Jump to content
Key Links: Announcements | Support Desk

Michael

Members
  • Posts

    1,525
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Michael

  1. Thanks for clarifying! The two distinct points make perfect sense on their own.
  2. You're making my point for me, though. I'm not disagreeing that Sami and EJ, as a pairing, generated great interest. I was responding to statement such as "Sami and EJ were a thousand times more interesting than Sami and Lucas." That is not a quantifiable thing. You CAN definitively state something such as, "The ratings for Sami and EJ's wedding were ten times higher than for Sami and Lucas's wedding," or "Sami and EJ's fan event drew ten times more people than a Sami and Lucas event," but you can't measure something like 'interesting' or 'compelling' in a concrete way. It's your (perfectly valid!) opinion that Sami and EJ are/were a more interesting pairing than Sami and Lucas, and that's fine. For the record, I don't really have a dog in this fight. I enjoyed Sami and Lucas a ton, but I didn't like how Hogan's quick turn into making Sami more of a traditional heroine wound up transforming Lucas into an Austin-lite character. I agree that Sami and EJ had great chemistry and made a big splash, but I found the storytelling for them wildly inconsistent and unfocused, likely because there were almost yearly writer changes and because... Corday. But I have no way of definitively declaring that one pairing was objectively superior to the other. And there were probably a ton of less vocal fans (like me) who didn't really care which one emerged as the victor, because I don't necessarily watch the show for couples and just want the storytelling to be interesting. Did Sami and EJ garner more outside press for the show? Very possibly, and that's a statement you could make, given the "data points" (as you put it) to back it up. Of course the show wants people to be talking about the show and its content. But you took my example about reactions to Daniel on Twitter and totally twisted it -- mentions and conversations do not necessarily equate to something being "better," which is exactly what you say in your response before completely contradicting yourself. You're right that, in a broad application, "interesting" means something has garnered attention. There are plenty of things that have outraged and annoyed people into posting on social media that would technically count as being "interesting." And while you say you aren't interested in declaring something better or worse than something else, that's exactly what your posts about EJami vs Lumi seem to be aiming for. You say EJami are/were "more interesting," and then you go on not to give examples of why/how that's the case, but instead talking about how and why her pairings with Austin, Lucas, and Rafe didn't work and why her pairing with EJ did. Whether or not they worked isn't the same as whether or not they interested people or got attention, so I hope you can see why people (not just me) are confused as to what point you were trying to make.
  3. What are these data points you speak of? You seem to want to establish something objectively, but "more interesting" is not something that we can objectively measure. Also, Sami and Lucas's heyday (2003-07, roughly) pre-dates Twitter or social media as we know it. Sami and EJ's relationship largely coexisted with the rise of those venues for fan feedback. So it would be tough to do a one-to-one comparison on that, anyway. And a million people a day tweeting that they hated Daniel Jonas didn't mean he was objectively a better or more interesting character than, say, Bo. People were mentioning his name because they hated him. X number of tweets or whatever mentioning EJami don't necessarily speak to their overall impact (and I don't know if tweets are what you're referring to, because you haven't gotten more specific than "data points").
  4. That wasn't really how the post-2000 stuff with Mike played out. I don't believe they ever said he was abusive in any way to Jeremy, just that Jeremy was an a-hole and they implied that he and Mike weren't super-close or that he felt like he hadn't gotten enough attention or something (which felt at odds with the fact that he seemed to have left the show to go back to Israel to help raise Jeremy). But it was all pretty vague, and when I watched it, it never really felt like an indictment of Mike as a father. In 2010, RC wanted to return for Alice's funeral but had some other commitment, so they shot his stuff separately. Because he wasn't filming at the same time as the other returns, he couldn't attend the actual funeral, so they had Mike get into a car accident on his way into Salem. He mostly appeared at the hospital and had scenes with Lexie, Jennifer, Bill, and Carrie. He and Carrie seemed to get some sort of closure on their relationship, but it was bittersweet. It wasn't anything amazing, but it was done pretty respectfully and certainly wasn't some kind of punishment toward Mike/RC. He got a final solo scene to say goodbye to Alice, too (I think as he was leaving the hospital, but he might've made it to her grave).
  5. I read Jean Rouverol's book three or four times in the 2000s. It's excellent! Obviously outdated now in terms of some of the specifics, but it's great. Totally worth picking up if you find a copy.
  6. I think that was the story where the Alan Jackson thing came out, but I'm not sure. I've seen it described different ways, but that was definitely the period (like '83?) where Neil's "true" identity was revealed. I need to do some research!
