vetsoapfan

4 minutes ago, Efulton said:

Doesn't Harding Lemay write about Hugh Marlowe's frustration with Virginia Dwyer in Eight Years in Another World? Lemay was fine with Constance Ford changing dialogue to better fit her character but when Virginia Dwyer did it is she was difficult.  

Ariana Muenker (Marianne Randolph) spoke of Hugh Marlowe struggling to remember his lines.  I think it was in a Locher Room interview.  Once again Lemay showed his bias with the actors he preferred.

You'll notice that Marlowe has never been quoted as saying he had trouble with Dwyer; it was all Lemay.

And yes, the scribe would vehemently condemn some actors (like Dwyer) for the EXACT SAME on-set behavior that he praised his pets for. 

18 minutes ago, Donna L. Bridges said:

In my forum the firings of George Reinholt & Jacquie Courtney & Virginia Dwyer just came up & we were discussing actors hiding their lines all over the set & one poster told me that Hugh Marlowe who played Jim Matthews was driven crazy by Virginia Dwyer. He apparently said that she never fed him his cues or picked up on hers. That was news to me. 

That story came from Harding Lemay, who loathed Virginia Dwyer for reasons of his own. He claimed that it was Dwyer who made Marlowe stumble over his lines all the time.

I call BS. 

Poor Marlowe forgot and got tangled in his dialogue a lot, with many different scene partners, and the problem only got worse after Dwyer was long gone.

I'd say Lemay was smearing Dwyer to justify his very unpopular demand that she be fired.

4 hours ago, adrnyc said:

Thank you for this! It's good to have the knowledge. As you said, it's part of soap opera lore and I've heard it mentioned so many times but didn't see it. I could swear that it even got into those "Soaps & Serials" novels from the 80s. I have the ATWT ones - read them probably 15 years ago - and I think that fake storyline made it into the book. Because I remember thinking "WTF is going on here? Why would they write that she fell UP the stairs? Did they make a mistake?!"

There's a major difference between getting injured by falling as you are running up the stairs and "falling up the stairs," which is how various condescending critics and clueless soap "historians"  have described the scene. Just trying to make fun of the soaps, as usual, I guess. But viewers who actually watched know good the show was back then.
 

13 minutes ago, Reverend Ruthledge said:

No, the Soaps & Serials rendition of what happened didn't have her "fall up the stairs" but it was just as weird. In the book, she wasn't running up the stairs but was walking up the stairs with a tea tray and tripped. The ceramic tea pot shattered and she was stabbed with a shard of the broken tea pot. I think they were competing for the weirdest version of the accident. I never got the tea pot angle unless the writer was trying to make some statement about Liz being English and being killed by a tea pot. Soaps and Serials would change things up for no discernible reason. Sometimes they were accurate to what really happened and sometimes they just completely pulled something out of nowhere.

I had to give up on the Soaps & Serials books pretty quickly, because their glaring errors and "creative reinterpretation of history" drove me crazy.

The only soap novelizations which I've read, and which were reasonably accurate, were Another World I and Another World II, by Kate Lowe Kerrigan.

5 hours ago, DramatistDreamer said:

It was great to see that type of consistency in a character, tbh. Even in the 1980s, when I started watching as a child, there’d be these warm holiday gatherings and Ellen would be there and Lisa would enter the kitchen and flounce by and Ellen would shoot such a look at her. Just the memory of these encounters sends me.

Ellen never let up on Susan, either.

Scenes like this add realism and relatability to the characters. Let's face it, some of us can hold grudges for life.

4 hours ago, Mitch64 said:

Ellen would get to slap Lisa when she was hysterical...Lisa, "I wasn't that hysterical," Ellen "I know, but it's a good excuse..that slap was years in the coming!" 

I'd pay to see that!

On 2/26/2024 at 7:51 PM, adrnyc said:

Ah, thanks. Still, the idea of an "Unabortion storyline" is definitely fascinating. Sorta like dying by falling UP the stairs. 

The death-by-falling-up-the-stairs myth is firmly ingrained in soap opera lore, but never actually happened. Liz Stewart on ATWT was seriously injured when she fell while running up the stairs. Critics have spun this as she "fell up the staircase," which of course is absurd and never happened. Folks just took pleasure in mocking the soaps.

14 hours ago, Mitch64 said:

Ellen would have been a character like that..during the dumb Emily and Tom affair she should have been there, reigniting her "feud" with Lisa...."Oh, it's funny you call my granddaughter a slut when the word was practically invented for you!" 

