Jump to content
View in the app

A better way to browse. Learn more.

Soap Opera Network Community

A full-screen app on your home screen with push notifications, badges and more.

To install this app on iOS and iPadOS
  1. Tap the Share icon in Safari
  2. Scroll the menu and tap Add to Home Screen.
  3. Tap Add in the top-right corner.
To install this app on Android
  1. Tap the 3-dot menu (⋮) in the top-right corner of the browser.
  2. Tap Add to Home screen or Install app.
  3. Confirm by tapping Install.
SON Community Back Online

Article: Daytime's Two Biggest Psychos Return

  • Members

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.

  • Replies 31
  • Views 5.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Featured Replies

  • Members

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.

In context with when this article was written in 2003, her return to AMC was actually a good thing. I thought AMC was horrible before she came. I had to drop it bc it was so bad. When she returned in 2003, the show was on fire and had a good 2 years of pretty decent work. After the baby switch climax in 2005, it sort of fell apart and her quality of work went downhill

  • Members

Thank you for the serve, bellcurve.

I can't. I just... I can't. And I won't.<_<

I feel your pain. The Critical Condition column skewered actors and writers alike and now she is all high and mighty? Oh please.

  • Members

In context with when this article was written in 2003, her return to AMC was actually a good thing. I thought AMC was horrible before she came. I had to drop it bc it was so bad. When she returned in 2003, the show was on fire and had a good 2 years of pretty decent work. After the baby switch climax in 2005, it sort of fell apart and her quality of work went downhill

Not really. You just fell for her stunts. Her predictable, redundant stunts. Her tired, stale, overused stunts. Her contrived, dark, insulting, misogynistic stunts.

I feel your pain. The Critical Condition column skewered actors and writers alike and now she is all high and mighty? Oh please.

Not to mention her little diatribe didn't offer any reason why they shouldn't be viewed as psychos. Oh, wait. McTavish took the blood money she earned from ruining the shows she "wrote" for and has a big house in Connecticut. <_<

  • Members

Yea really, justifying bad, insulting, heartless writing with "oh but they have money now" is literally the most insulting excuse I've ever heard. It's so GREAT to know that people can make millions by ruining a woman's life work and dearest creation. Yea, that TOTALLY makes me see things McTavish's way now!

  • Members

Not really. You just fell for her stunts. Her predictable, redundant stunts. Her tired, stale, overused stunts. Her contrived, dark, insulting, misogynistic stunts.

Her Cambias story in 2003 was better than the crap that was 2002

  • Members

I thought the stuff she did in her first year was pretty good. I think things starting going downhill mid way through the baby switch story.

  • Members

Not to mention her little diatribe didn't offer any reason why they shouldn't be viewed as psychos. Oh, wait. McTavish took the blood money she earned from ruining the shows she "wrote" for and has a big house in Connecticut. <_<

:lol:

She needed someplace to put all those hounds she breeds, or whatever they are.

  • Members

I take the "psycho" element of the article's headline as being tongue-in-cheek, and bait-and-switch (not in a bad way). It's intended as satire, so it being libelous, legally, might be a stretch. McTavish and Reilly would most likely fall under the "public figure" category, as well. But MarlenaDLC is entitled to her perception, because she probably has a different - and I would venture to say broader - perspective than you or I do. I think I've said before on this board that McTavish had a good reputation with the press, as far as how she treated them... but that she didn't necessarily win raves from her colleagues in the industry. I don't know if McTavish or Reilly was "friendly" with MarlenaDLC (she didn't say she was), but I do know that she rightly took them to task over their mistakes when she wrote Critical Condition in SPW, and that she didn't go easy on them, either.

By the way, someone posted here their objections to such critiques? The whole problem with the soap mags today is how watered down they've become... And honestly, people like Mimi Torchin and Marlena put their own jobs on the line (to the bitter end) to stand by journalistic integrity - so that their opinions and your opinions were not being controlled or dismissed by the soap PTB. Sometimes I feel as if the entirety of the soap press is vilified or treated as the enemy by some viewers. Most of the soap press, especially the "old-school" ones, really have passion for this medium. They're not your enemy, and if anything, there is actually a wealth of knowledge and perspective they can offer. We don't have to get confrontational or let things fall to the level of being a pissing match. We may not always agree with our opinions, but it would be weird if we always did.

I don't know enough about James E. Reilly, other than that I've heard he was a bit reclusive. I wasn't a big fan of his writing style. Anyone who has interacted with me here knows how strongly I feel about McTavish's style. I don't see her house, personally, as the definition of success. For her, it may be, and that's fine. I think that sort of success came with a lot of sacrifice (for viewers, I mean). I don't believe McTavish ever deliberately sets out to destroy anything; she really believes in her work, and I think if she adheres herself to the principles of whatever she writes for, she does very well. But what happened repeatedly is that she eventually loses sight of those principles and becomes "tunnel-visioned" into her own "bag of tricks" (gimmicks, plot devices) writing style. The reason she would lose sight is that she did have somewhat of an underlying arrogance about being "quintissential" as a soap writer, particularly with AMC... and she was overcompenstating some creative insecurity she had. What I mean is, I believe she genuinely wanted to be important to the fabric of the genre, and to AMC more than anything, but that deep down she knew that people like Wisner Washam and Lorraine Broderick are much closer to the vein of Agnes Nixon's AMC than she was... The road to Hell is paved with good intentions, and yes, too often, she took us to Hell and back in Pine Valley.

I think the spirit of Marlena's comments is that McTavish and Reilly are real people, and don't deserve the characterization of being mentally unstable. I don't think they do, either. But I also don't think that's what the article's title really reflects. We can disagree on that, and I'm cool with it. From there, I'd actually be interested in hearing more of the perspectives of veteran journalists such as MarlenaDLC - even if I didn't always agree with them. We might be surprised at how much we can learn from them.

Edited by YurSoakinginit

  • Members

Her Cambias story in 2003 was better than the crap that was 2002

But Cambias wasn't even her! From her material's first airdate on July 1 to Michael Cambias being found on the meathook on September 19, she did very little, if anything original with the character. He became Will Cortlandt: The Next Millenium. Complete with rape, smugly getting off the charges, going around town tormenting his victim and ending in murder with an entire town playing vigilante. It had been done... more than once... on more than one show... by McTavish.

I will, however, agree that the overall storytelling (from a strictly technical standpoint) improved. I've never discredited her for that. But the actual stories she was telling were gross and depressing.

  • Members

But MarlenaDLC is entitled to her perception, because she probably has a different - and I would venture to say broader - perspective than you or I do. I think I've said before on this board that McTavish had a good reputation with the press, as far as how she treated them... but that she didn't necessarily win raves from her colleagues in the industry. I don't know if McTavish or Reilly was "friendly" with MarlenaDLC (she didn't say she was), but I do know that she rightly took them to task over their mistakes when she wrote Critical Condition in SPW, and that she didn't go easy on them, either.

That perception does NOT, however, entitle her to talk down to and belittle fans and other critics as though, "Oh you don't KNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOW them. I do" or that their opinion is invalid. People, regardless of if they've ever met someone in person, are still entitled to their opinions as well. Almost every single post I've seen of hers where she contributes something had to do with some star/writer/producer she met that either a) was so warm, so nice, so whatever(for reasons she refuses to tell us, likely because of her "journalistic integrity" or B) someone she couldn't stand to save her life(likely because one of the stars who kissed her behind or vice-versa couldn't stand them i.e. Gottlieb).

By the way, someone posted here their objections to such critiques? The whole problem with the soap mags today is how watered down they've become... And honestly, people like Mimi Torchin and Marlena put their own jobs on the line (to the bitter end) to stand by journalistic integrity - so that their opinions and your opinions were not being controlled or dismissed by the soap PTB. Sometimes I feel as if the entirety of the soap press is vilified or treated as the enemy by some viewers. Most of the soap press, especially the "old-school" ones, really have passion for this medium. They're not your enemy, and if anything, there is actually a wealth of knowledge and perspective they can offer. We don't have to get confrontational or let things fall to the level of being a pissing match. We may not always agree with our opinions, but it would be weird if we always did.

With all due respect, that's not what I see here with Marlena. Maybe that's the way she used to be, but her posts on her blog lack the viewing experience necessary to execute what I believe are interesting points. She should only cover shows she watches on a regular basis or that she has an extensive knowledge of if she doesn't want to feel the heat. At least then, she can clearly and effectively state her points. And her posts on this board are completely and utterly devoid of objectivity or respect for fans, the exact same bill of goods she proceeds to sell under her pen name Marlena De La Croix.

I don't know enough about James E. Reilly, other than that I've heard he was a bit reclusive. I wasn't a big fan of his writing style. Anyone who has interacted with me here knows how strongly I feel about McTavish's style. I don't see her house, personally, as the definition of success. For her, it may be, and that's fine. I think that sort of success came with a lot of sacrifice (for viewers, I mean). I don't believe McTavish ever deliberately sets out to destroy anything; she really believes in her work, and I think if she adheres herself to the principles of whatever she writes for, she does very well. But what happened repeatedly is that she eventually loses sight of those principles and becomes "tunnel-visioned" into her own "bag of tricks" (gimmicks, plot devices) writing style. The reason she would lose sight is that she did have somewhat of an underlying arrogance about being "quintissential" as a soap writer, particularly with AMC... and she was overcompenstating some creative insecurity she had. What I mean is, I believe she genuinely wanted to be important to the fabric of the genre, and to AMC more than anything, but that deep down she knew that people like Wisner Washam and Lorraine Broderick are much closer to the vein of Agnes Nixon's AMC than she was... The road to Hell is paved with good intentions, and yes, too often, she took us to Hell and back in Pine Valley.

But your opinion doesn't matter and it's slander to suggest that you do. <_< After all, you don't KNOW them. :rolleyes:

I think the spirit of Marlena's comments is that McTavish and Reilly are real people, and don't deserve the characterization of being mentally unstable. I don't think they do, either. But I also don't think that's what the article's title really reflects. We can disagree on that, and I'm cool with it. From there, I'd actually be interested in hearing more of the perspectives of veteran journalists such as MarlenaDLC - even if I didn't always agree with them. We might be surprised at how much we can learn from them.

