j swift

Yes, and his mother had a one day role on DAYS years ago.

Please excuse my pathological optimism, but, at least Sarah's baby and Nicole's baby are different ages and genders, so that can't be swapped 🤞 Meanwhile, if they're swapped tomorrow, it may crush my world view.

Upthread I mentioned this terrible murder in LA with a severed torso. Since the incident, six neighbors have released their front door camera video showing the time of the incident. DAYS is going to have to catch up with technology and explain why The Kiriakis and Dimera mansions don't have Ring cams (since we all know you can't lock your front door on a soap). I was proud of them for using the "family tracking" app to locate Nicole. But, wearing a black hoodie to steal a baby isn't going to cut it in modern storytelling.

Ugh and the feeble attempt to give Lindsey an emotionally driven story in season 1 was equally painful. What teen cares that much if their parents got married because they were pregnant? It always makes the soap kid seem dumb when they can't do the math about the timing of their conception and their parent's anniversary. But, it would've been very soapy to SORAS her after the crash and have her return as Heather Locklear. Good thinking @Kane Given that once Sammy Jo had Danny, her connection to Krystal was unnecessary to keep her in the story. Lindsay could've played out the exact same plot.

I guess so, given that I have watched for a solid year at this point and Leo's motivation regarding his family of origin has never been referenced. It seems like with Sonny gone, John would be well suited to temper Leo's wacky schemes, but they barely interact.

Thank you @teplin, it made me nostalgic for a nine-minute scene. There's so much tension that it kept me glued to the screen in the way that 4 two-minute scenes could never replicate. Even 24 years later, it still feels exciting to see Rachel spar with Iris. All the business about ripping the flower stem, while smiling through gritted teeth, and standing across from each while barely moving makes it even more heightened. And can you imagine a modern soap allowing a character to wander around a set without dialogue for 90 seconds?

So, today I learned that Leo's actual name is Matthew Cooper (I wasn't around for his introduction, which may be why I don't find him as objectionable) - but - why doesn't anyone refer to him as Matthew? They all call Patch, Steve, and John, John, so why not Matthew?

You know what I really miss that I associate with the 1980s? Summer stories I enjoyed when the teens got some attention, we knew it would be resolved by Labor Day, and it set a nice pace. Also, there was usually a middle-aged B story to maintain interest, like when Luke and Laura went on the run the same summer as Rick and Monica's affair. The Y&R teen concerts were more than a little cringy, but I also like a little cheese in the summer.

Your second point gave me pause, because I hadn't considered the idea of being "made" to care. I appreciate when a discussion about a forty-year-old show can spark new ideas. The contrast of the have and have-nots was missing on Dallas, so Dynasty had an opportunity to respond to the culture, but I also agree that Aaron Spelling and the Shapiro's prior work did not bode well for that type of storytelling. Perhaps, the emphasis on glitz and glamour negated the need for an audience surrogate to wag their finger and articulate that wealth doesn't always lead to happiness? Because when Alexis is sitting in a jail cell in a red ballgown, we don't need another character to deride her life choices or remind us to value simplicity.

This quote reminded me of Iris Cory Carrington Delany Bancroft Wheeler

Finally got around to today's episode. Given the clip from Day of Days, it would be cool if John & Steve's investigation could tie Konstantin into the Cannon of the Pawn. Like, maybe he's the one who originally kidnapped John, arranged for the surgery, or set up the poker game where the Pawn was the prize? IIRC, Steve was in charge of bringing the Pawn to Salem, so it might not take much for him to unveil Konstantin's role. I had no idea that we'd have two missing babies. If there is a noticeable pattern with the writing over the past year, things in Salem tend to get very dark right before the holidays. I hope you don't think less of me, but any shirtless Alex day is a win for me. However, following RSW on Instagram, and watching the makeup department covering his tattoos, makes me think it is an undue burden for actors to make permeant marks on their skin when it is their job to be shirtless. I mean, John Hamm never dyed his hair so the hair people on MadMen had to make him a wig... (aka the only example that came to mind)

Look on the bright side, this chowder-serving Kate, who lives above the Brady pub, and gossips with Marlena all day is a mere shadow of the character she once was, so it may be a blessing to her memory if we are reminded less often of what could've been.

After reading a ton of posts, I've come to think it is a 'red flag' when fans reference writers and actors by their nickname to imply a more intimate knowledge of their intentions as the basis of their opinions (ie Connie or Pete).

I don't know if it was explicitly written that way (ie if any other character mentioned her lack of presence), but presumably Elliott hired Alice to care for Dennis both due to his medical issues and the regular absences of his mother. Also, I was referencing Robert Delaney and Brian Bancroft's issues with Iris where they often blamed her obsession with Mac, but may have overlooked her fear of abandonment.

Luckily, it was easily cured by a change in the writing staff (😉)

Also, where's the $$$ coming from for Chad to buy the Spectator?

