j swift

You wouldn't consider sleeping with Jake, early in her relationship with Jamie, moving on quickly? Sure, she did it to possibly entrap Jamie, but that was more complex than just lusting for Jamie. She wanted a family, she wanted stability, she wanted to beat Lisa. And, more to the point, the whole triangle is written from Vicky's perspective, so Jamie is not really destined to be the central figure from the start of the recast, regardless of the limp Lau of it all. Oy, the spelling of it all. I keep typing Jamey as in the writer, and Viki as in the Lord.

Considering I learned the definition of the word bastard watching Monica speak about baby Jason, I have a slightly different perspective.😉 On a related note: I assume Sam and Lucas weren't in Helena's will as Mikkos's grandkids, despite knowing Lucas most of his life. But, we can see how ridiculous all that would become as characters pass.

Like many, videogames are a cultural blindspot. But, in light of recent events, it fascinates me as a culture that we still look at movie grosses in pop culture, but we rarely see the sales of videogames tracked in the NYT or other Monday media sources, despite their broader appeal and impact.

Side note: I need to commend you on your commitment to the bit about Kate on Lost. That's a twenty-year-old reference. But, like any credible soap fan, we don't give up our character enmity easily. Which is why when Monica didn't leave much to Susan's "bastard child", it felt ok by me.

Totally, Monica was a boomer, she watched Dallas, splitting the Q mansion is very Jock Ewing-coded. 🤠 But, Tracey is the logical heir in every sense of the word. The inheritance of Drew/Jason were Alan's concerns, not Monica's. Just as Queen Camilla won't leave stuff to Prince Harry.

dayspeacock-20251108_120224-2730858758.mp4 from DAYS instagram I’ve heard it a million times, but for the first time I actually stopped to think about Macdonald Carey’s billing on Days of Our Lives. I always knew it was contractual—but was he ever a real draw for the audience? Admittedly, I only knew him from Days. But digging a little deeper, it’s clear Carey brought serious Hollywood credentials to the role. A roll on Broadway led to him being signed to a studio contract with Paramount Pictures. Long before he became the voice of the hourglass, he was a bona fide star—dubbed the “King of the Bs” for his prolific run in B-movies. Then he transitioned to television with appearances on prestige anthology series like Playhouse 90 and Lock Up. So, I assume generations older than I would've known his name when this played. Meanwhile, wouldn't it have been funny if he messed up and said "Days of Our Lives, a new dramatic serial, starring me."?

Much like Michael Corinthos on GH, when the legacy character keeps landing as the eternal second choice in every romantic triangle, it makes him look downright pathetic. The show’s could've revolved around Jamie, and yet most women he dated preferred someone else? That’s not tragic, it’s embarrassing. If effortlessly cool women like Lisa and Vicky could move on without a second thought, it says a lot about his long-term appeal—or lack thereof. Even if he were played by Robert Redford (RIP), the writing made him feel like a placeholder, not a prize.

I would add my recollection that they each related to Donna in fundamentally different ways. Peter 1.0 is the pragmatic operator—keeping the Love mansion off the auction block by working for Mac, while Donna scrambles to secure her own income stream. In this dynamic, Peter can afford to dismiss Donna’s take on Sally. He would be intrigued—maybe even aroused—by Sally’s reckless past, not threatened by it. Peter 2.0, by contrast, has become Donna’s confidant. But in doing so, he’s lost his footing in the family. Now, Donna’s opinion of Sally suddenly matters. The man who once scoffed at her judgment is now quietly seeking her approval. I also believe that once Nicole is introduced, Peter's youth in comparison to Donna is emphasized. For example, she's already a divorcee and a mother of twin teens when he is getting engaged for the first time. Which allows her to have more control over her siblings as the quasi-matriarch of the Loves

You are a great resource for this. So, it looks well-balanced. For the feeble-minded among us, everyone gets an episode to catchup/reflect, and then everyone goes to the party. One itchy comment: Jen/Melissa shouldn't have let them film her from below, that neck is not doing her any favors in terms of enhancing her natural beauty. And thanks for confirming it is Kristen in the promo. So, now Tony's missing and Kristen is kidnapped - Is Chad in danger? @AbcNbc247 and Cat's stabbing was a misdirect?

