FrenchBug82

Funnily enough that is EXACTLY what prompted my question. I am watching the first episodes and thinking that Joe Perkins #1 was hot and doing fine, Santana was striking, is-that-supposed-to-be-CC-wait-Jed-Allen-was-number-4, etc. Some of the recasts were wonderful too - I mean, who can argue with Robin Mattson - but I didn't see anything wrong with the OGs. And recasting so many so early really set a bad tone IMO. I am curious about this. Eden is mentioned briefly in the first episode (Kelly says she and Eden used to fight for the right to dance with their dad) so did they include that line last-minute because they had already decided to create her but scripts were already written for the first few months of the show so they didn't introduce her properly until they had managed to snag Walker? I have been watching those Television Academy interviews and while there are a handful of soap ones, the interviewer clearly is not intimately familiar with the shows and it stay superficial. I wish someone would take the time to do similar in-depts interviews for an oral history of the shows, SB in particular. Would be fascinating for those of us who were too young for the BTS shenanigans in real-time

I realize this is a woulda, coulda, shoulda but I think everyone understood the show was dying in its last season so I wish producers had had the guts at the outset to say this was going to be the last season so let's write a huge umbrella story that is going to bring back old characters in various ways to set up the final episode as a comeuppance to JR. I could have taken the JR suicide cliffhanger if it was the result of a well-constructed season-long plot instead of hastily put-together cameos. Instead of convenient last-minute plot points to explain how he would be driven to kill himself (which the JR we knew wouldn't), make it slow and excruciating and serious enough that we would understand how he'd get to that point. How does the ultimate survivor feel he genuinely can't get back up this time? Bobby and him had fought before but what if JR had been helping hide Pamela all along? That's a relationship breaker here and there and gets VP back for a satisfying bow on the Bobby/Pam romance. That gets him kicked out of Southfork, his home. Etc. Instead of the random Barbara Eden character and Michelle, weave a large conspiracy of old characters to take Ewing Oil away from JR: opportunity for a gazillion fun cameos for those who wanted only a bit appearance, more for a few willing to sign on for several episodes. Bringing back old characters would have been satisfying EVEN more so in the service of a complicated story that leads to that final moment. Make Cliff taking control of Ewing a real "moment" rather than an ironic wink at the last minute. Problem with those finales is that producers seem to think of them as "wrapping up the stories we currently have on-screen" rather than "wrapping up an entire world fans have invested in for more than a decade". I get that money can be an issue in a declining show but there is no excuse for the lack of creative ambition when you have so much material and so many characters on the table. I am not sure how aware the Knots Landing folks were their last season was going to be their last and their last season had weak moments but it did set up a large story that slowly built up over the season, pulling together every character, bringing back Val a few episodes before the end until the finale reveal that the mastermind behind the season-long plot was Abby who hadn't been on for several seasons but who came back for the finale. I wouldn't give them an A+ for the finale but in terms of creative ambition and understanding how to give some semblance of satisfaction to fans they definitely did it a lot better.

Rewatching some of the old reunions and the exchanges with Phaedra and Apollo is both incredibly satisfying because BOY was she right on the money and yet so frustrating because, after all the s**t she got at the time, there never was a "Yep, Kenya was vindicated" moment on the show itself. They just... moved on.

Was there ever a big-picture analysis or speculation as to why SB was unusually plagued by recasts, re-recasts, re-re-recasts from almost the get-go? I am not talking about things like Kelly or Mason recasts because the performer chose to leave; that's par for the course. But I mean firing some of your OG actors to recast a few months into a show is unheard of. Having such a revolving door in the first 18 months of a show is certainly sign something is going seriously wrong. Was it an issue with the Dobsons? The work environment? Why was Santa Barbara casting so bizarrely handled?

