Khan

Please let there be a Donna/Nicollette confrontation as good as this one:

In a way, I think Angela's tightly controlled emotions were what made her more human and relatable than either J.R. or Alexis. Angela was a single-minded person. Her grandfather - at least, I *think* it was her grandfather - had instilled in her a passion to turn Falcon Crest into the "jewel of the Tuscany Valley." As head of her family's winery, Angela, like any woman looking to make her mark on a male-dominated industry, knew that her work was cut out for her. However, she was determined to make her grandfather's vision for the land a reality at any costs. Therefore, Angela had no time for displaying warmth or vulnerability, not even toward members of her own family, because doing so would have distracted her from her life's work: to make FC the best in the valley, and to ensure that it stayed that way for generations to come.

For me, the biggest flaw in the Empire Valley storyline is that the emotional stakes that made an otherwise incomprehensible story like the Wolfbridge Group so palpable just weren't there. Nearly everyone was affected by Wolfbridge, but Empire Valley seemed to pull the focus away from what mattered. I don't think Ann Marcus gets enough credit for salvaging s13 -- not just from the disaster that that season had been, but also from the latter half of the Lechowicks' tenure, when the show became more about shocking viewers, and less about telling moving stories. For the first time in years, KNOTS felt real and grounded again.

I agree, @DRW50. Tina wasn't malicious the way other soap vixens could be. She always operated under the belief that she was doing the right thing. However, one dumb decision on her part always begat another, even dumber one. Pretty soon, Tina would find herself backed into a corner. As a viewer, part of the fun was watching her try and squirm out of that trouble, knowing (even if she didn't) that it all would blow up in her face eventually. IMO, Sam Hall, Peggy O'Shea (who was HW'ing the show throughout '86) and Gordon Russell were the best writers to work on OLTL. The three were masters at writing umbrella storylines like the ones you're describing, @soapfave06, where even the smallest, simplest event could ripple throughout all of Llanview. They also knew how to take some very far-fetched ideas and ground them in enough reality that you didn't mind it; and there was an earthiness to their work, too, that really helped the show stand out from the others at that time.

I know many GL fans don't love this period in the show's history, but I do. I love mid-to-late '80's GL as much as I love any era of GL's history up to the late '90's, when I *really* thought the wheels had come off the old wagon. Perhaps it was due to the level of acting, or perhaps it was due to the fact that even when the show was experiencing a run of bad stories, there still were great moments and scenes to be found. I don't know. But the truth is that I miss just about all of GL - the good, the bad and everything in-between - today as much as I did when I watched the final episode.

Frankly, I find the timing of it all suspicious. Twitter users far and wide were expressing their outrage over the SCOTUS rulings on affirmative action, LGBTQ+ discrimination and the (now-dead) student debt relief plan. The next thing anyone knew, users were getting crazy "Rate Limit Exceeded" messages; then, Elon Musk, citing "data scraping" or some such nonsense, announced the new rate limits (which are supposed to be temporary, but we'll see, lol). Moreover, I've read that it's all a result of Elon Musk failing to pay Twitter's Google Cloud bill. I don't doubt that that's true. Again, however, the timing is what strikes me as odd. I think - and this is just my theory - that Elon has picked this particular moment to do what he had set out to do at the beginning - namely, to break Twitter for good. I mean, it seems awfully silly to waste $44 billion on a company you plan to destroy. However, as the ridiculous news about his and Mark Zuckerberg's planned UFC-ish match has proven, Elon Musk is a spoiled, immature, overgrown brat, who WOULD think nothing of wasting billions on wrecking a social media company because they were mean to him or something.

FWIW, I am a Twitter user; I use the app on both my desktop and my phone; and I'm experiencing difficulties using the app on both at the moment, too.

Unfortunately, I can't post at all on Twitter, because Twitter assumes I'm some kind of bot.

On the one hand, good for NC landing his new gig. But, on the other hand, I feel like the wheels have been shot out from under Sprina before they even left the garage.

I agree, @DramatistDreamer. In a way, this country needed these rude awakenings from SCOTUS. For too long, we had been complacent, or lazy, expecting our government to fix our problems for us, without any effort on our part, and not once ever realizing that there might come a day when our government couldn't or wouldn't fix things for us any longer. More than ever, we learned this week that we can no longer rely on our elected leaders to save us. If we want real, lasting change to happen in this country, then we are simply gonna have to get up from the couch and save ourselves.

I thought so, lol. Thanks for the confirmation, @Vee. Like I said, I don't see much of a future for Paramount + - or any of the bigger, more expensive streaming services as they exist at the moment. For one thing, I think they all grew too big - both in number and in scope, for lack of a better word - and too fast. Someone announced, "Streaming is the future!," so everyone and their cousin hopped aboard and created their own streaming service. Unfortunately, for cable subscribers who were looking to "cut the cord," because their monthly bills were becoming outrageous, asking them to subscribe to all these services (Paramount +, Disney +, (HBO)Max, Peacock, Netflix, Hulu, etc.) wound up defeating their purpose.