  7. Does Neil Curtis from DAYS fit this one? For his first, oh, ten years on the show, he was "just" Neil Curtis, doctor and cad. I'm pretty sure viewers met his father and his cousin (Johnny?). In the 80s, there was some reveal about his actual identity being "Alan Jackson" and that Neil Curtis was either a stolen identity or an alias. I might have it wrong and Alan Jackson was the alias, but from what I've read, it didn't track, and the existence of Curtis relatives didn't make sense with what was revealed later on.
  8. Cassie was in that stupid castle with Jack. She made it back to Salem (Alexis Thorpe filmed, like, one or two episodes). When Rex left town, there was mention that he was going to live with Cassie. Did Susan Martin really just vanish? I know the recast wasn't well liked, but it sounded like she pretty decisively left Salem to be with Eric Peters and their daughter, Annie. Was that just something they said after the fact? At least Holly on GL got that ending with Ed. It was rushed and odd, but it was nice to have a final note for the characters. I was also glad that AMC brought Brooke back -- having her around for the final months was lovely.
  9. My guess would be that she shows up as Susan but it's really Kristen impersonating Susan.
  10. Was coming in to post the exact same thing. I think she'd be great in that role, and that's a character they could really use to fill a hole in the canvas.
  11. This is absolute insanity and I can't WAIT to see how terribly it turns out. I think there's an in-between with SORASing that works. If a character is supposed to be, say, 11 or 12, and then they cast an actor to play 16, whatever. You're just kind of eclipsing a few years, and especially if the parents are old enough to have a kid that age, fine. That makes sense to me. It's when they completely screw with timelines that it becomes damaging.
  12. Yeah, WTF was that? Was he unable to get a fake ID that said "Chandler Massey"?
  13. I think it first appeared (new furniture and all) on Wednesday.
  14. I'm actually shocked. Totally thought she'd be a lifer. I've loved AZ and Nicole for years, but I do think the character could use a rest. This last year of Daniel/Deimos BS has made her really tiresome.
  15. Ditto. I'm surprised by how interested I am when Valerie appears on the screen. Where did they get the stage space for that huge-ass bathroom in Rafe's house? And how are they going to repurpose it over the next month? I'm surprised they didn't just hold Holly's custody hearing in there.
  16. Considering... well, everything, the funeral hasn't been bad. They hit a lot of nice notes. David hasn't been onscreen in 34 years, which is ridiculous, but given that, at least Julie's actually getting to mourn him. I liked Ciara and Claire ten times more in their interactions with Julie than when they're sniping and bitching at one another, too. Ridiculous that Hope wasn't there. I know, actor guarantees, blah blah, but come on. It just makes her (and Rafe) come off as even more self-centered. And Maggie was very enjoyable in most of the episode. Until... Valerie: "And I'm so sorry about YOUR SON!" Maggie: "HE WAS A GOOD MAN!" E.Nough!!!!!
  17. Funeral? HAHA. At best, we'll get Julie and Doug returning from a trip and saying they were at the funeral. The thing about Nicole's history in porn continues to baffle me. I guess there's been some retcon over the last 15 years that, even if Paul Mendez forced her into it, she continued to do it willingly. The first hint was maybe when her friend Crystal Galore showed up. But none of this jives with what we saw onscreen when her time in porn was actually revealed...
  18. The wedding felt more like an 'event' than I expected, so I guess that's good. Nice to see different characters interacting. I loved that they took the time for that little Stephanie/Adrienne moment. The ending was unintentionally hilarious. Julie didn't even announce that she was answering the call -- she just put the phone to her ear, listened for a second, and then screamed, "OH MY GAHHHHD!!!"
  19. At least he was on today in scenes with Hope. He should still be at the S&K wedding, but at least they hit this note.
  20. I'm such a sucker for this stuff, but it was great seeing Carrie and Stephanie interact after all these years. And I loved Kayla fibbing to Caroline on the phone about having a Mass and then telling Marlena, "I'm going to hell." Glad Beemer's Shawn was around to be reunited with Hope, even if this whole convoluted mess about Stefano being "alive" is ridiculous.
  21. Not surprised, but FINALLY! VI should've been an asset, but this character has been an unfocused disaster since Day One.
  22. I'm annoyed about this, but I also understand it from a writing standpoint. Losing David without having mended their relationship motivates Julie to get close to Eli, and it gives her more reason to be pissed at Valerie if Eli will never have the chance to know his father. It complicates Valerie and Eli's relationship. And I really believe that one of the reasons David never reappeared is because of all the SORASing foolishness -- they basically made it impossible for Julie, David, and Scotty to all exist without either claiming Julie is 90 years old or having it be absolutely distracting. I hope this opens the door for them to bring in Scotty (whom I think could be subtly deSORASed to be more like Brady's age rather than Eve's). Then again, this will probably play out in the lamest way possible. But I really do see the logical value in it as a dramatic move.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy