Simple answer: yes. Love Jim Reilly or hate him, but the fact is, he was/is the last HW to make a significant impact on this industry; and while I don't think he could touch Marland even on his best day(s), even I have to admit the two possessed similar approaches to storytelling.

Can you expand on that? I've never heard anyone say that before. LOL

Another Bell what if....What if Sheila had not crossed over to B&B?

B&B might be in far worse shape today than it actually is. (It certainly wouldn't be number-two in the ratings!) OTOH, because Sheila seemed to eat up so much airtime, characters like Sally, Macy, Clarke, etc. kinda got the shaft.

Re: Phillip on Y&R -- If he had not died (...well, you know what I mean...), I think he and Nina would have divorced, and he would have ended up w/ Cricket. Cricket would still be the attorney, but I doubt her friendship with Nina would've survived. (At the very least, it would have made for some very awkward moments.)

What if Kim Zimmer had never returned to GL? So much of the show revolved around her in the last decade or so, would GL had made it as long as it did without her, or did Reva affect the show in a bad way and it would have still been on?

Also, what if GL had been canned in 2005, instead of undergoing all those massive budget cuts, what would have happened to ATWT? Other daytime soaps?

What if ABC had made Loving's permanent timeslot at 1:30 in between AMC and OLTL? Could it still be on today? Would this have affected AMC/OLTL in a bad way?

Can you expand on that? I've never heard anyone say that before.

Well, I'll try, anyway, lol!

Both Jim Reilly and Doug Marland always regarded their shows as enormous tapestries, with characters of all shapes and sizes, and from all walks of life. Although Reilly's stories tended to be more bizarre and fantastic, both, too, looked at their shows as "everysoaps," providing something for everyone (romantic storylines, family storylines, topical stories, action-adventure storylines, etc.). To HW's like Reilly and Marland, it was their duty to utilize as much of the canvas as possible, weaving together characters from across the board sometimes into big, almost splashy umbrella storylines. (Yes, Marland did umbrella storylines, too. Maybe not as much on ATWT, since huge chunks of the cast was always away doing films, theater, other TV shows and the like; but certainly, his GUIDING LIGHT employed them.) Subsequently, neither Reilly nor Marland believed in "kamikaze storytelling"; to truly appreciate a particular storyline, you needed the patience to stick with it -- sometimes, for as long as a year!

However, the big difference between Reilly and Marland, IMO, lay in their respective approaches to characters' psychologies. Marland, like Bill Bell, believed in layering and nuance to the point where it was often difficult to categorize even villains like Douglas Cummings as being all one way or the other. Reilly, OTOH, traded in stock characterizations and archetypes; and in fact, one reason why I think viewers eventually tired of his stories on PASSIONS is b/c his characters simply weren't "deep" enough to support such big, long-range stories.

What if Vanessa Marcil actually got that fame she so desperately was seeking

Then we never would have been blessed with the fabulousness that is

Murphy Sinclair

. ;-P

What if all the victims of the SSK story had stayed dead on DAYS? (I do not count Doug and Alice in this, because by the time they were killed off it had been decided that everyone would be brought back).

What if Dee Hall never came back to DAYS in 91, would Crystal Chappell/Carly Manning become the show's lead heroine?

What if Capitol never existed and John Conboy was the original EP of B&B?

If CAPITOL had never existed, then CBS would have stuck with SEARCH FOR TOMORROW, and be totally shocked when it rebounded into the Top Five. So much so, in fact, that when Bill Bell pitches what eventually becomes B&B, CBS would find itself in the throes of a real dilemma. With CBS dragging its' feet, therefore, Papa Bell would have no choice but to consider taking the project to his former home @ NBC (unless ABC, eager to have a Bell-produced soap on its' lineup, can figure out a way to do this w/o sacrifing AMC, OLTL, GH or LOVING).

What if Terry Lester had never left Y&R because of the Cricket-mania? Would Jack Abbott still be around after his death or would the character have been killed off?

For sure, Jack would have died of a heart attack. It was easier to replace TL w/ Peter Bergman, I think, b/c Lester was still alive. If they had tried to replace him after his death, it would've been like replacing Michael Zaslow as GL's Roger Thorpe after his death.

Well, I'll try, anyway, lol!

Both Jim Reilly and Doug Marland always regarded their shows as enormous tapestries, with characters of all shapes and sizes, and from all walks of life. Although Reilly's stories tended to be more bizarre and fantastic, both, too, looked at their shows as "everysoaps," providing something for everyone (romantic storylines, family storylines, topical stories, action-adventure storylines, etc.). To HW's like Reilly and Marland, it was their duty to utilize as much of the canvas as possible, weaving together characters from across the board sometimes into big, almost splashy umbrella storylines. (Yes, Marland did umbrella storylines, too. Maybe not as much on ATWT, since huge chunks of the cast was always away doing films, theater, other TV shows and the like; but certainly, his GUIDING LIGHT employed them.) Subsequently, neither Reilly nor Marland believed in "kamikaze storytelling"; to truly appreciate a particular storyline, you needed the patience to stick with it -- sometimes, for as long as a year!