When Douglas Marland died, I think TPTB made a conscious decision to pare down much of ATWT's canvas, believing that only Marland could handle head-writing a show with such a large cast. That's why so much was phased out once his final story projections concluded.

I agree, @te.. Heather Locklear was VERY green when she started on "Dynasty" (and on "T.J. Hooker"). Even if she hadn't improved, however, she still could engage with other actors in ways that Charlene Tilton couldn't. Overall, I just don't believe Lucy was necessary to the show, or to Gary and Val's backstory. David Jacobs could've left Lucy out entirely and said J.R. had his goons threaten Val into leaving Dallas over some trumped-up scandal, like pictures of her face superimposed over someone else's nude body, suggesting that Val was involved in pornography or something.

Are you talking about the streaming service, @Vee? If so, then I agree with you. I don't see much of a future for Paramount + (w/ or w/out Showtime) either.

I know Harding Lemay said he detested melodrama, but if you ask me, those scenes were awfully melodramatic.

First, it was the "p*ssy tape;" then, it was the (alleged) "pee tape;" and now, it's THIS tape. When will that man learn to check for bugs and wires, lol?

I read once that Nicolas Coster's favorite soap role was as Steven Andrews/Dave Gillis on AMC, which was ironic to me, since he was part of one of AMC's most notoriously convoluted stories, IMO. Yet, even in that thankless role, I thought he did a great job.

I agree, @soapfan770. I wouldn't suggest killing off Abby anymore, but I do think this show could rest her until they figure out what to do with her.

I agree, @Paul Raven. The sci-fi- and action-adventure-type stories work only when you have the budget for them. Otherwise, you're reduced to watching Dr. Rolf brainwash someone with a deep fryer and a pair of salad tongs.

Unfortunately, @Manny, I feel the same way. From a creative standpoint, DAYS isn't "dead" the way I thought GL was. The characters and storylines need help, and under better circumstances, they could be helped, too! However, in DAYS's case, there are just too many, overwhelming obstacles - like you said, @Manny, the fact that Peacock is one of the smaller (and, from what I understand, less successful) streaming platforms; the fact that DAYS writes and tapes so far ahead that a course correction, if even possible, would happen so far down the road that viewers might just throw in the towel; the fact that inflation and such, along with the soft numbers, will continue to play a major part in determining the show's budget - for this show to overcome. That's why I have resigned myself (more or less) to the fact that DAYS cannot be fixed and just to accept the show as it is for however much longer it's on the air. Let me guess: DAYS is so cash-strapped now that every scene of every episode will take place in the (in)famous Blue Room of Boredom, lol.

I don't care what David Zaslav tells the public, either directly or through a flunkie spokesperson. He has every intention in the world of turning TCM into a different network entirely. Bugs Bunny, Daffy Duck and everyone else at Looney Tunes/Merrie Melodies better watch their backs, because Zaslav's coming for them next.

As I've said, I think DAYS could be salvaged if TPTB would do away with the camp and the gimmicks and re-commit themselves to pure and honest storytelling. Unfortunately, even if Corday/NBC/Sony were to score a new EP like Shelley Curtis or Wendy Riche, or a new HW like Nancy Curlee or Pam Long, the fact that DAYS continues to tape its' episodes 17 years ahead would ultimately work against them. If the show's ratings or view counts or whatever magically went up on Peacock, then TPTB would pressure the new regime to give viewers more of the same; and if they inched downward, then they would likely panic and mandate that the show has to get even wilder or else risk being dumped from the platform. Either way, if a better production regime were to take the reins, it would be MONTHS before we'd get to see the results, and who knows what could happen, both on- and off-screen, in the meantime? In a perfect world, I guess, DAYS would hire a new EP and HW pronto, dump the appropriate number of episodes already in the can, allow the new team's stuff to air or stream as quickly as possible, and simply eat whatever production costs they have incurred on the "lost" episodes. However, as @Vee puts it in another thread, the studios and streamers are in panic mode. They're crashing, slashing and burning (or burning down). They're stripping whatever properties they can and selling them for parts. No one, especially NBCUniversal/Peacock or Sony, is gonna be interested in simply scratching months' worth of (shitty) episodes and starting fresh. Honestly, @j swift, I feel like AI bots have been writing DAYS since at least 2000, lol.

If Ellen Wheeler's creepy Mormon version of GL taught us anything, it's that... Frankly, @AMCOLTLLover, I don't feel the same sense of futility about DAYS that I felt about GL toward the end of that show's run. I think a new HW'ing and/or EP regime could save DAYS - even a DAYS that's been relegated to a third-rate streaming service and has had to rely for the longest time on found objects on the sides of streets for its' costumes and scenery - if they would re-commit themselves to telling smaller, simpler, character-driven stories that matter. Like Bill Bell once said, all you need are a man, a woman and a waterfall, "and who in the hell needs the waterfall?!". IOW, the "disaster" you've referred to, @Errol, is something that will play out on-screen down the road?

Perhaps, her best friend, Freddie, played by Kim Fields, will be able to explain everything?

Does DAYS even employ a casting director anymore, or does Ken Corday or Albert Alarr merely send out a group text whenever they need to cast another character?