j swift

I'm not talking about big set pieces. What I mean is, the specifics of their lives were genuinely more sophisticated. They decorated their homes with intention, hosted lovers for dinner parties, and even the alcoholics sipped from crystal goblets—at least until rock bottom hit and they went straight for the bottle. Their storylines revolved around adult concerns: careers, marriages, betrayals, and the quiet politics of social status. Even the Phillip storyline wasn’t about how to break the news to the child—not until much later, when the narrative shifted toward younger, less mature characters. Early on, it was about how the situation impacted a circle of adult lovers. Compare that to Britt’s return on GH: she reads like a teenager next to these characters who still have young kids, but are working, scheming, and having affairs. They were real grown-ups—flawed, stylish, and emotionally layered.

It’s ironic to compare modern leads like Jason Quartermaine or Brady Black; both scripted as slightly older than Alan, Jackie, Justin, and Elizabeth. Their lives feel so much less sophisticated, less glamorous. No Caribbean divorces. No candlelit dinners in private clubs. The texture of their world is oddly drab by comparison.

I keep doing the math of how much longer Cat will be in Salem, given the initial reports of ALM's signing: Here's a breakdown (AI assisted) of the timeline and context: Contract timeline: McCord's one-year contract began in December 2023. editor's note: Isn't that crazy to think it was 12/2023? That feels like a lifetime ago - seven months before Biden ended his candidacy. Filming schedule: Days of Our Lives tapes approximately seven to ten months ahead of its airdate. editor's note: This seems like the key calculation error, because I think AI made a mistake, they are obviously further ahead than 10 months at this point. Initial character departure (mid-to-late 2025): The original one-year contract would have ended in December 2024. Considering the lead time, the scenes filmed at the end of that contract would have aired around mid-to-late 2025. I noticed she was in New York for DAYS’ induction into the Broadcast Hall of Fame, and featured in the official promo pics on social media, no less. That makes me think the trip wasn’t self-funded, which raises the question: did she quietly sign an extension? Or is she wrapping up before Chad exits and swaps faces? It reminded me of that story about the actor who played Doug3 being spotted by a fan long after his contract was terminated. Imagine the surreal moment of being recognized for a role you filmed two years ago. That’s probably why DAYS is so good at keeping spoilers under wraps—by the time anything airs, even the cast barely remembers what they shot. 😉 Finally, remember the hub bub about the 60th anniversary promo pics? Are they ever planning to use those? I feel like I've seen the entire photoshoot, but they never printed the results.

To no one's surprise, I was the annoying teen waiting for the magazines to get unpacked and shelved. I would apologize, but that grocery store closed.

A 12-foot cord, sound luxurious.🔌 And, I am always nostalgic for when Tuesdays meant the new Digest, SON, and bag of red jelly beans. But, I'm also grateful that the change from monoculture allows the consumer to have the expectation that content should meet their needs for entertainment.

Thanks, I used guys kissing as a metaphor, but if Hulu knows that I'm not going to watch football, and Spotify knows I don't like Ethel Merman, Peacock should feed me a few more shirtless dudes on DAYS. We pay for personalization, the content pays for itself. 😉

I don't care to see the actual data. I just want to know if this platform knows me as a user, I’d like to see that knowledge reflected in the product I’m being offered. That’s not niche or unreasonable—it’s the entire premise of modern streaming. It’s how Spotify curates playlists. It’s how Netflix tailors thumbnails. It’s how Hulu recommends next episodes. And Peacock, which has the rare opportunity to collect daily serialized behavior from viewers, is sitting on a goldmine but seems to be programming like it’s 2006. That’s the issue. I understand that, historically, soaps were geared toward advertiser-friendly demographics, but streaming has changed the equation. Days is now a daily show that consistently lands in Peacock’s top 10, yet it still doesn’t seem to reflect the values or interests of its newer, streaming-based audience. Peacock’s revenue model is no longer primarily ad-driven. In fact, they charge a premium to avoid ads entirely. So the game isn’t about selling dish soap anymore—it’s about retaining me as a paying subscriber. That’s the product now: loyalty, not detergent. Given that Peacock knows exactly what I watch, both before and after an episode, I find it surprising—if not a little insulting—that the platform seems to assume I don’t want to see two men kiss. That’s not just outdated thinking; it’s a missed opportunity in a business built on personalization.