ITA 80s soaps used the term 'impotency' to mean a variety of male fertility and virility issues. The origin of my question is that we know Mac was a complicated man who was often driven by libidinal urges - but - are we to assume that he regularly cheated on Iris's Mother with Sylvie, Miriam, and Maria? Because it is interesting that he was later written to be such a family man and an upstanding citizen. Was he ever able to maintain a commitment to the mothers of his five kids while they were pregnant? Rachel's love really changed him, even though the focus was on how she was changed by their marriage. Through a modern lens, it is so sexist that Rachel was punished several times for her one indiscretion with Mitch, whereas Mac continually had a hard time keeping it in his pants. And it made me think that perhaps Iris's romantic issues were not driven by her Electra complex issues with Mac, but her insecurities about being raised in a home with constant infidelity. Suddenly, I am much more sympathetic to Iris's takeover attempt. This made me chuckle - way to hold a grudge @vetsoapfan - I'm guessing you were a huge Phillip Wainwright fan (😉 - kudos to AWHP for helping me research who was fired in 1975) Also, your insightful point about the inability to distinguish opinion from fact made me think about the idea that a lot of supposed 'insider information' about relations on set may originate from fans being influenced by the allure of parasocial relationships with actors, writers, or producers, and confusing their experience with truth.

@AbcNbc247 I actually don't get Chad's motivation. He doesn't want to commit to Stephanie, but he doesn't want Everett to have her either. So, is he only interested in winning, or has the competition renewed Stephanie's appeal to him? Either way, isn't he a bit of jerk for not wanting Stephanie to be happy with someone else if he isn't ready for a new relationship? As well as a bit dumb for buying a failing newspaper in 2023, regardless of the potential to spin off Mrs. Whistleblower's column?

I have a question about Mac's kids. Around the time of Rachel's pregnancy with Matthew, we learn that Mac is impotent (which we know is imprecise soap-speak for either male infertility or erectile dysfunction), that is how we knew that he wasn't the father of Rachel's baby. However, if we assume that he wasn't impotent during the conception of Sandy or Paulina, was his fertility issue a result of his being drugged? Was it a cardiac issue? Or, did we never learn the specifics. Also, am I confusing Sandy with his mother, or were they both sex workers? And was Paulina's Mom a sex worker as well, or just some gal? And, who was the woman (beside Rachel) that Mac and Carl had in common? Was Reg involved with her too? OK, last question of the morning. Was there confusion over when Reg and Carl met? Because when Donna was introduced, we were told that Carl was her ex-husband that she met and married in Europe after Reg left for South America. But later, isn't there an insinuation that Reginald and Carl shared a past?

Ms De Lacroix may get her facts confused, but I doubt she'd ever use such a grammatically odd sentence as "I did want to be clear that I EVEN do understand what was said" 🤔

I agree with the idea that I've never been frustrated by Dynasty because it never took itself seriously. At the time, they all seemed like cartoons, and so I never stopped to think about their motivations. These days it feels perfect for TikTok nostalgia because I would rather consume the classic scenes than re-watch an entire season. I could watch Dominique exclaiming that she "doesn't sleep in her clothes nor does [she] sleep with them" on an endless loop. And I can forgive anyone clever enough to write "a marriage might not last, but an ex-wife is forever" I mean, how can we seriously discuss the demise of a character unironically named Dex Dexter? As far as Stephen's sexuality, it feels like wrong to interpret it in terms of our modern lives. The character was created by a middle-aged straight couple who were probably less evolved in their understanding of a spectrum of sexual identity, frightened by the prospect of HIV, and inhibited by trying to appeal to a mass audience. So, questioning whether Stephen was bisexual is like asking if Peppermint Patty was a lesbian. It is a riddle without an answer because the writer's intentions could not have been informed by contemporary culture.

Certainly, we can give VW the grace that after devoting decades of her life to AW, it must have been tiring to work year after year with new actors and writers that were still learning the ropes while she was trying to perfect her craft. The old canard about soaps being a training ground is all well and good, until they go off to make big money on a prime time show about forensic detectives in the 1800s, and you're stuck in Brooklyn. However, much like the Ryan's Hope book, we only know one side of the experience. Which is why I prefer to discuss memories or what we actually saw on the screen as opposed to backstage stories that always feel like I'm listening to a stranger's office gossip, it doesn't affect me, and I just don't care.

@watson71 Thank you, I had been meaning to listen to Linda Dano's podcast because I follow her on Instagram, but I hadn't actually tuned in until I read your comment. It is striking both how much older she sounds, and the ridiculous life of an actor. I guffawed when Amy Carlson mentioned playing a 1800s forensic detective. I adore those stories about how the soaps were produced in Brooklyn. And the idea that they lived in a constant state of anxiety about having to get it all done quickly or be fired was a little sad. I agree with you and @Mona Kane Croft that she was probably referencing Wyndham because the incident was about a long time actor protecting the portrayal of their character. Of course, there will always be some people who traffic in uninformed opinions masquerading as insider information. But, the context clues one gets from actually listening to the podcast make me inclined to agree with you. It's ironic that I've never really considered what Victoria Wyndham was like to work with. The only resource I've consumed was Lemay's book, and I don't recall him having anything negative to say about her as a co-worker. But, Amy Carlson's story and the recent insight from Cali Timmons suggest she might have been a bit of a pill as time went on. On the other hand, I think we can all relate to losing patience in the workplace when you've been the same job for a long time.

There is an amusing detail about the original study published in 1972 that led to the 'coveted demo'. The authors collected data from 1968 to 1969 and noted that consumers between 25-54 are more vulnerable to advertising because those 55 and older have formed established buying patterns. People often misidentify the demo as having more expendable income, but it was actually about who was more likely to be influenced by advertising. However, the original study has never been replicated in fifty years, and it was done at a time with less turnover in consumer goods. Today, a 55-year-old woman would have a hard time buying the same shampoo that they did thirty years ago, because it is probably no longer available. So, the whole theory that created the 'coveted demo' is most likely flawed.

@Paul Raven Going back to 1992, they captured VCR data.