There are plenty of other people, in and out of daytime in the public eye, who don't deserve the characterizations people give them. Look at what happened this week, Farah Fath doesn't think she deserves to be called a bad actress for her inability to emote or a bitch for putting her middle finger out at the fans she aims to please. But there are primetime/film/music/mogul/political figures and celebrities who have much harsher critiques and don't have the convenience of an overprotective daytime press who will cover up all their TMZ-worthy indiscretions, flippant attitude to their fans, and their racist/homophobic/closed-minded comments(which has ALWAYS been the case, since the moment I started reading Digest in 1995). Where's the journalistic integrity in THAT?!

I get your point, YurSoakinginit, but I don't think these veteran soap journalists or any of these people in daytime respect soap fans and those who stick with it day in and day out with their shows. The condescending interviews these people give or conduct, the way these shows are written, it's like they're laughing at the audience. And instead of Marlena illustrating why she disagrees with us with clear, concise examples from interviews she's conducted, she proceeds to get on her throne and tell us all how we're bad and say that we should not call these writers "psychos" because they were poor kids who made tons of money. :blink:

Big flippin' deal!

  • Members

But Cambias wasn't even her! From her material's first airdate on July 1 to Michael Cambias being found on the meathook on September 19, she did very little, if anything original with the character. He became Will Cortlandt: The Next Millenium. Complete with rape, smugly getting off the charges, going around town tormenting his victim and ending in murder with an entire town playing vigilante. It had been done... more than once... on more than one show... by McTavish.

I will, however, agree that the overall storytelling (from a strictly technical standpoint) improved. I've never discredited her for that. But the actual stories she was telling were gross and depressing.

the umbrella story with the murder investigation and trial was all her. I didnt catch the Cambias business stuff from before, only bits and pieces, but I was wround for all of the murder and I thought that was a good story

  • Members

That perception does NOT, however, entitle her to talk down to and belittle fans and other critics as though, "Oh you don't KNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOW them. I do" or that their opinion is invalid. People, regardless of if they've ever met someone in person, are still entitled to their opinions as well. Almost every single post I've seen of hers where she contributes something had to do with some star/writer/producer she met...

I was only referring to what she posted here, Bellcurve. Honestly, I haven't ever come across anything else she has posted on SON. But I didn't necessarily think she was talking down to viewers in this case. You mentioned her blog as well, and please know I'm not considering what she posts on her blog, either... just what transpired here.

But there are primetime/film/music/mogul/political figures and celebrities who have much harsher critiques and don't have the convenience of an overprotective daytime press who will cover up all their TMZ-worthy indiscretions, flippant attitude to their fans, and their racist/homophobic/closed-minded comments(which has ALWAYS been the case, since the moment I started reading Digest in 1995). Where's the journalistic integrity in THAT?!

Well, I can tell you that at least at that point in time, Digest and Weekly were apples and oranges in terms of how they reported the news. Weekly was much more news-oriented. Digest actually took cues from Weekly, and tailored itself to be more like it - well, without sacrificing the fluff. Torchin's and Marlena's candor about the soaps actually caused a few of the EP's to play hardball against them. Eventually, Marlena's column went to someone who was far softer. I'm not sure if it was her choice to leave, or Primedia's. Mimi was most certainly forced out, and the magazine suffered bigtime because of the creative changes Primedia tried to impose on the remaining editorial staff (more fluff, reality shows being covered as "soaps"). I know exactly what you're saying about the media covering up the reality of actors' behaviors.

And understand that I'm not trying to single you out personally, Bellcurve, or say that what you or anyone said here is wrong. It's just that I have had the opportunity to learn from and work with some of the people we're talking about (though I do not know MarlenaDLC), and I know there are several who can offer invaluable insight. The other side of that coin is that there are also those who are butt-kissers to the stars, journalists who are trying to be "stars" themselves, ones who are covering soaps but totaly detest them, etc. ( I could go on with the list these of so-called journalists who irritate me)... It's just that THOSE sort of things have never, to my knowledge, really been part of Marlena's rep. I mean, honestly, I hope she'll come back and explain where she was coming from... and I really believe she does have insight that would be enlightening. I try to avoid laying it all out on the table, but I've learned an incredible amount from other people like her.

Edited by YurSoakinginit

  • Author
  • Members

Who took over Marlena's column in SOW? Was it P.K. Waddle?

Edited by soapfan770

  • Members

Who took over Marlena's column in SOW? Was it P.K. Waddle?

Yes. And maybe "softer" isn't as appropriate a characterization as "duller," less biting.

But, in his defense, that's exactly what the higher-ups were asking for... The readers? Not so much.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Recently Browsing 0

  • No registered users viewing this page.

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy

Configure browser push notifications

Chrome (Android)
  1. Tap the lock icon next to the address bar.
  2. Tap Permissions → Notifications.
  3. Adjust your preference.
Chrome (Desktop)
  1. Click the padlock icon in the address bar.
  2. Select Site settings.
  3. Find Notifications and adjust your preference.