I think @Bright Eyes is referencing the Jeopardy clip @Taoboi & @DaytimeFan - where she looks stunning

It’s a dumb metaphor, I know—but it’s like when Tori Spelling didn’t inherit a fortune from her father because her mother was still alive. Same principle applies to Monica and Tracy: it makes sense that the house stays within their generation. Alan bought it and gave it to Monica, but Tracy and their parents lived there on and off for forty years. That’s deep-rooted occupancy, she's got squatter's rights. (And I assume we’ll never get clarity on what Edward and Lila did with their original Hamptons house—the one where Tracy and Alan were raised -- just like we'll never know what happened to 1st cousin Alexandra or 3rd cousin Celia Quatermaine's family tree and their wealth). In most families, property functions as generational wealth—it’s not distributed until the generation dies. Grandkids rarely inherit the estate directly. It’s not like Charles III is going to hand Buckingham Palace to Prince George just because he’s got castles to spare. They’re all going to William. And if William or Harry were to predecease Charles, the properties would revert to his siblings… well, never mind.

It’s such a valid criticism. Steve’s one return from the dead was squandered—reduced to a limp triangle with nu-Alice and a focus on his nu-daughter, while the characters who should’ve anchored his comeback, Jamie and Sally, were sidelined and swiftly dismissed. Worse, they were recast again. That’s the real tragedy. As a lifelong Stephen Yates stan (short-shorts Jamie supremacy), I always felt Another World should’ve been framed through Jamie’s evolution. The 1970s rightly centered Rachel’s romantic chaos while Jamie was still a child. But by the 1980s, his identity crisis as a Cory/Frame should’ve taken center stage, culminating in his emergence as a romantic lead in the 1990s. Instead, the show bungled him repeatedly—never committing to his arc long enough for him to become the emotional core. This moment, Steve’s return, was the perfect inflection point. The tension between Steve and Mac could’ve mirrored Jamie’s internal conflict. Sally’s storyline could’ve been defined by the search for a long-lost father and the painful struggle to connect. But the show chose shortcuts over substance, and the opportunity to deepen its legacy characters was lost.

@Soaplovers your comment reminded of Krasker's other great scene synopsis -- much like my favorite scene ever when Abby calls Paige a nepo-baby -- Sheridan's deadpan expression allows other actors to shine in scenes where they get to be mean to her. https://thatsallsiknow.blogspot.com/2017/05/knots-landing-season-8.html

Nicholette Sheridan must be great in an audition, and certainly grew as an actress during her time on DH. Thinking about writing for streaming versus long form episodic TV, it is interesting to think that each set of creative teams had the opportunity to adapt to audience response, but so few chose to react. He cites that even worst team abandoned the Tidal Energy plot after three months, but the season 8 team refused to adapt to their audience over the course of an entire nine moth season.

@Franko thanks for the recommendation to such a fun blog post -- I appreciate all the context of the change in time slots, the reaction to the prior season's writing, the writing changes, the Colby's premiering and crashing and how that must have frightened CBS programming, the reaction to the dream season on Dallas - it is cool to think about. His joke about her dual role leading to a concern about the drinking water on the Lorimar lot is great. I understand this reaction—but isn’t it also a reaction to the medium? If you were watching weekly (as intended), it might have felt more palatable simply because there was more time between episodes. It seems like a streaming issue: when the writers were originally crafting the scripts, they had to reorient the audience to Joshua’s misdeeds each week, rather than rely on the kind of recall that comes with a focused rewatch.

Dark thought: it is awfully convenient that Mother Kat Greene has dementia, so they don't have to deal with the whole Pawn backstory again. Also, I think a lab coat and haircut would add to Dr. Mark Greene's credibility, but acting in scenes next to Dr Rat Tail isn't helping.