Yes. The legal liability for doing that would be huge. Playing it once without authorization might be a mix up. But keep doing it after the owner of the copyright asks them to stop? No way a big corporation would take such a legal risk considering how much of a gimme a legal case it would be for the victim. Which also brings up: if that was the case, it would have been an easy legal case for him to make for a lot of money. Why would he have done nothing about it? Show-business can be shady but I don't believe this story as told. There has to be more to it.

Inspired by the fact Jane Wyman is the thumbnail for one of the two promos above, I'd compare the Falcon finale with Dallas' and say that while Falcon Crest was absolutely horrible in its last season, worse than Dallas, and didn't quite neatly tie up everything in its finale either, it ended up with that beautiful speech that was simple but conveyed the emotional resonance of the show and the characters, even if we didn't get any guest stars or interesting plots. So it left a good taste because it acknowledged the emotional attachment of fans of the show (and you'd have to be a fan to still have been watching by that point). As someone said above, Dallas' finale was unsatisfying AND bleak. That's a bad combination.

As I said, everything you said is true. Of course she is imperfect and has her own secrets. And of course the sometimes vicious way she goes about things is why people refuse to believe her. BUT I also know that this way of doing things is exactly what Bravo expects of her, she knows it, and leans into it because that's where her career as a bravoreality star come from. I respect that but that's why I don't feel bad she is Cassandra. That's the price she pays for that "role". But gotta hand it to a player who plays the game well though and she is almost always on target.

The problem though with being a big hit on streaming is that even a big hit doesn't bring the same kind of money as a mediocre-ratings soap on broadcast network and that impact the quality of what we get. But I do agree with te. that the fact everything that has replaced soaps ended up bombing - and development costs for each replacement of a replacement are probably hefty - meant that networks ended up comfortable with the stability that soaps bring as long as they have their financials in order.

I don't feel sorry for Kenya because she strikes me as very self-aware and she knows that her role on the show is being an antagonist and she is more than happy to earn her paycheck by stirring s**t. She knows what she is here for and she is happy playing the part and I am fine with that since she seems to be. But I continue to be fascinated by the number of times Kenya has been subsequently proven absolutely right on things that were hotly debated - and generally against her - in the fandom.

I mean, not to be snarky, but Days has been NBC's only soap for twenty years so it is kind of easy to be their "favorite soap".

Am actually OK with the ending they gave her actually. It is ridiculous if you take it literally but the idea of Sally being on a perpetual cruise with a drink in her hand and hot men tending to her is fine by me. It is the void she left that is problematic and that would have been the same regardless of her exit story.

Ironically we agree because I almost added that if quality was the criteria, Days would have been cancelled for a good dozen of the past twenty five years. And a show like One Life to Live had been a rather positive run of creativity and good press and fan reaction for a few years when it was cancelled (which made it even more of a shock). So whatever their thought process is, it won't be based on this Key elements would be ratings - and they don't seem to be noticeably worse than last year - and the financials. And while we are not privy to the latter, it seems to me that hiring Jackee Harry and bringing Ali Sweeney back, neither of which must have come cheap, are a pretty decent sign that the cash situation is better than when they had to release everyone from their contract and go dark for a few months. Only way creative concerns would influence a cancellation decision would be if the show starts embarrassing the network. And the honest truth is that, while every show has had bad runs (and Y&R's worst a few years ago was worse than anything Days did in the same decade) and individual SL that are cringeworthy, none has the track record than Days has for storylines that are so embarrassing that the network might be uncomfortable airing them in their name. I don't think Days can afford another high-profile misstep, no matter how solid the ensemble is but if it does well in the mid-range, then it will simple be about $

It doesn't *feel* like a cancellation announcement is coming. I don't know if I'd affix "best" to the show right now but it has enough bright spots and is trying enough things to be, as you said, entertaining so creatively it doesn't feel like a dying show. HOWEVER creative quality *at the moment* is not what whoever make those calls base their decisions on.

