vetsoapfan

Oh wow, I hadn't seen such a recent shot of the Horton living room.

The front door has moved several feet to the left from its original and traditional position.

The dimensions of the room look smaller too.

I prefer the "real" layout.

8 hours ago, Khan said:

I don't know whether Bill Bell actually said this to Ken Corday, but if he did, then he was right: all you really need to make good drama are a man, a woman and a waterfall, "and for God's sake, who needs the waterfall!?".

William J. Bell knew what's what. That's why he is an acknowledged master of the genre.

6 hours ago, cody_1990 said:

I’ve honestly thought about this for years now. Especially since Days got CHEAP looking during the Tomlin producer years.  Anytime you see any episode of a soap from the 50s-the early 80’s, the sets look so drab and honestly cardboard looking. I am sure that’s partly why soaps got such a bad rep in the early days, but as a fan, it doesn’t matter because everything is so damn compelling.

Back then, we just didn't get sidetracked by the rudimentary, sparse sets. The writing on soaps by Phillips, Nixon, Bell, etc., was too involving. Nowadays, we notice the cheap sets, and all the other technical flaws, because the writing isn't enough to keep our attention. We are bored, s we look around, LOL.

6 hours ago, cody_1990 said:

Look at some of those 60s episodes of Days available online, they basically had the Horton house and a few other basic sets and that’s it. You don’t ever once while watching think I wish the sets were bigger or I wish the stories were more fantasy based, because stories based in reality are 100% more captivating.

This, 100% this. I've been expressing the same sentiments for decades now. The Mickey/Laura/Bill triangle on DAYS, with the secret of Mike's paternity at its core, was slooooow moving and based on family dynamics, repressed emotions and unrequited love. It lasted a DECADE, but was never boring, and kept viewers mesmerized. No clones, vampires, devils or extraterrestrials in sight! It was soap opera heaven!

6 hours ago, cody_1990 said:

Just look at the August-September 1966 episodes when Bill Bell first started at Days. Marie grieving for her miscarried baby with her marriage falling apart or Julie in angst about losing David to Susan. Give me that over the stuff being produced now any day. 

I wish everyone could have witnessed the engrossing material that Denise Alexander got to play as Susan Hunter Martin.

Daytime TV magazine once reported that a husband wrote into DAYS, asking producers to give Susan some relief from her suffering. He wrote, "My wife is pregnant and needs her rest, but she can't sleep because she's so stressed about Susan!"

Okay, I agree that such a reaction from a viewer is over the top, but when soaps dealt with real emotions and human, adult drama, fans were FIERCELY involved. With the dreck being produced today? Not so much.

1 hour ago, te. said:

I think that part of it is the cast expansion that happened with going to an hour - suddenly you had a lot of characters that needed homes and places where they could realistically interact. When you had maybe a maximum of six speaking characters appearing per day (like apparently Dark Shadows had as their limit) you didn't need a lot of sets. When soaps started downscaling again, you were left with a lot of characters without homes or any places where they would logically have interactions, hence the recent "housing crisis" in Salem. 

While I initially applauded the idea of hour-long soaps, people like Bell, Falken Smith, Nixon, Marland and Lemay were still writing, so the quality held up for a while. The budgets were high back then too. DAYS would sometimes have more than 15 characters on an episode. As the years went on, however, we lost writers and producers with the talent and understanding to run soaps well. Ratings plummeted, budgets were slashed. Keeping soaps at 60 minutes per day became increasing untenable. I think it would have been wise to cut all of them back to 30 minutes, years ago. A lot of dead wood could be pruned from the casts if they did that today. Core characters could be focused on, and all the useless filler material could be eliminated.

1 hour ago, te. said:

I genuinely never realised how messed up some of those floor plans were until I started trying to build things in The Sims 1. Besides not making sense from an architectural point of view (why would you have a gigantic upper floor plan while a relatively small downstairs?), but also just rooms running into each other, windows technically looking into other rooms and so on...

