j swift

9 minutes ago, AbcNbc247 said:

One of the side effects of the poison that Janice used was sterility. 

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

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

1 hour ago, teplin said:

IIRC -- and that's a big if -- Mac wasn't impotent but infertile, as a result of his poisoning at the hands of Janice. 

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. 

1 hour ago, vetsoapfan said:

I stopped watching AW on a daily basis in 1975, after the cast massacre

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.

2 hours ago, GLATWT88 said:

the younger demographics and these coveted demos weren't being replenished

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. 

It is a testament to how long certain characters have been on-air that we can sympathize with them even during the silliest events

BTW - an interesting bit of math that I did over on the 90s ratings thread - In 1992, 78% of the audience for DAYS was women between 24-54, but by 2022, 80% of the audience was women over 54.  I find the aging stats remarkable.  It is as if they've kept a loyal base that has aged over time, but they've not been able to add a significant number of younger viewers, which makes me the question the viability of a future for the soap, regardless of quality.

With numbers like those, Shonda Rhimes could take over with Julia Roberts as the lead actress, and it might not make a difference.

Culturally (an adverb that I overuse in this thread) - the "found family" idea seems to have also been a huge part of the PR for Melrose Place.  And I think you can easily see the influences of MP of TC.

Once again, finding logic in Salem is a fool's errand, but why did Melinda leave with the baby to go to a hotel?  I guess the doctor had to inspect the baby, but they could have done that in Sloan's apartment.  And certainly Eric isn't dumb enough to think that they deliver adopted babies to your home like Doordash.

It is amusing that between Nicole, EJ, Eric and Sloan, Melinda is the only one with a crib.

All that being said, I agree with @carolineg that the magic of DAYS is the ability to find emotion amongst the silliness.  When Melinda recalled giving up her baby for adoption, I found the performance particularly moving.  It is easy to dismiss it as drivel, but I think it is very entertaining.

My only comment on today's episode regarding Holly was, if you grow up watching everyone having sex in the living room, you begin to believe it's OK to smoke a doobie in there too...

It was a rather pathetic end for Dimitri, but I'm glad he finally got out of such confined spaces.  BTW, how do they allow prisoners to talk on the phone to their conspirators in the police station?

By tomorrow morning, Eric has to begin to question the timing of his son's birth.  As mentioned by others, it is not as if this family hasn't had babies switched in the past.  Remember when his twin tried to sell their step-sister on the black market?

Ok, so that's amazing!

In 1992, 78% of the DAYS audience was women 25-54

30 years later in 2022, 80% of the audience is women over 54

@JAS0N47I tried to search earlier in the thread to get this answer with no success, (so forgive me if it's been addressed), but is there any demographic data from the 1990s?

I am consistently fascinated that prior to Peacock, around 80% of DAYS audience was over 54.  So, I wonder if 20 years ago the demographic proportion was higher because the same audience was within that age range? 

Am I wrong? It seems like this baby switch will be quickly resolved given that Leo knows the truth (also, only men who've never seen a baby delivered write the mother passing out all the time).  How long will Eric remain oblivious?

3 hours ago, Vee said:

a development on TC that was omitted from the revisit was that Deborah Brewster won the lottery and bought the Alden mansion. While this irked me at the time because GH's writer was always pulling sloppy stunts, to be fair, I don't remember more being said on TC about Deborah moving in and living happily ever after or anything. I suppose it could be easily established that the sale fell through or whatever.

There was an issue immediately when she bought the mansion because Lennox the Butler was deeded lifetime employment, regardless of the owner (another example of only-in-the-soaps probate).  When she argued that she didn't want him there, he countered that she couldn't sue because most of her winnings were tied up in the purchase of the mansion.  So, it stands to reason that if the town fell apart, and Deborah's liquid assets were limited, she probably couldn't hold on to it for twenty years, regardless of the Clay look-alike that she met in the final episode.

2 hours ago, te. said:

I think the biggest issue with The City was that it was aired at 12:30, yet obviously aimed at the Gen X crowd.

Scheduling was a variable that was blamed for the failures of Loving, The City, Generations, and Ryan's Hope.  It seems reasonable, but hasn't The View survived in that timeslot for decades?  I never know the east coast schedule and may have confused The View taking the timeslot vs just using The City's set.

It is so interesting to see the indirect impact of AIDS on the soaps.  Romantic plots became much more chaste, and the highlights became about a first kiss, or a fairy tale wedding, rather than exploring overt sexuality of the late 70s in soaps.  It is easy to see how producing a daytime drama in New York or LA at a time of increased anxiety about HIV influenced the writing, as well as other parts of the production.  Most soaps eventually told actual stories about the disease, (some of which would be deemed offensive by modern standards), but I am fascinated at how the epidemic changed the culture of daytime TV.

I think a perfect example is Victoria on Y&R was described as frigid when she was a teen because she refused to engage in sex with her boyfriend, whereas a decade earlier Dr Casey Reed's story of sexual inhibition due to being abused by a father lead to a sexual re-awakening.  The happy ending for Casey was being sexually liberated, whereas Victoria found happiness when she met a guy who was willing to wait for the right time.

Obviously this argument is a bit reductive, but I think it accurately reflects how AIDS changed storytelling (and fashion) beyond the real issues like using condoms, to trying to de-emphasize libidinal needs and tease the audience in ways that were considered safer.

Hindsight is 20/20, but I can also appreciate the appeal of Morgan Fairchild, Catherine Hickland, and Debbie Morgan being filmed on location in New York at a time of cultural renaissance for downtown culture.  To me, the regret is that they lost the connection to that scene and began telling typical soap stories that could've been set in any small town in America. 

I think they overestimated the interest of that specific geographical area for a daytime audience. To be a bit of a coastal elite snob, you can't sell toilet paper to women in the Midwest with stories about the lifestyles of people below 14th Street.  Although in many ways it was a prototype for what Sex and the City became three years later (in terms of the interstitials, the music, and the city as a character), the plot of that show, as well as those characters, would've never worked in daytime.

41 minutes ago, Errol said:

As you can see, while "NBC News Daily" is down from "Days of our Lives," it is likely the show's demo performance today would be what "DAYS" might be getting at a much higher budget had it not been moved.

I appreciate such a detailed and data driven answer.

SOD could never...

On 11/13/2023 at 3:27 PM, AbcNbc247 said:

I hope when this all comes out, Willow stands up for Nina. That would be actually be pretty good conflict for the two of them.

I really liked Martin's advice to Nina to throw herself on the mercy of Carly and Willow.

I appreciate when characters can be an audience surrogate to get other characters to see alternatives.  I mean, he is correct that Michael wouldn't risk being exposed as a blackmailer to Willow, and Nina should use that to her advantage.  I far prefer that type of one-upmanship to punishing Nina for a minor issue.

1.2 million total and 257,000 adult viewers in the 25-54 age range, a 2% year-over-year improvement.

@Errolor @JAS0N47Is that better than DAYS was doing before Peacock?