I am going to say this: it would quite something if this group of women who behaves like a pack of hyenas going after a chosen victim every season and does. not. let. go of the dumbest pettiest stuff to the point of bullying, would actually NOT do the same the one season they have a real non made-up reason to go full-on on one of them I don't like their usual behavior and what they did to LVP or DR the past seasons but I'll be damned if I see them go easy on EG this season.

That's fascinating. I didn't recognize it at the time either. Sure, it was emotional because she was so wonderful and it was indeed a blow because she was such a great character. But she was such a secondary character story-wise that it wouldn't have crossed my mind to think of it this way. The show didn't *need* her for story. But it did need her. For balance. For heart. In hindsight, this makes all the sense in the world.

It is bizarre how much the storyline of her suing Victor because of the trust fund ended up meaning nothing to the show, the characters and apparently making so little impact that viewers have forgotten it. Despite the fact it could and should have been a huge battle that changed their relationship. Alas... I was wondering if that was going to be addressed at some point. I am no huge fan of Sophia and she would be kind of adrift in GC without her only anchor which was Neil but it still feels like we should see her even for a visit. Lord knows I have heard the fair share of criticism of her over the years - much warranted - and I was well aware she very much preferred to be in JM's Nick orbit because they are buddies but did we ever get stories that she was concerned being paired with Jack was aging her? Yikes. It is funny how subjective it is because I didn't realize she was the same age as NLG. Despite looking fantastic, she has been playing the mother of adult children for so long that Nikki *feels* older. Several of Alexis children are barely out of teenagehood so she reads younger than NLG is. And of course Nikki is saddled - I use the word knowingly - with supercoupledom with Victor and EB is 80 while NLG still manages to have romances and sexual trysts so while they are both beautiful women of the same age, one character just reads older on-screen than the other. I will be blunt: I wish EB a happy long life. But he is 80yo. Fact is Nikki could have some life left in her as a widow (for instance Jill's stories as an older woman were dreadful but they did try) but in the current state of things, while I don't see her going anywhere, I also don't see her being front-and-center much anymore.

It is funny because it is THE thing that struck me from the entire trailer. And I kept thinking me obsessing over that awful makeup line during a "dramatic scene" summed up this franchise pretty well. A really petty mundane detail hat somehow managed to say something about that lady's life.

I am probably the only human being in the universe having any feelings or opinions about this but I actually used to ship Lindsey Wells and Jack. They never even were officially romantically paired but they had good chemistry and understood each other without judgement. LK is pretty well enconsced in Days at this point but if they ever cancel it, I'd love to see this revisited.

We have to accept that Nikki's days of having a lot of hot stories are over. But I think she does fit the place of a grand dame pretty well and while it may not be active in SL, it means she will stick around. With JC gone and EB 80yo, I think she is safe. Well a lot of your points are debatable but that's subjective and that's fine. But I don't understand the "They are shoving Adam down our throat" argument though. I don't like the Shadam story either and as you said, it doesn't make sense based on what happened during the JH years but I don't feel the *character* is being *forced down our throats*. He is an established character and he has story. Like him or not, root against him or not, fine. That's fair game but that's not what "forced down our throats" mean for a character at all. It is not even a case of the show telling us to "like him, like him, like him" because they are unnecessarily writing him to be really cold to Chelsea: if they wanted us to sympathize with him, that's not the way they'd go. I don't buy what they are selling on Shadam at all (and I was a huge fan during the MM years) and there is plenty of room to dislike Adam himself. But "being written for" is different from "being shoved down our throats". As for Sally, she has literally done nothing since she arrived. Now, as someone who likes her, I find that too bad but "Sally is worse than Phyllis" is one special kind of character fandom. You like Phyllis: good, enjoy her! You wanna dislike Sally because Phyllis dislikes Sally? Fine, that's great! But let's not be delusional about what is or is not happening on the show. Phyllis tried to commit murder at least twice (running Cricket/Paul over and the Sasha fire). She doesn't behave like this anymore but there are very few, if any, "worse" people in terms of track record on the show right now.