I know. Since I started noticing how absurd and nonsensical television sets were, I see the impossibilities everything. Rhoda's loft was supposedly "upstairs" from Mary Richards' apartment. Interior scenes showed a staircase outside of Mary's front door, leading UP to Rhoda's place. Yet, outdoor footage of the building clearly revealed there WAS NO upstairs. Mary's apartment was literally on the top floor. Rhoda's garret was to the right of Mary's place, and even slightly lower. I don't know how TPTB never notice these things.

6 minutes ago, Mona Kane Croft said:

Agreed.  Soaps need to go back to their roots.  Compelling human drama is so much cheaper to represent on screen.  It requires no special effects, no location shooting, and minimal sets.  All it really takes is good writing and good acting.  

Right. Compelling human drama is far more mesmerizing than clones, extraterrestrials, brain implants, mad scientists freezing the world, devil possession, time travel, etc., particularly when there's no budget to handle the outlandish plots. Viewers who enjoy that sort of entertainment have theatrical films and cable TV series with king-sized budgets to enjoy. Watching soap heroines leaping into paintings and travelling through time, or becoming possessed by the devil and going on a killing spree just don't cut it by comparison. Particularly on soap budgets of $1.49, filmed on sets that look held together by Scotch tape and bubble gum, LOL.

2 minutes ago, Khan said:

Especially in this era, when budgets, or lack thereof, restrict the kinds of stories you can still tell, or even the number of characters you can feature at one time.  I think whatever the hell is going on right now with Konstanin (sp?) is bad enough on its' own, but what makes it even worse is the fact that DAYS simply doesn't have the budget or production values anymore to make it work even a little bit.

I've never liked the over-the-top sci-fi/fantasy/camp nonsense on soaps, primarily because it's so contradictory to the exploration of the human condition, which is the essence of the genre.

What makes the fantasy elements so much worse, however, is that the budget to produce such stories just isn't there, so all these dumb plots end up looking embarrassing.

Soaps need to go back to their roots. 

On 2/20/2024 at 8:38 PM, Althea Davis said:

That hot medium. 

@Althea Davis, You are making me think all sorts of indecent and naughty thoughts with this Matthew Bomer GIF.

Thank you so much!

I know they only worked together for a relatively brief period of time, but my dream guest for this tribute would have been Laurence Fishburne.

What ABC and Paul Raunch did to this fine actress was egregious.

6 hours ago, Khan said:

The storyline in the Dial commercial that @Wendy posted upthread plays almost exactly like something you might've seen on Bill Bell's DAYS: the bridesmaid is upset because she's not the bride (who is likely marrying the man that the bridesmaid has been in love with forever), but thanks to a bouquet toss and a piece of cake handed to her across a crowded table (not to mention, a little Dial soap), she just might be embarking on a romance of a lifetime with a tall, handsome stranger who is literally sweeping her off her feet.

Right! Human, realistic and warm stories on Bill Bell's and Pat Falken Smith's golden era of DAYS, how missed they are! So many miles above what was offered by JER, Higley, Carlivati and their ilk.

6 hours ago, te. said:

@JAS0N47 has a complete floor plan for the Horton house from the book "Days of our Lives: A Tour Through Salem" on his website :

That's a nice treat to see. Thanks for posting.

I just have to wonder how Tom and Alice fit five growing children into two "guest" bedrooms!

Thank goodness the house had four bathrooms!

6 hours ago, te. said:

TBH, I can see why they removed that door beyond space saving reasons as it's a bit confusing how the floorplan is laid out at first sight because you'd instinctively think that the den/study would expand to the left due to the front door. It's sort of counterintuitive, especially with the windows by the staircase, plus we so rarely see the outside to clarify how it might be laid out. 

I agree.

6 hours ago, te. said:

And obviously this is a bit wrong anyway, as I'm sure the "family room" in this was always the dining room? But sets on television shows tend to work like the TARDIS either way. 

LOL! The exterior shots of the buildings just did not match or "work" with the interior sets for shows like All in the Family, The Mary Tyler Moore Show or The Golden Girls either. We just have to go with the flow, I guess.

5 hours ago, Gray Bunny said:

I have the book. They definitely had a little fun coming up with a full functioning house for many of the Salemites' residences.  Was there a separate family room ever shown back in the day? Also a notable no-show is the dining room. 

Personally, I don't recall ever seeing a family room. In the diagram, the dinning room probably should have been there, since we know that existed.

4 hours ago, Mona Kane Croft said:

 I think something similar happened to the Matthews house on Another World.  I believe in the early years, the door in the foyer near the stairs led to another room (a study or something) and was often shown open.  But by the early-1970s, that door was just a closet.  They also had stopped showing the Matthews front porch (the full porch) and kitchen by around 1972.  

Ada's first living room went through some weird changes back then too. Soaps should pay attention to sets. Fans notice and remember everything. Even changes in the sounds of doorbells makes observant fans go, "Huh???"

3 hours ago, Mona Kane Croft said:

Has the Horton set changed a lot over the years?  I know it is basically the same layout, but isn't the foyer smaller now?  Wasn't there originally a closet door between the bottom of the stairs and the front door?  What else has changed on the set, aside from paint color and furniture??  

Yes, there used to be a door where you mentioned: between the staircase and the front door. At the beginning of the show it led to Tom's office. Later it was a closet. It was a weird change, and I always wondered why no one on the show remembered that lay-out or kept it consistent.

(The same sort of change happened on THE LUCY SHOW, when the section of the set beside the staircase changed without explanation. It's strange when the houses are supposed to be the same, but the walls, rooms and closets just magically come and go, LOL.)

Overall, however, the Horton set has remained FAIRLY unchanged.

2 hours ago, Darn said:

...your comments are some of the absolute best here. So intelligently shared bringing your wealth of knowledge to us on a daily basis.

You are far too kind. Thank you so much, @Darn

As I always say, soap fans are a strong and durable bunch. If we can endure years of JER, Dena Higley, Jill Farren Phelps and her friends, Charles Pratt, Ron Carlivati and Christopher Goutman, we can outlast ANYTHING!

2 hours ago, Wendy said:

That lone pic of the Horton house set. I forget if this was posted on the board [probably; if it was, I apologize for repeating as I do not mean to troll!], but I do believe that set was also used in, of all things, an ad for Dial soap back in the day! (Days had an affiliation with Screen Gems in its '60s heyday, if I recall reading, which was probably a big deal as a lot of shows fell under that banner. So maybe sets were a part of that?) I just found this pretty funky!

Cool! The set in the commercial certainly does look like our favorite family's living room!

4 hours ago, BetterForgotten said:

Perhaps that awful hairdo was an omen for how well that return stint would go…

No doubt.

The incompetent PTB at the time reeeeeeeeeeeally had to try hard, to bungle the return of a beloved vet so badly, so completely.

1 minute ago, janea4old said:

@vetsoapfan  Wed Feb 21 episode has flashbacks of some characters, and also a lot of old photos similar to what you posted!

Oh cool, thanks for the heads up!

We can never have too many Horton memories!

The best of DAYS (and all the remaining soaps, sadly) may be in the past, but we are fortunate that so much pictorial and video material has survived.

5 minutes ago, DRW50 said:

@vetsoapfan Is that Jacquie Courtney in the ad around 56 minutes? (in the 1985 AW video posted above)

Somehow sad and fitting all at once for Jacquie to close out AW (months after being written out of the show).

Yes, that was our Jacquie Courtney, who did some commercials for Porcelana cream back in the day.

I though her hairdo for this ad was a little too poofy on top, but at least it was a million times better than the awful, butch style she had for a while during her 1984 return to AW

7 minutes ago, Khan said:

So many great photos and memories.  Thanks for posting, @vetsoapfan!