To me, the real missed opportunity is how little DAYS seems to be using the data they could be mining from Peacock. Who’s the current audience in terms of demos? When do viewers rewind most during an episode? Are people binging the show or watching daily? Which episodes are getting rewatched? Fan emails are fine, but they pale in comparison to the kind of viewer data Peacock could provide. Emails only reflect the most motivated fans—the ones willing to write in. But passive viewership data tells a much fuller story about how the audience is actually engaging with the show. That said, nothing on-screen suggests they’re using that data to adjust course. And honestly, because the show tapes so far in advance, they probably can’t. It all still feels very "early streaming." Peacock seems to apply the same data approach to DAYS as they do to their weekly or binge-release shows. But streaming a show daily is completely different—and likely produces a unique footprint of what viewers watch before and after each episode. The DAYS viewer is a distinct type of consumer, but so far, I don’t see the algorithm or the platform’s programming strategy reflecting that. Note: I tried to make sure all signs of my poor mood are stricken from the record, and I am trying to add to the conversation, rather than divert - thanks for putting up with me.

It’s difficult to know what truly motivates a writer. Was she telling the stories based on inspiration, or was she focused on what might connect with viewers and perform well commercially? As weird as it may sound in 2025, romantic stories about women with toxic fathers were a big cultural touchstone at the time, and were selling well to young women in movies and books. It can be a bit unfair to assume that a writer, especially a woman, was only drawing from personal inspiration. That view can overlook the fact that television writing is a job, and like any job, it's shaped by deadlines, audience expectations, and network goals. Take the example of serial killer storylines. Maybe Ms. Depriest genuinely enjoyed writing them. Or maybe she was hired for those stories precisely because she had proven she could make them work. It’s like Stephen King not being asked to write a romance novel—not because he couldn’t, but because horror is what sells with his audience. Writers often get hired for what sold well before. And that is equally likely as ascribing personal motives for how a story was shot and portrayed. Obviously, everything has multiple variables. I am simply offering another hypothesis in retrospect, because it feels incomplete to not consider commercial inspiration as a fact.

I can’t stop staring at Wendy Osefo’s booking photo. There’s something about her expression—maybe it’s the tattooed eyebrows giving off a manic edge, or maybe there’s another layer I haven’t quite pinned down. And the arrest itself? A doctor and her husband taken from their home over insurance fraud? That’s not the usual playbook. Cases like this are typically handled quietly through attorneys, with a scheduled surrender; not a full-blown perp walk. There’s definitely more to this story than meets the eye (excuse the pun).

Well, there was reasonable doubt based on Liz also visiting Wayne, and the number of prior spurned lovers he left behind. Also, Walter gave a tour de force closing argument.

Would you really? Or would you be grateful to see old friends after 30 years, when you probably didn't follow the show, or your character's sons, and happy to have a check, and maintain your SAG health insurance for four hours of work? These are middle-aged actresses with long careers, not eager fan girls wishing for one more chance at a daytime emmy.

McTavish’s run at Guiding Light was short and came in the middle of the Brent Lawrence arc, a storyline that was already developing before she took over. Nadine’s death fit the structure of that villain arc—it was not arbitrary, and it wasn’t about the actress. If people think the scene was too violent, that’s a question of how it was directed and produced, not something the head writer controlled line by line.

Again, life is not a soap opera, we can disagree on what I think is silly, but that doesn't change the fact I (and five others from my DMs) think the idea is foolish. It doesn't imply anything about anyone's intellect who disagrees, nor am I going to comment on whether Vee has served me burnt champagne (again).

I just want to reiterate that I trust both @DRW50 and @Vee to apply their usual sharp critical thinking when it comes to separating hyperbole from fact. If we backward-engineer a narrative—like “McTavish hated an actress, so she wrote a violent pier death”—that doesn’t automatically make it true. It assumes the actress somehow knew the writer’s intent and was emotionally wounded by the exit. It assumes producers were willing to humiliate an actress just to satisfy a writer’s grudge. It assumes the entire production team shared the opposite opinion of the character as the audience did. None of that really reflects how these shows are made, or how people work. What we’re reacting to is a single person’s account, shaped by hindsight and personal emotion after leaving a job. That’s not a reliable source—and I’d expect both of you to question it, as you often do. Yet, as we interact for now and forever, you should know that anytime I read a tale about actors being fired for spite, I will think that is fanciful. Just as anytime I disagree with Vee he feels the need to generalize my concerns to the entire population soap fans. Just setting the ground rules.

And, I think it is silly to quote that as the complete truth, when you know better. When a terrible actor says that they were fired for being too cute, do you believe them?

Again, those kinds of anecdotes definitely get attention. But I also think we have to separate memoir storytelling from actual production mechanics. Soap writing, especially at the network level, is a multi-layered process. No single person, even a head writer, can unilaterally decide to kill off a character without buy-in from producers, network execs, and often casting and scheduling teams. I trust you, @DRW50, to recognize the difference between a juicy behind-the-scenes quote and how decisions actually get made. Writers can pitch ideas, even emotionally charged ones, but they still go through a whole system of approvals and rewrites. So while personal bias might influence a pitch, it’s rarely the sole driver of what ends up on screen.