Yes. Instead of an A story and side scenes of random characters discussing the A story, an episode should be the heat of a A story and the buildup to a B story. Then the heat of the B story and the buildup of the C story. Then the heat of the C story and the fallout of the A story. It is not that you can't do padding sometimes but there needs to be balance between stories. AND also between tones. It can't be romantic triangles all the time. At its heyday Sally Spectra antics were perfect for padding when there was a hot A story front-and-center. Also the characters-commenting-action trope is all the more tired because it is all so random and interchangeable. In the past, even when they had Sally Spectra pad time by discussing the A story (it is not a new trick of Brad Bell even when the show was better) she had a fresh take and added some humor to it. Nothing was advanced but we enjoyed her commentary. If you are going to pad time with throwaway scenes, it is not impossible to make them entertaining with a teensy bit of effort and characterization. But the dialogue for those is interchangeable and has nothing to do with who the character is. Donna would say the same things as Katie. It really feels they write these scenes anonymously and just cast whatever character whose performer is available that day or have guarantees to burn, which makes it even worse.

Sure. But like with Victoria Rowell who also had legitimate grievances and made very fair and very good point, there is a balance to be found between being bitter and exposing what you think is unfair on one hand and being professional and biting your tongue. It is human to lean onto the former but you have to know the consequences and how you are coming off after a while, even when the starting point for your anger is perfectly valid. And once the bridge is burned, it is b.u.r.n.e.d. To mention a recent infamous case, don't you think Gina Tonognoni was extremely angry at the way they did her? Do you think she said anything but bitter things about the way she was fired to her friends and family? And yet you had nothing but smiles and graciousness from her in public. Because one has to pick one's fights and she knows her bread is buttered in the soap world. Yes. The hypocrisy here is a bit much. I mean, that Phyllis is a hypocrite, fine. But that Jack would act so high and mighty with Sally when he dated Phyllis more than once knowing exactly who she was at least the last few times? I wish they had Sally know enough to put them in their place. But that Phyllis is written to be infuriating is part of the character's DNA so her choice to be such an hypocrite does not strike me as a writers' mistake. That's actually pretty in-character. But it is irritating and I could do without it.

In a way that is one of the small myriad largely subconscious way racist tropes sustain themselves. It wouldn't occur to even well-meaning white writers to write a wealthy black family. Because blackness is not associated with business success or old wealth in the racist subconscious of our culture, which means they aren't portrayed as such which in turn means the trope is passed on different generations. Talking of "Generations" that was one of the ways you could tell the show had some black staff because a large section of the cast got to be glamorous just like any white family on a white soap. Meanwhile, the "white-dominated" show with arguably the strongest longest-lasting AA "island" (Y&R) came out of the family of a house servant. I have a LOT of issues with Tyler Perry who I find reprehensible in many ways but the success of his shows - garbage as they are - shows the appetite is huge and out there and 100% think there is at least as much potential in "minority" viewers than there is in clinging to the dwindling viewership of conservative housefraus. And only one of these two demographics is growing. It boggles the mind not one soap is willing to make a bet and take the risk to target the former even if it means alienating some of the latter.

Me and my brother have the same exact same set of two parents but we were raised separately (long story). We are both gay. But while his husband is a great guy, I do not find him attractive in the slightest.

In his defense, he doesn't write the episode breakdowns. If he was assigned to write dialogue for an episode where "Bill and Liam talk about Vinny" he will write it without necessarily knowing that other writers were given a similar breakdown several times in the past few weeks and the dialogue ends up being repetitive.

Yes. And Sally has a sister named Coco (urgh @ that name). But I don't recall anything being said about her parents. So much so that when it struck me that Sarah B. would make a good mother pick for her I looked up to check if I hadn't memory-holed a "killed in a car accident" reference or something