Someone should tell Leo that Dimitri's doppelgänger is not in Curaçao 😉

It’s always been a blind spot for me—tracking who wrote what, and when. Still, if we accept that “Marland’s Rules” were published in 1992, in the often-quoted article How Not to Wreck a Show, it raises a fair question: how often did he break those rules after codifying them? Clearly, there was satire involved. He was responding, in part, to writers who had taken over shows he’d previously helmed. And just as clearly, the rules weren’t meant to be followed literally, point by point. It was Soap Opera Weekly, not the APA primer for soap writers. I feel like a lot of the humor has gotten lost over the years as it was handed down without context. He is being shady to writers at other soaps, not trying to teach a benign lesson. He's not saying "this is how to write a soap opera", he's saying, this is how not to mess up his prior successes. But if we allow that he may have broken them before setting them down—because they weren’t yet formalized in, say, 1982—then what’s the track record after publication? Once the rules were in print, how often did he bend or ignore them? Lemay’s commentary adds useful context: Marland’s management style was edict-driven, not especially collaborative. Whereas Lemay wrote about not collaborating because financially he wanted to keep most of the writing budget for himself, and he thought he could do most of the heavy lifting. So it’s striking, in retrospect, to see people now praising a set of rules that once served to govern his staff. I assume every head writer has a vision—or at least a list of non-negotiables—but what stays with me is Marland’s decision to frame his as rules. That choice, more than the content itself, is what resonates now.

Is it Kristin in the blindfold? Denim jacket, tank top, straight blond hair. I'm hopeful it is a balance of nostalgia and forward momentum. The funerals mostly stuck to nostalgia, but there's a lot going on currently at the hospital that I still want to uncover. I understand the urge to just have Marie tell stories about her siblings all week, we have to also keep things moving along.

I'm positive none of us will find ourselves in similar circumstances. However, it is not unimaginable that if I was in entertainment, lived in New Jersey, and believed my husband could escape going to federal prison, I wouldn't disco dance at a rally. So, just given her prior performances, I'm giving her some grace, and judging him harshly for being involved in a very stupid scheme.

What confuses me about Rolf’s return - besides the rat tail - is that Michael Dietz’s Versavix doctor felt like this writing team’s deliberate attempt to create a more grounded, credible alternative to the mad scientist trope. Now that they’ve reintroduced Mark—who I still think would pair well with Javi at the hospital to dig into the lab mystery—why resurrect such a polarizing legacy character, especially one so closely tied to a different era and writing style? I'm anticipating that Doc's tendency to faint is going to play into EJ's plan with Rolf, but it doesn't seem like Marlena's very concerned about her own symptoms. (I was worried it would be Marlena falling asleep at the wheel and hitting Thomas, thankfully it was not). {edit} I hadn't considered that Richard Wharton aka Dr Rolf, was on season 1 of The Pitt (6:00 and 7:00) - maybe he just wasn't available during Versavix, and they hired another actor with no intentions of sidelining Rolf forever - who knows? I may have only wished they were trying a new approach to the OL'Dimera miracle cure/ brain chip/orchid tales.

@Tisy-Lish I'm intrigued by the critique of Marland's managerial style. We rarely get an objective insight into the writing process of soaps. So, I resonated with the idea of the writer chaffing over the restrictive nature of Marland's supervision. As I recall, in the memoir, Harding Lemay had a similar opinion of his phone calls with Irna Phillips. He enjoyed hearing her knowledge of the history of the show, but lamented her lack of collaborative spirit (a self-acknowledged generous interpretation of their relationship in the book).

At this point, I simply hope it will take place indoors, and not in the town square. I've lowered my expectations, anything heart-warming will be a welcome surprise, and I hope Marie gets a good scene with Julie. 😎

@DeeVee I think it is worth a slight correction for the record: In the interview with We Love Soaps (“Part Four”, August 2009) Lemay says:

Never say that I don't respond to feedback😉🤰