit to having enjoyed much of her first tenure (when Felicia Minei Behr was Executive Producer, and Creator Agnes Nixon had more of a hands-on role), but I would hardly call it the show’s glory days. And the less said about McTavish’s ratings-killing, widely panned second tenure, which brought Agnes Nixon out of retirement. But, if I were her, and ABC was willing to bring me back for my third tenure as Head Writer of All My Children, and my fifth tenure as a Head Writer of an ABC soap, I’d feel cocky too. Of course, this is the same network that idolizes Port Charles’ Head Writers James Harmon Brown and Barbara Esensten for cranking up the buzz-o-meter on that show, even though nothing they’ve done has translated to long-term ratings success. Of course, that also happened with Esensten/Brown’s tenures on Loving and The City! ABC seems to have a Nora Buchanan sized case of amnesia here.

In fact, if you factor McTavish’s return with the Reilly story, and the return of Michael Malone/Josh Griffith to One Life to Live, it appears daytime is returning to the early to mid-90’s to restore high ratings to the soaps. And, why not? Ratings were about three points higher a decade ago than they are now. Of course, what wasn’t present ten years ago, was micromanging, massive budget cuts, and an insane obsession with youth that is making fools of some of the best writers daytime has to offer, and turning soap institutions into unwatchable shells of their former selves.

But, even if none of that were the case, one seriously has to question the wisdom of re-hiring Megan McTavish. With the exception of her first tenure at AMC, everything the woman has done resulted in disaster. She has bored/insulted/offended the audience of every soap she’s worked at over the past several years. As one message board poster said, "Megan McTavish may not deserve the rap she’s gotten, but she hasn’t done anything to clear her name." How can she continue to coast on three medium years at AMC?

McTavish’s umpteenth stab at soapdom is made even worse by the fact the she’s replacing recently installed Head Writers Gordon Rayfield and Anna Teresa Cascio, who have resided in Pine Valley about six months or less. Rayfield was a staff writer on AMC for years; Cascio was a staff writer at OLTL. The team was supposed to be part of the new blood that everybody working in daytime swears is needed, but refuses to infuse. Wasn’t it a few scant months ago that ABC Daytime President Brian Frons was gushing to Soap Opera Digest about Rayfield/Cascio’s story outlines, and that he shared them with Agnes Nixon, and they almost brought on a second world flood with their tears of joy, over how these two wunderkinds were going to bring AMC back to its’ roots? (Okay, I exaggerated just a bit. Meds must be wearing off.)

I’m not going to say that the outgoing team was the greatest, or even good. But, in an environment were well-identified, clearly labeled hacks go on torturing audiences for years before being released, I can’t justify how two highly touted novices to Head Writing were tossed before they could even get their feet wet. I mean, I’ve seen worse stuff on AMC than what they turned out, most of it from McTavish! Stupid mistakes like these have cost Frons all the good will he built up from his "Preach it, brother!" interviews he conducted last year. Frons has joined the ranks of those who would be better off if he actually believed and practiced everything he said about producing good soap opera. I mean, why spout these things about hiring new blood, if you’re going to betray yourself as a liar three months later? Maybe the daytime bigwigs have developed amnesia, but I haven’t.

"Megan McTavish may not deserve the rap she’s gotten, but she hasn’t done anything to clear her name."

That's probably the best description of McTavish ever. The sad part is that I still have many good memories of her writing, including 2003/up to early 2005, because when she is good, she can be superb. But when she's bad, look out. I guess that type of up and down can be something which you would rather see than a lot of empty nothing, but she never, ever seemed to be able to have any type of consistency, unless you count consistent badness in her last few years at AMC.

As for Reilly -- do you think his DAYS in his second run was easy to understand? I think it was to a point, although Melaswen and all that always confused me when I would watch. I kept getting confused over who was really dead and who was faking their death and who was brought back from the dead and then it seemed like they would have, say, John think Marlena was dead, then they'd reunite, then wait, now he REALLY thinks she's dead, and at one time didn't she think he was dead? And Jack "died" like four times didn't he?

And the funny thing is, I believe McTavish and Reilly shared the same agent...

It certainly did seem that Frons came in, thought "hrmm when did OLTL and AMC last do well in the ratings" saw it was under McTavish/Malone-Griffith and hire them. But as issaidabove, the shows weren't so micromanaged them (as well as tons of other elements).

I know many feel even McTavish's first AMC run wasn't true to the show, but to me it was better than "medium" AMC, it was often very very good. I admit, I hate how some of her non-fans hate to even give her credit for anything good in that time ("obviously Agnes was heavily involved--even though she spent all of 1994 headwriting Loving" tough I do give FMB a lot of credit). As Carl said, the woman DOES have talent, which makes her long runs of utter suckage all the more head scratching... And while I didn't much care for the work of Rayfield/Cascio (and I think now we can admititwas obvious Frons just saw them as an interim solution till he could hire McT or someone), I agree with the article that it did seem counterproductive to promote them to HW and then not give them much of a chance...

Soap "critics" are free to say whatever they want about shows, and I, Marlena De Lacroix (Connie P.) have always fought for critical freedom. But calling two people (one who is dead) "psychos" is beyond scurrilous and perhaps slander. I knew both Reilly and McTavish personally, and they were not psychotic. I disagreed with a lot of their work, but I would NEVER link their work to their person this way. Pychosis is a disease! What an insult this headline is!