I always found it amusing how long and hard Ellen would and could hold onto a grudge, LOL.

16 minutes ago, Donna L. Bridges said:

I apologize. I exaggerated. Please forgive. Mea culpa. I knew you weren't giving them a pass. I was feeling whimsical. My fault, entirely.

No harm, no foul, no sweat.

59 minutes ago, Donna L. Bridges said:

So you give them a pass because someone had the sense to fire them. That's kind of cute. I don't agree but it is amusing & not threatening. You still have your values intact!

In no way did I ever say, or imply, that I give Stern and Black a pass. I acknowledged their contribution to ATWT was weak. I would never hire them to steer any soap again. I said they were not my choice for the absolute WORST writers in daytime's history. That cannot be construed as giving them a pass.

59 minutes ago, Donna L. Bridges said:

I do so miss the New York soaps. If I could have my druthers of an all classic soap streaming service it would be showing AW, ATWT, GL, Santa Barbara (I know Disney owns them, this is make-believe.), PC, Texas, AMC & OLTL. 

I'd add Henry Slesar's years at The Edge of Night to my dream list of TGL, ATWT, AW, DAYS, Y&R, OLTL, GH, AMC and probably even SOM (all in their best years, not necessarily in their entirety).

59 minutes ago, Donna L. Bridges said:

And don't even get me started on Goutman. When he told Jennifer Lenhart that he did not want to hear what the fans thought because he knew what was right for the show & then she gave him a chance to keep that statement out of the Q&A, inquiring if he was sure the really wanted to say that, he did not take it back, no, he told her to print it. Well, that was an incredibly dark day for ATWT, for soap fans, etc. 

After giving AW the most hated finale in all of soaps, he progressed to make the ATWT set no longer the happy place it had been for 4 decades. 

Most people I speak to agree he was a destructive, negative force.

27 minutes ago, Donna L. Bridges said:

Oh, no, (MMcT) IMO is & was a bonafide #SoapKiller. Not even Reilly could out-do the UnAbortion. 

The unabortion ranks down there in the pit of soap-story hell, and I agree with MMcT beings dreadful, but overall, I have to say JER was worse.

27 minutes ago, Donna L. Bridges said:

You will excuse me if I continue to blame Connie Chung's husband for that particular debacle. The only saving grace is that they were not left to do their worst for very long!

Not like JER, Carlivati, Pratt, McTavish, Racina, Higley, and others whose tenures seemed to last forever. That's why I assert that Stern and Black were not the worst of the worst in the history of the genre..

27 minutes ago, Donna L. Bridges said:

And, maybe they see the value in keeping certain viewers. What an idea, to maintain a loyal fanbase?!!

When TPTB don't care about older viewers of soaps, they are signing the shows' death warrants. Older viewers are a huge part of the potential audience.

27 minutes ago, Donna L. Bridges said:

Or AW or GL. The traditional P&G theatrically inspired, kitchen table talking, multigenerationally living, New York located soaps are gone forever. 

Alas. 

34 minutes ago, Paul Raven said:

Re Ellen

Had they nurtured core families, with a little SORASING you have her 4 grandchildren ready to be the new teens/young adults.

That should have been a gift to the writers but they chose to ignore it.

Her daughter Dee never returned. She could have come back as a business woman, ready to get revenge on John, or fallen for him again etc.

Plenty of opportunities for Ellen to be strong supporting.

Over the years, I have also thought about the different ways which the Stewarts could have been revitalized and returned to prominence. But I knew the show, its characters and its history, and I cared about ATWT's legacy. I have a feeling this was not the case among the revolving door of TPTB.

40 minutes ago, DRW50 said:

Yes, it was a real mistake to never do anything with Dee or Annie down the line. I suppose Marland may have thought they would make no sense with the later canvas, but I think it could have worked.

Me too. And to give Marland credit, he kept David Stewart's presence alive on the show until he had no other choice than to replace Henderson Forsythe with another actor, or lay the character to rest. And after David's death, Marland kept Ellen around and seen fairly regularly. Marland knew that on ATWT, audience love for the characters was strong.

48 minutes ago, Khan said:

I agree.  Even back then, as it was happening, I didn't like what Stephen Black and Henry Stern were writing for ATWT, but at the same time, I didn't think they were so destructive that the show was being damaged irreparably.  Especially when I compared it to what JER was doing with DAYS, or Megan McTavish with AMC and GL.

UGH! JER eviscerated DAYS, IMHO. MMcT might have been somewhat less heinous, but she really stunk up the joint in Springfield and Pine Valley.

It is bewildering that soaps have failed to cultivate and hire quality writers in so many, many years. Obviously, recycling familiar hacks who have failed everywhere else does not work. At the very least, hiring Stern and Black was a stab at trying something different.

41 minutes ago, DRW50 said:

I think what upset me at the time was, beyond how cheap and crass the show started to feel (like infamously having a lengthy sex scene between Mark and Connor in the show's 40th anniversary episode), I missed the history and tradition, the returns of former characters, etc. Choices like dumping Ellen upset me a great deal. With hindsight, I know that wasn't their fault and the show was going to be yanked in that direction no matter what, even if it still doesn't make me see their era as much better in quality (if I tried to do a full rewatch I might have a more positive opinion, as they did at least give story to the vets, and while it was somewhat criticized at the time, I think they wrapped up Mac's Alzheimer's story decently enough, especially compared to how many soaps handle this topic).

Having watched the show my entire life, I was quite partial to the Lowell/Stewart family, and Ellen was its remaining lynchpin. I was furious when TPTB dropped the character without any reason given on-screen (at the time, anyway). I had to admit, however, that with almost all of her family gone, and with Ellen a widow, I was surprised she lasted as long as she did.

39 minutes ago, DeliaIrisFan said:

There was something I noticed when I tuned back into GH after many years for Jackie Zeman's send-off last month.  This is a slight exaggeration and certainly not scientific at all, but it seemed to me like there are more Gen X breakout soap stars of their day featured prominently on that one show than there were Baby Boomers on the frontburner across all the soaps in the late '90s/early '00s, who would have been around the same age then.  To say nothing of even older cast members.  It seems like those actors are there now because someone thinks they'll appeal to lapsed soap viewers, even if those viewers are older now.

Actually that is a good point: GH's use of "older" characters may very well be an attempt to interest/lure back lapsed (now older) viewers. The show would probably not feature appearances by Scorpio, Anna and other folks of a certain age to bedazzle 18-year-olds in the audience. One could say that DAYS might be continuing to use Julie, Doug, Maggie, Marlena and John because of longtime viewers' loyalty to those characters, not in an attempt to pander to Gen Zers.

39 minutes ago, DeliaIrisFan said:

Of course, many of those middle-aged+ performers who are now getting work on GH made their names on shows that are off the air (like Maura West, to bring it back to ATWT) and/or in stories that were mostly lackluster to begin with.  And whether they're being well utilized is even further off-topic, so I'll just leave it there on that note.  It's just sad this couldn't have happened when there were still ~ 10 soaps with 40+ and 50+ year-old veterans who had rich histories that could still be mined - ATWT chief among them, of course.

The fact that ATWT held on to so many of its older veteran actors was an incredible gift. It was just an infuriating waste that Sheffer barely used them most of the time. I'm not fan of Jean Passanante, but at least she did pay attention to folks like Bob and Kim more than Sheffer did.

39 minutes ago, DeliaIrisFan said:

That said, I don't know if the all-powerful demographic has actually been debunked or if networks have given up on the idea of 18-34 year–olds watching a soap, or perhaps any other network TV in the daytime.  Still, knowing what I know now, a part of me wishes TPTB had decided in 1990-something that soaps were on borrowed time and let them keep doing their thing for as long as it continued to make sense to keep them on the air.

Yes, the "suits" should have backed off decades ago and let soaps be soaps and do what daytime dramas do best, without all the ((ahem)) helpful hints and outright mandates from TPTB. The micro-managing was always misguided at best and harmful at worst.

42 minutes ago, Donna L. Bridges said:

They talk about Frank & Ron saving the show & they talk about what people usually want to do with their vets contrasted with Frank & the vets. 

I will hold my breath, pinch my nose, and give Frank a brownie point for that. In all seriousness, many executive producers would have dismissed many of the veteran actors and characters. With a lot of them still on GH's canvas, there's at least a chance they will be used well someday. Fingers crossed, Patrick Mulcahey.

What a shame that we will never see ATWT get the chance to shine again.

7 hours ago, Mona Kane Croft said:

It seems to me, based what's going on with the remaining television soap operas, that the shows have completely given up on attracting the youth demographic.  It seems they are seeking ratings in general without pursuing a particular age group. If they had made this decision 20 years ago, there might be several more soaps still on the networks.   Does does anyone else agree?  

This is an honest question and NOT in any way meant to come across as snarky.

What are the remaining soaps doing these days that indicate they are working towards improving their general ratings?

From my (admittedly limited) interest in today's soaps, I only see them making the same old mistakes over and over again.

And also, do you think that the way TPTB are handling the surviving soaps will do any good and actually help the anemic ratings increase?

Again, no snark intended.

4 hours ago, Khan said:

I don't hold what happened at FC under their watch against them, as I think FC had problems even in its' peak years.

But things can always...get worse, LOL!

Seriously, from my personal experience viewing their ATWT material, I do not believe they were the worst-of-the-worst soap scribes. Not great by any means, but soap fans have endured weaker and more destructive head writers, IMHO.

25 minutes ago, DRW50 said:

Logically I know that nothing was probably going to keep the soaps on the air, and it was a miracle most of them lasted as long as they did, but I'll still always wonder if ATWT (as it's the topic, sorry to go off course) and others might still be here if they had been run with any level of care by greedy, soulless networks who never understood that the time the genre made them the most money was when they had the least involvement in the product.

Oh, yes, if intelligent, perceptive and knowledgeable PTB had been in charge a few decades ago, and had worked effectively to stop the hemorrhaging of daytime dramas, old warhorses like ATWT (which still had a viable, but misused, foundation upon its cancellation) might very well have survived and potentially even thrived.

Unfortunately, the money-hungry and oppresive, micro-managing suits just continued to drive the shows into the ground.

25 minutes ago, DRW50 said:

I'm glad some soaps are still on and I hope there will always be soaps on but it's always a tough moment to remember that something made in 1950 through a radio so often feels more relevant to today than soap product made in 2024.

You can listen to vintage radio soaps and watch older television episodes from the 1950s, and quickly become immersed in the drama because it was predicated on identifiable human emotions; experiences the audience often shared and could identify with. It's telling to me that in 2024, so many viewers are caught up in the Hortons losing their house, the family's Christmas ornaments being at risk, and Doug's impending death. Nobody expresses this much emotional involvement in brain implants and uber villains threatening to kidnap the central heroine for the 17th time.

The viewers want the timeless basics of the genre. They're not getting them. The soaps are dwindling away. And after decades, TIIC still don't get it.

8 minutes ago, DRW50 said:

I'll never forget seeing those scenes praised in soap magazines for their great comedy element. That was when I truly knew how much the bottom had fallen out on those publications. 

The soap press died a long, slow and brutal death; much like the soaps themselves.

I get sh*t for saying this from stans who insist that I must praise the soaps to the heavens at all times, to convince TPTB to keep them on the air, but honestly? With little-to-no hope of the genre ever healing, I wouldn't be too crushed if the remaining four shows were laid to rest. Put them out of their misery. 

2 minutes ago, DRW50 said:

It was when we got scenes like Julia punching Jack and killing a horse, and all of Craig's sneering (which we were always meant to find hilarious and true) that I truly did feel like the canvas became repulsive in ways that were difficult to get past. There was indeed a mean-spirited, callous nature that was exalted at every turn, a sociopathic tint that was so typical of that era of pop culture and infested onto daytime by people who hated or misunderstood the genre.

Perfectly said. When ATWT was number one in the ratings for its first two decades, and when it commanded fierce and unwavering fan devotion, a sense of community, warmth, humanity, family values and decency were the cornerstones of the show. When all those "old-fashioned" tenants were wiped out in favor of harsh, mean-spirited and callous shenanigans, the show was in deep, deep trouble. None of the modern era's PTB knew how to fix it, and I daresay most of them didn't care to return Oakdale to its roots. The soap just got worse and worse.

2 minutes ago, DRW50 said:

ATWT always had a steely side, and there were certainly patches of ugliness before Sheffer (like the Diego stuff or that David/Reid fiasco), but nothing to that level which seemed to consume the entire canvas. I felt dirty even trying to watch. If the James return/Margo miscarriage story had happened in that era, we would have had James pop into her room to laugh at her and call her barren, as we were invited to clap our hands in glee.

Jack Snyder's sexual abuse by Julia came across (to me) in a sniggering way, which I found offensive. It was like the audience was supposed to find some truly ugly events amusing (wink, wink), and they just weren't.

The uglier the events on screen became, the less  ATWT resembled...ATWT.