It's my pleasure, believe me, to remember the good old DAYS!

Remembering Days of Our Lives' first family: the Hortons.

Today, Tomorrow, Forever!

More of the beloved core family:

4 hours ago, DRW50 said:

Helen Wagner and Eileen Fulton interviewed on Donahue. There's a 1958 clip around 21-22 minutes with Nancy and Grandpa. Donahue (sometimes I forget how much he annoyed me) talks all over the clip but Helen helpfully gives some background to what's going on. Ruth Warrick also talks a few minutes after the clip about the Edith storyline and how Irna was ordered to kill off either her or her love interest.

I can't remember if I've seen that old clip before or not. @vetsoapfan you may know. (sorry to put you on the spot)

 

@DRW50, you are not putting me on the spot at all. 

I can't say if you have seen the clip before, but I know I have. I remember Phil's comments about the vintage scene from when I watched the Donahue episode originally.

24 minutes ago, Gray Bunny said:

I've had the Queen of DAYS in my signature for years, but that doesn't mean I want the OG's of Salem phased out and ignored completely. 

Exactly. It's...curious to proclaim that a viewer is jealous of a fictional character in the first place, but advocating for the stabilization of the core family should not precipitate anger from viewers who prefer other characters over the Hortons.

1 hour ago, Lye-C said:

Some people are clearly jealous of Marlena’s popularity, her accomplishments, and her connections.

 

That'll tell 'em. 

19 hours ago, Gray Bunny said:

Now would be the perfect time to dig up some former Hortons from the mothballs or bring on blank slate Hortons for the younger generation (i.e. Nick Fallon and Nathan Horton weren't even known Hortons before they popped up). 

The idea that the Horton family became irrelevant after Alice died is not just true. 

Yes, short-sighted decisions by incompetent PTB have led to many important family members being written out, killed off, or just disappearing over the years. JER's idiotic decision to let Susan Seaforth Hayes go was just par for the course for the enormous damage he inflicted on the show, but all is not irreversibly destroyed. Using Julie as the matriarch, the family could be rebuilt by using familiar characters and their descendants from the past. I wonder how the audience would react to seeing the popular Stephen Schnetzer return as Julie's brother Steve, to introduce some of his descendants.

Sandy Horton could also be brought back quite easily, with adult children of her own. 

Jennifer, Melissa, Scotty, etc., there are several legacy characters who could be woven into today's fabric.

My point has always been that the show keeps introducing random newbies to the canvas, anyway; people whom we initially neither know nor care about.  Why not tie some of them the show's core foundation and have them related to the Hortons? We'd warm up to Horton newbies as quickly as we would to any other new faces. Dismissive viewers who don't care about DAYS' legacy wouldn't be affected either way, but the rest of us would love and appreciate the nod to history and continuity.

19 hours ago, Gray Bunny said:

Reminds me of Guiding Light's 70th anniversary episode which took the show back to its roots, which would've been the perfect time to re-introduce some Bauers... but of course, they didn't. Perhaps DAYS could do better... 

UGH! Watching the Bauers being gutted in the early-mid 1980s on TGL was hard to endure. Producer Gail Kobe and writer Pamela Long clearly did not understand the show, and did not care about its consistently rich cast of characters. I cringed when Pamela Long was quoted in the press as saying that one of the first things she and Kobe had to do was "get rid of the dead wood" among the cast. In a very short period of time, 2/3 of the existing characters were axed, in spite of their continuing story potential. We had just lost Mart Hulswit as Ed Bauer before Kobe and Long took over, and it was no one's fault that we lost Bert, but the new team killed off Bill and Hillary Bauer, and wrote out Hope and Mike Bauer. Being left with a new, fake Ed was just not the same.

Soaps never learn, alas, and keep making the same mistakes ad nauseum.