Who is Tom Smith and where does this article come from? I have been in this field (professionally) forever and I never heard of him.

Connie Passalacqua Hayman

Edited March 13, 201015 yr by marlenadlc

Oh, god! Did someone open a trap door?

It's not slander because he didn't say they are psychos. The complete thought: "Daytime's Two Biggest Psychos Return... is how some might tout the impending returns of Head Writers James E. Reilly and Megan McTavish to the shows that put them on the daytime map," is speculation on his part about what the others would think.

Take the high horse back to the stable.

Megan McT is psycho in the fact that she is oblivious to reality!!!!!!!!

Who is Tom Smith and where does this article come from? I have been in this field (professionally) forever and I never heard of him.

Sure you have! It's Snark! From "Snark Weighs In"! Remember?

Megan McT is psycho in the fact that she is oblivious to reality!!!!!!!!

I agree! And that's just my novice opinion.

Megan McTavish returning to AMC in 2003 was the best thing to happen to that soap in years

Tom Smith was Snark? Well, he was always respestful to me and he was the only poster whose opinion I valued. But what you don't get is a person IS NOT his writing! Both Jim and Meagan were writing for the television market, not for themselves. Televsion is a business, it is all about making money for a network.

As the first to condemn Megan at Guiding Light and All My Children in print (look up by old columns) I know how awful she was and how she ruined my favorite soap ever, All My Children. And Jim did some unmentionable things on Passions towards the end.

But you know what? Both Megan and Jim was poor kids who became ENORMOUSLY wealthy writing their soaps! Check out Megan's huge home in an old Connecticut newspaper article on the net. And Jim, he's dead. And no will will ever stop insulting him. We all die someday, think of what people will say about you when you are not around to defend yourself.

And if anyone insulted me this way on the net, I'd sue. Or report them to their boss, if they were professionals.

To be fair, this article was from 2003, and I think there's been a sort of re-evaluation of Reilly's first run at Days. But his second run was unbelievably ridiculous. I think people aren't sure what to think of his writing. I know the man had a lot of talent, but some of his later work was just unfathomably offensive to the viewing audience. Becoming wealthy doesn't preclude you from writing from the heart, not the wallet.

Megan McTavish returning to AMC in 2003 was the best thing to happen to that soap in years

In the short run I would agree with you, in the long run it was the worst thing to happen to AMC ever. The show never has recovered and never will.

Ugh!

Tom Smith was Snark? Well, he was always respestful to me and he was the only poster whose opinion I valued. But what you don't get is a person IS NOT his writing! Both Jim and Meagan were writing for the television market, not for themselves. Televsion is a business, it is all about making money for a network.

This is, probably, the biggest crock of bull I've heard.

Yes, people write for money, Marlena. Shakespeare did it too. And we still study Shakespeare and the themes that were present in his work and what it suggests about the era in which he lived, not to mention his personal life(Is He GAY?!!!?). It's highly unlikely McTavish and Reilly are going to be studied in schools around the globe, but everyone's writing suggests something. You being a proud, self-proclaimed college professor, you should know this.

I recall reading in an interview that Jim Reilly's Catholic views drove some of his work, an obvious example being Marlena being possessed by the devil. Of course he ripped it off from The Exorcist, but knowing Reilly was a devout Catholic, you can't help but wonder if that was part of why he wanted to explore this story, knowing it would connect with viewers and get a lot of buzz in the process. And in addition to knowing that, it makes perfect sense why Mimi tortured herself about her abortion, even referring to "killing her child," being made barren, etc. There's also the way he explored gay characters. With the exception of, maybe Simone, other gay characters on Passions have often been met with extreme ridicule("Two queens instead of two (prom) kings," as Taylor Anne Mountz' Kay uttered) while other gay characters had major gender issues(i.e. Charlie the Lesbian really being Alistair, Vincent the gay man really being a psychotic intersexed person). Knowing the Catholic church's stance on abortion, gay marriage, suicide, etc., can you really sit here and say that we can't judge Reilly for foisting these stories upon viewers because of his personal beliefs? Or was it all a coincidence, because he wrote for MONEY!?

But you know what? Both Megan and Jim was poor kids who became ENORMOUSLY wealthy writing their soaps! Check out Megan's huge home in an old Connecticut newspaper article on the net. And Jim, he's dead. And no will will ever stop insulting him. We all die someday, think of what people will say about you when you are not around to defend yourself.

Good for them! No one is jealous of either one of them; No one cares about how much money they made shoveling crap to the masses.

And I can't defend myself against everything everyone says about me anyway and I doubt McTavish and Reilly would care what anyone thought. They are(were) both incredibly egotistical, arrogant human beings. They may love the genre, but that doesn't, nor should it shield them from any sort of scrutiny.

For someone who claims to be a truthteller and so open to such deep, meaningful soap conversation, you are certainly very close-minded and limited in what you want people to say about those you clicked with in your journalistic heydey. I'm pretty sure if we were roasting Linda Gottlieb over hot coals, you'd be wigging yourself out, sharing stories about what an arrogant bitch you think she is.

I'm sorry if we've offended you or your friends, but this is a universal soap opera message board at the end of the day. No writer/actor/producer/fellow journalist should be treated with kid gloves because you, Marlena, like them.

And if anyone insulted me this way on the net, I'd sue.

I think you give yourself far too much stock.

Edited March 14, 201015 yr by bellcurve