14 minutes ago, Mona Kane Croft said:

In my opinion, Sheffer needed a co-head writer or a stronger executive producer -- someone who could hold him back a bit.  Much of Sheffer's writing had "good bones", but he lacked self control.  

I think he showed promise at the beginning of his tenure, when he worked with Carolyn Culliton. Later, when there was nobody to pull in the reigns, he went wild. He downplayed the vets and the Hugheses far too much, and overplayed his favorites. God knows what his beef was with Eileen Fulton, who became like an irrelevant, rarely-seen under-fiver during his reign. I felt there was a mean-spiritedness to his writing, which lacked heart, warmth and family values which were the core of ATWT.

10 minutes ago, DRW50 said:

Other than some truly gross choices with characters like Emily (taunting a blind woman - how hot!), I don't think anything they did was as damaging in the long-term as a number of other writers (including Hogan Sheffer) - their problem was just being so out of step with what the show should have been and coming along at a time when the show and the genre were in deep distress. This was also when such badness was still a relative surprise as Marland had only been gone a few years. By the time of the mid '00s it was just another day.

UGH! Hogan Sheffer really s**t all over the show and its legacy, and did tremendous damage. By comparison, Stern and Black, and even the dreaded Jean Passanante did less harm. Now that we can look back, hindsight tells us that Stern and Black, while bad, could have been worse. They could have been Sheffer or JER or Carlivati bad.

11 minutes ago, wonderwoman1951 said:

not sure where black and stern fall in the pantheon of bad headwriters. what i can tell you is that it was at les moonves’s “suggestion” that black and stern became atwt’s headwriters, which they both told me, and was confirmed by lucy johnson, head of cbs daytime. 

I wouldn't be surprised. Network suits have a habit of championing creative personnel from primetime TV, as if (just by the mere fact that they have worked on primetime television), their work should be good. Jessica Klein, Lynn Latham, Stern & Black, Charles Pratt, Nina Laemmle, Anne Howard Bailey, and a host of other scribes who failed on the soaps, prove otherwise.

6 hours ago, Khan said:

For years, there were rumors that suggested then-EP John Valente had sabotaged ATWT deliberately because he was mad that P&G transferred him from AW.  I don't know whether there was any truth to those rumors, but watching that episode again, it does make me wonder.  Like, maybe Black & Stern got caught in the crossfire between Valente and P&G; and maybe - just maybe - if they had had a more supportive EP, whose only agenda was to help the show get back on its' feet after Marland's death, they might not have been such total disasters as HW's.

I've always heard they were gawd-awful at Falcon Crest, and crippled that show instantly when they took over the head writing reigns. I don't think Black and Stern were were as bad/damaging as JER, Charles Pratt, Thom Racina, Leah Laiman, and some other, notoriously-awful writers, but I have the feeling that their material would not be stellar under the best of circumstances.

This famous scene (starting at 42:04) aired on Another World in 1974, and was particularly engrossing because viewers had waited for six YEARS for Alice to unleash her fury on  Rachel.

(Actually, Irene Dailey's Aunt Liz was far too meek here. Audra Lindley's version of Liz Matthews  from the 1960s would have whupped Rachel's a$$, and torn her hair out, from the moment that bitch marched in the room.)

It is an acknowledged landmark of daytime TV, but I did want to mention Ellen Holly's and Lillian Heyman's stellar work on One Life to Live, when Clara was desperate to pass for white. Her confrontation scenes with her mother were particularly outstanding.

Years later, Al Freeman, Jr., was Al Freeman Jr., and always shone in his scenes.

Paul Raunch really f***ed up, yet again, when he fired these beloved vets.

6 hours ago, carolineg said:

I am of the mind that Marlena/Roman/John's believability as down to earth characters went out the door in 1991.  They continued to be viable IMO.  Although I have a hard time thinking any character outside of Tom/Alice is very believable on Days.  Days hasn't been a realistic soap since the mid 80's or at least the mid 90's.

I agree about when the show's believability went completely out the window. For me personally, once a character is inundated with a plethora of sci-fi/fantasy/camp material, their viability as credible characters (who can be used in believable storylines) is also decimated. They can then continue to be featured in fantastical, outlandish plots, but I'll never see them as identifiable, human people with feelings worth caring about again. Fembots have never inspired my heartfelt sympathy.

2 hours ago, carolineg said:

Personally, I think once you get to the point where Andre has a face mask pretending to be Roman it becomes unbelievable.  Once you have 2 Romans running around, Marlena and Roman back from the dead, and it's all a silly Stefano plot the credibility was gone.  GH was the same in the 80's and grounded themselves in the 90's.  Days just went wild with JER.

Right. JER turned DAYS into a cartoon, a joke IMHO. The show has never recovered. There are genres of television programs geared towards that sort of material, and it's fine if a portion of the audience enjoys it, but soap operas and outlandish, wacky cartoons simply don't mesh.

As I've noted previously, The Great Gazoo does not belong floating around Maggie Smith's head on Downton Abbey, LOL.

1 hour ago, carolineg said:

I was actually referring to 84 when Andre framed Wayne's Roman as a serial killer lol with his Roman mask

OMG, what a stinker story that was. DAYS had already fallen so far from the well-written soap it had been just two years before, when Pat Falken Smith  was guiding it in 1982.

1 hour ago, Donna L. Bridges said:

And of course (Reva) had her special fans trained so that if a single solitary day went by without her on their screens that they would immediately call in & scream about how she was necessary for the future of the show. Even when she was working with a 4 guarantee, oh my god, that would leave a 5th day in the week when she might not be on! Don't get me started.

I always considered Reva to have "stans" as opposed to fans. Manny and the San Cristocrap gang too. 

1 hour ago, Donna L. Bridges said:

So later Crystal Chappell played *another* person also named Maggie? 

Yes, she played Maggie Carpenter in the mid 1990s.

53 minutes ago, Mona Kane Croft said:

Of course, you are correct.  That is EXACTLY what brings up ratings.  The more popular actors a soap has, the better!!  Soaps that focus too much on one star usually end up in a bad place.  

The epitome of this is Reva Shayne on The Guiding Light, who was heinously overhyped, overrated and overused, and saddled with one idiotic plot after another on The Guiding Light.

On DAYS, the endless kidnappings, presumed deaths, back-from-the dead stories and other moronic material (Possessed!) dumped on Marlena Evan crippled that character's believability and viability decades ago.

15 minutes ago, Jdee43 said:

Speaking of accents, I thought John Aniston's southern accent on Search for Tomorrow was ridiculous  I'm glad they didn't make him do another one when he went to Days of our Lives

One Life to Live saddled poor Jacquie Courtney with a "British accent" when she played evil twin Maggie Ashley on that show. I adore La Courtney, but that wretched accent, which she could not pull off, God bless her, was wretched.

12 minutes ago, Donna L. Bridges said:

How true! Such a memorable time. And, BTS Bell, PFS, Al Rabin, Betty Corday! 

DAYS has never been better!

11 minutes ago, Gray Bunny said:

I don't think this is the most recent. It is currently gray and it's shaped like a box; no angled walls anymore. 

Okay, thanks. This was the latest that I've seen. 

The walls aren't even angled anymore?

Is the front door still in the center of the archway, like in the photo I uploaded?

2 minutes ago, carolineg said:

Lol!  It's almost like Marlena and Maggie can't exist on the same canvas.  Except they have on separate sides for years and years.  I have never once thought Maggie was stealing Marlena's airtime or vice versa.  They fill two different roles.

Yes.

Mary Matthews and Ada Downs existed side by side without issue on AW, as did Alice Matthews, Pat Randolph and Lenore Curtin on the same show.

Lorie, Leslie, and Chris Brooks all managed to shine and be showcased during their shared time together on Y&R.

Viki Riley, Carla Gray, Pat Kendall and Karen Wolek all had their moments in the spotlight during a shared era on OLTL.

There's no competition among characters co-existing on the canvas at the same time, except in the minds over overheated fanbases.

To me, the MORE popular actresses on a soap at the same time, the better for the show.

DAYS was on fire when Susan Flannery, Denise Alexander and Susan Seaforth graced the show together.

On 2/21/2024 at 7:52 PM, carolineg said:

I don't even like Maggie and I don't know why anyone would want her off the show.  She's been on the show for years and years.  She's part of the history of the Hortons.  

Exactly, and now Maggie's even propping Marlena up by appearing in scenes with her.

God bless our Maggie!

On 2/21/2024 at 8:08 PM, ranger1rg said:

LMAO I'm sorry, but I can't help but laugh at the idea of Suzanne Rogers' Maggie bothering someone that much.

It's funnier than the proclamations that viewers who enjoy the Hortons are "just jealous of Marlena."

On 2/21/2024 at 8:14 PM, carolineg said:

I mean, I love a good slut shaming of an 80 year old woman.  

 Next we will hear that the Emmy-award-winning actress can't act!