In general, I am not a fan of back-from-the-dead stories. They weaken the impact of the original deaths, and ultimately (if a show uses this hackneyed plot device over and over) just become predictable, unrealistic and ridiculous. DAYS is the prime offender in this regard.

When hack writers go on a killing rampage and slaughter multiple beloved characters, however, the egregious and sophomoric writing mistakes must be rectified. If not, the stability of the show itself would be crippled further. Atrocious writing is bad enough, but losing the characters whom the audience is invested in the most would be fatal. History shows us that viewers do not take kindly to the combination of bad writing AND the loss of many fan favorites.

All this to say: sometimes reviving "dead" characters is the lesser of two evils on soaps, and should be done even if it's a stretch.  It would be significantly worse and audience-alienating to let writing blunders stand. This is particularly true when the original death/murder plots were done purely for shock value, and were badly executed to begin with.

On 2/17/2024 at 1:35 AM, Paul Raven said:

It's nice they pay tribute to Tom and Alice, but better still re-establish the Hortons in Salem. Such a pity they were neglected.

Still puzzled why Marie didn't return for the 50th.

There's Spencer, Jeremy, Scotty that we know of who are pretty much blank slates.

And they could create a few more. Julie as the matriarch.

I agree. With the notable exception of Y&R, which phased out the original Brooks and Foster families in favor of the Abbotts and the Newmans, the majority of soaps begin to weaken and suffer upon the elimination of the core families who helped garner the soaps' highest audience loyalty in the first place.

Broad proclamations that "no one cares" about the descendants of the Horton family, that no one cares about Julie, or that any one specific character is the show's star are personal opinions (which, of course, are fine to hold and voice).

If we know anything about the world of soaps, however, opinions and tastes vary widely. For all the viewers who are disinterested in one set of characters, there are others who feel those same characters are vital for the health and growth of the show.

Diversity is the spice of life.

The lack of body diversity in soaps is unacceptable, but sadly, it goes hand in hand with the soaps' (and television's in general) lack of representation in many areas. When I was growing up, it was rare to see plus-size people on TV, but it was also rare to see members of racial, religious and sexual-orientation minorities too. The excuse by TPTB was always that the audience wasn't ready for it or didn't want to see it.

Representation has widened on television nowadays, so that we see more people of color, more people from different faiths, and more LGBTQ+ folks on screen. Hopefully, more actors/characters with varying body types will also follow suit.

BTW, just for clarification, Mike Horton on DAYS was always presented as heterosexual. One time, under severe stress, he was unable to perform sexually with Trish Clayton, which upset and confused him. He quickly boinked Linda Patterson, however, and his sexuality was confirmed. He could have experimented with men later on, or expressed some interest in doing so, but almost 50 years later, nothing of the sort has ever come to light.

Being temporarily impotent at one point does not make Mike "almost homosexual," IMHO.

1 minute ago, Liberty City said:

Oh, completely! During the 2020 COVID hiatus, CBS made the heinous mistake of re-airing episodes from the 1980's and 1990's, which far superseded the present-day material. ABC, however, didn't air much from the '90s and early '00s, which was SMART! haha.

Classic The Doctors, Dark Shadows and The Bold and the Beautiful (on youtube) have been made available, and I believe they are doing fairly well; certainly well enough to keep on airing. 

What I really want to see again, though, are Days of our Lives and The Young and the Restless from the beginning. I was thrilled when CBS re-aired the first two episodes of Y&R from 1973 (although edited, which was a travesty).

6 minutes ago, Liberty City said:

Let's hope Mulcahey is to 2024 what Douglas Marland was to 1977. 47 years of difference!

I grew up watching and loving soaps, and would love to have a well-written and intelligent one to watch on a daily basis again.

I do acknowledge that there are good shows on primetime TV and streaming services to enjoy, but nothing beats a great soap!

It's my personal conspiracy theory that the owners of surviving soap archives are not allowing the vintage years to be streamed anywhere, because the golden oldies would put the modern product to shame, LOL.