Hard disagree. Salem is in a much better place than most with a younger crowd. Chanel, Gabi, Stephanie, Jada, Ari, and Holly are all wonderful ingénues. Find me another soap with a current young roster that deep? And hope springs eternal for their partners.

I have no idea. My point is that life is not a soap opera. And it makes more sense pragmatically to reassign a story. The logic that a writer would think it somehow cathartic to project their frustrations onto a character’s exit all seems to come from a story that’s more legend than fact. The “fell up the stairs” tale about Irna Phillips was never actually written or filmed. It circulated as a bit of inside-industry folklore to describe her temperament, not her plotting. In reality, there’s no evidence anyone ever died that way on As the World Turns or any of her shows. It’s a metaphor that endured because it feels true about the kind of power she wielded, but it’s not literal. So, while it’s a great piece of soap history gossip, it’s not how professional writing decisions actually work. So in 2025 to persist in thinking that exits are penned out of spite feels as fictional as believing the earth is flat, or men can be changed by love alone.

I was thinking of dropped storylines from this time last year: Johnny worrying about the "Dimera Curse" effecting his marriage Jada and Shawn's romance Holly's history of casual drug use Tate needs to pay back his boarding school for the damage caused by his prank Alex's maybe baby Sarah getting a divorce settlement @Franko, while I agree they were a "machine", upon reflection what set them apart was the number of unique dynamic within the supercouples, so it wasn't just cut and paste.

We think Chanel/Johnny have it rough. Those couples had barely a week of happiness between them that wasn't ruined by a vicious family member, a long-lost love, or a cruel vixen. I mean, nobody's burying Chanel alive under a pile of doughnuts at Sweet Bits, so far.

That's why I liked today's Jack and Jennifer stuff. It seemed clever to highlight the Jack and Jennifer stuff in terms of how unique their love story was with the context of DAYS. Also @John, I thought Kayla and Steve's talk with Jennifer the other day was filled with discussions about forgiveness, and its meaning. One cannot imagine that this story is not going to end with Jennifer learning the power of forgiveness. Structurally, she's got to be a shrew now, so that when she learns forgiveness, she will be more accepting (Jen, not the actress, I assume).

I’d like to gently revisit the idea that what’s often interpreted as spite might have been something more pragmatic. It’s easy to project the chaos of the soap itself onto its production, but I think we sometimes overestimate how reactive or personal those decisions were. Looking strictly at the facts, there’s a plausible scenario rooted in logistics. Gail Kobe reportedly liked the character of Hillary and had plans for her. When the actress left to pursue pilot season, Kobe reassigned Hillary’s storyline to another character. With Hillary now sidelined for the foreseeable future, and new actors needed for the revised arc, the decision to write her out may have been practical rather than punitive. There’s no need to assume hostility toward the actress, or even a broader dismissal of the Bauers. In fact, framing it as a situational choice—rather than a long-term strategic one—feels less speculative and avoids the gendered assumptions that sometimes creep into these discussions. Holding Kobe accountable for not anticipating what the show would need a decade later doesn’t quite track with how soaps operate. Just offering another lens, not a contradiction. I'm certain we have all have a task where a resource became unavailable, and we had to make-do, without much time to consider how this one decision would affect the course of the future. Whether it is substituting an ingredient in a recipe because you didn't want to go back to the store, or changing one ingénue for the next, it is all the same process. And we rarely have the opportunity to consider foresight. Also, I never cared for the character of Hillary.😎

That's an excellent suggestion. It would be equally nice for Steve and Abe to reflect on the changing state of policing with regard to racial issues. I'm not holding my breath waiting for it to happen, but in my imagination, it is an award wining scene. I also totally agree on the use of flashbacks and streaming. Today, they really took advantage of the platform to tell an anniversary story uniquely. I was a big Jack and Jennifer fan because he was such a screwup that it forced Jen to be plucky and independent. Their relationship is different from Kayla and Steve, or Bo and Hope. And I appreciate that DAYS celebrated that fact. Post-script: I just realized how DOOL really perfected the super-couple, not by trying to replicate them, but by making each couple unique. For example, when GH replaced Luke and Laura with Frisco and Felicia, the dynamics were very similar (rough dude and a princess). But DAYS had couplings that served many dynamics: from a damsel in distress like Kim and Shane to a dynamic crime solving duo like Jack and Jen. And clearly, when it was time for Bo and Hope to ascend from Roman and Marlena, they were entirely different romantic icons.

My take is that cannon-based age gap relationships are such a part of the fabric of the show, it is like criticizing it for people crying too much. It is not that it isn't worth asking, the issue exists when we use it as a criterion for disliking a pairing, over the actual chemistry that partnering of two actors creates.