Jump to content

What if James E. Reilly had written your soap?


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 28
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members

I believe a big part of Corday allowing Reilly to get into SciFi or whatever you want to call it was the fact NBC Daytime was overseen by a guy who proposed to cancel all the NBC soaps in 1992 as the entire lineup was at the bottom of the ratings. He canceled Santa Barbara and replaced it with game shows. Corday knew he had to jumpstart the ratings so he let Reilly do buried alive the ratings in 1993 started to rise and the gameshows failed and were quickly canceled. NBC was happy and decided to keep DAYS and AW and Corday and NBC wanted more shocking stories so we got Satan and all the rest. So it was the perfect storm that created the environment for Reilly to try his bag of tricks. It wouldn't have happened on other soaps as ABC and CBS weren't as desperate enough to allow Reilly to go down his path

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I agree. Writers will write what the network or the audience wants. Reilly would not have written nonsense without a reason. His work at Guiding Light was good, and although it went against the grain of the show itself, for pure drama his work at Ryan's Hope was fine, too.

Personally, I never understood all the hate for Jim Reilly. He was no worse than any other writer of the era. It was certainly superior to that of the supposed soap saviors Ron Carlivati and Hogan Sheffer, and unlike those two, at least Reilly's work was often entertaining.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

That's putting it mildly, but I guess I shouldn't say anymore since the thread's on JER.

I think JER's writing for his first DAYS run is generally very solid, sometimes it's fantastic, and he seemed to refocus what feels like a very aimless show (if the bits of 1992 I've seen are any indication). I do think something happened after that, either in his writing or his relationship with NBC (and Corday).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

First you say, "Writers will write what the network or the audience wants" as a general disclaimer dismissing the validity of any criticism of Reilly, implying we can't know what he would really write without those constraints, then you attack other writers who have had ratings success. Seems contradictory to me. I think Sheffer is overrated but he did have some success getting viewers and acclaim to ATWT. My judgment is still out on Carlivati -- I'm loving him giving me what feels like "the real GH" (80s/90s) back so far in the few weeks I've started watching again, but it's only been a few weeks -- but his impact on the ratings since he started on GH last year has been strong. The show is up huge year to year.

I really doubt Reilly's repetitious writing with people standing around with their shirts off in the same place for a week was because that's what the audience wants. Earlier in his career, he probably had more people reining him in, but by the time he was writing Passions, he was writing his vision for soap opera, and I found it was not watchable most of the time that I happened across it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Okay, I'll bite.

First off... Reilly's time at GL with Stephen Demorest and Nancy Curlee was excellent. That trio really knew how to write good, solid drama with a little bit of the fanciful thrown in at times (Ross's election dream, etc.)

I also thought, for the most part, Reilly's first run at Days was good. He seemed to get the history of the show, effectively referring to long-dead characters like Addie and understanding the soap's bible.

The possession may have been his undoing. I still think stories like that don't have a place on daytime TV (it would have been excellent on Dark Shadows... a show that may have been solid had it been revived under JER's pen). The ratings boost during that story may have convinced Jim that he had to top himself.

I was not a fan of Passions at all. (Yes, I watched Another World. I'll get that out of the way now) I realized that style of writing would not have worked on Days, but what did NBC do? Brought him back for a second go-round. Anyone with the clairvoyance to look way ahead knew this wasn't going to end well, but if you dared voice your opinion against JER back in 2003 you were deemed an idiot, an A-hole, etc.

I tried very hard to stop from saying "I told you so" after Melaswen. Needless to say, my favorite day in Days' recent history was the day he got canned.

While I wasn't a big fan of his at the end, I was sad to see his passing. Of course, now we'll never know what he really had in mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I feel like Reilly ran out of all creative ideas after 1997. By the time he got to Passions, he already had to recycle his same ideas (burying Sheridan alive, using demons/hell/the devil etc.) to try to shock people into watching Passions, but the problem was, by 1999, the daytime audience was used to (and tired of) over-the-top plots thanks to DAYS in the 90's, Sunset Beach, and other wackadoo plotlines that most of the other soaps were trying out in attempts to cash in on DAYS' ratings success (cloning, mind control, miracle plastic surgery, etc.).

I didn't watch DAYS before Reilly's mid-90's era, so I can't get into specifics about how the show was before 1993, but what I do know is that I enjoyed the mid-90's era immensely, but anything Reilly did afterwards just seemed like desperate attempts to relive the glory years of his successful 1993-1997 reign.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



  • Recent Posts

    • BTG: A-  DAYS: B+  Eastenders: C
    • There was a rumor that Jean will die and that’s probably why she’s back then
    • There has been some confusion about Michael & facial burns. Please see this post: https://bsky.app/profile/shallotpeel.bsky.social/post/3lqkrryu54226 I've chosen to put this here instead of the Classic Thread because it is now with the appearance of recast Michael that this has come up. Different places online, including at least one podcast, remarks have been made about how remarkable it is that he is without facial scarring. Other fans say it was clear from the first that he did not have facial burns. What is included in this post is 2 screengrabs where you can see his face at the hospital & a very quick edit of that day in the hospital. 
    • Put me in the LOVE KMH camp. As a poster alluded to above, her detractors seem to come from people who first experienced the 80s Emily actress. And that's often the case with soaps, myself included. I enjoy the original actor so much that I just never take to the recast. However, KMH played Emily far longer than the original - for almost 20 years - and when she had great material, she was great. I get the sense she didn't like playing the whiny oh-woe-is-me Emily which was all the material she got from about 1996 until she took over the Intruder in late '99/early '00 and got to play a stronger kiss-ass woman who didn't care what anyone thought of her. (Some would call that a bitch but, if a man was in that role, he'd just be called a smart and savvy businessman.) Her relationship with Hal was great. The transformation was done realistically and I thoroughly enjoyed those years the best out of all. Once the writers decided to break up those two, they went back to writing Emily half the time as whiny and pathetic. I preferred when the writers made her stronger.
    • Hahaha - I do. I've always been the type, though, that can't miss anything. I get FOMO, so I'll not skip episodes or fast forward anything. There are only a few TV shows I've dropped because they got so bad vs. sticking it out to the end.  The promise that GL 1997 is better is what keeps me going. I especially want to see the fallout of Blake's lie about her twins and then Annie's descent which I believe won Watros's Emmy.
    • Rita's rape is an episode i constantly search on YouTube hoping one day that it will show up. I always feel like I may have seen it, but I was only 6 at the time and can never figure any of the things I have vague recollection of 
    • FROM THE VAULT: NON-SOAP DAYTIME RATINGS: HIGHLIGHTS FROM FEBRUARY 1973 & MAY 1973:

      Please register in order to view this content

        FROM THE VAULT: NON-SOAP DAYTIME RATINGS: HIGHLIGHTS FROM AUGUST 1973 & NOVEMBER 1973:
    • The rape was in 1979 after they were married. Blake was the result of Holly cheating with him while she was married to Ed. I believe she was born in 1975. 
    • No. Ed and Holly were married and having problems. She had an affair with Roger and that's when Christina--Blake--was conceived. The rape happened much later, after Holly and Roger were married.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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