However, the big difference between Reilly and Marland, IMO, lay in their respective approaches to characters' psychologies. Marland, like Bill Bell, believed in layering and nuance to the point where it was often difficult to categorize even villains like Douglas Cummings as being all one way or the other. Reilly, OTOH, traded in stock characterizations and archetypes; and in fact, one reason why I think viewers eventually tired of his stories on PASSIONS is b/c his characters simply weren't "deep" enough to support such big, long-range stories.

Thanks, man. That's an interesting perspective.

What if all the victims of the SSK story had stayed dead on DAYS? (I do not count Doug and Alice in this, because by the time they were killed off it had been decided that everyone would be brought back).

It was in Reilly's pitch to Corday that the dead would all come back - it didn't happen when Doug/Alice were killed off.

What if Lorraine Broderick had been given more time to write for DAYS? Would fans have liked her type of storytelling?

It would've been better than Langan's writing, that's for sure! I still think we would've gotten the teen invasion (since Langan was still the EP), but Chloe/Philip/Belle/Shawn/Mimi would've been more interesting, and the storylines would've been better. I still can't believe LB was only given one month.

What if Asher Brauner hadn't left his role as Roy on GH? Luke Spencer would have died instead...no Luke and Laura, no formula for all the other soaps to copy.

And soaps would STILL BE ALIVE.

What if Clint Ritchie hadn't had his tractor accident? Would the Viki/Sloane relationship have progressed?

Michael Malone himself said the plan had been for Viki and Clint to reunite eventually, but that Ritchie's accident and subsequent prolonged absence derailed everything.

What if GL hadn't kowtowed to fanatic fanbases so much?

GUIDING LIGHT would still be alive. Yes, the production values would (still) stink, and the cast wouldn't be nearly the size it was before, but its' tradition of simple, character-driven storytelling would keep viewers from leaving.

What if the mob hadn't totally taken over GH? I might actually still be watching.

And so would about five million others. ;-)

Well, I'll try, anyway, lol!

Both Jim Reilly and Doug Marland always regarded their shows as enormous tapestries, with characters of all shapes and sizes, and from all walks of life. Although Reilly's stories tended to be more bizarre and fantastic, both, too, looked at their shows as "everysoaps," providing something for everyone (romantic storylines, family storylines, topical stories, action-adventure storylines, etc.). To HW's like Reilly and Marland, it was their duty to utilize as much of the canvas as possible, weaving together characters from across the board sometimes into big, almost splashy umbrella storylines. (Yes, Marland did umbrella storylines, too. Maybe not as much on ATWT, since huge chunks of the cast was always away doing films, theater, other TV shows and the like; but certainly, his GUIDING LIGHT employed them.) Subsequently, neither Reilly nor Marland believed in "kamikaze storytelling"; to truly appreciate a particular storyline, you needed the patience to stick with it -- sometimes, for as long as a year!

However, the big difference between Reilly and Marland, IMO, lay in their respective approaches to characters' psychologies. Marland, like Bill Bell, believed in layering and nuance to the point where it was often difficult to categorize even villains like Douglas Cummings as being all one way or the other. Reilly, OTOH, traded in stock characterizations and archetypes; and in fact, one reason why I think viewers eventually tired of his stories on PASSIONS is b/c his characters simply weren't "deep" enough to support such big, long-range stories.

Thank you for expressing in words, what I've felt for a very long time. I've never been one to cast off JER as a writer, especially considering that he wrote under Bill Bell once and I adored his time on GL and early era on DAYS.

Re: Nola and Quint

I don't think Pam Long had such a contempt for them the second time around on GL. It's obvious, at least to me, that Nadine fit the Nola Reardon mold. In a way, I see Nadine/Harley as a version of Nola/Stacey. If Quint and Nola had stayed on the show, and Pam penned the show, Stacey would have become what Harley was to the show. Who knows, maybe Curlee would have had Nola pursue Billy as passionately as Nadine had.

It was in Reilly's pitch to Corday that the dead would all come back - it didn't happen when Doug/Alice were killed off.

Really? I have always heard that Corday panicked and told him to bring everyone back. Also that Celeste was supposed to die after Tony. IIRC, the person told me the news had leaked that Celeste was going to die, but it was pulled down and changed to Doug. Is this about it being Reilly's idea in Corday's book or something? He is probably lying.

Also, what if B&C had stayed with DAYS instead of them getting ousted for Higley? Would NBC had still forced JER on Days?

What if Kim Zimmer had never returned to GL? So much of the show revolved around her in the last decade or so, would GL had made it as long as it did without her, or did Reva affect the show in a bad way and it would have still been on?

Well, the problem or issue there is that KZ returned to GL, only b/c GL had entered a slump and PGP was desperate to get the ratings back up. In fact, Jill Farren Phelps was so reluctant to bring her back (the "Reva Phenomenon" scared her more than a little, apparently), that's how we ended up with "Ghost Reva." (If KZ returned as Reva's "ghost," the logic goes, and the ratings didn't increase, then that gave TPTB a decent excuse not to bring her back permanently.) So, as much of an albatross as Reva became for GL, in a strange way, her resurrection actually prolonged its' life. Otherwise, I doubt GL would've made it past 2000.

Also, what if GL had been canned in 2005, instead of undergoing all those massive budget cuts, what would have happened to ATWT?

No question, ATWT would have been long gone by now.

What if Iva Synder met Nola Reardon-Chamberlain(McCall)