te.

I just find it funny that at the same time they're trying to convince us that Abby is totally dead and buried they've re-introduced Stefan, whose heart is in Julie. Way to undermine yourself, show.

Yes, absolutely. Just look at Dark Shadows - it also burnt very bright for two years or so and then it just fell. Part of it was blamed on Dan Curtis checking out to do the movie, but on the other hand, regular soap fans are ridiculously devoted and won't tune out in droves because of a bad few months (which weren't that bad tbh). The implication being here that the Dark Shadows fans who brought it to its heights were more fickle than regular soap watchers; same with the kind of audience who tuned into Passions 30 years later. Either way, Passions does deserve some credit for actually improving its initial ratings for a while - something that neither Sunset Beach or Port Charles managed to do.

Lord, I'm just catching up and realising that I left off before Abby was killed. I think Gwen did it because obviously Abby destroying that shitty mug Gwen made for Jack like they were five years old is the crime of the century!

I wouldn't say Passions was a disappointment during its entire run - I think around 2002-03 or somewhere around that mark, it was one of the few soaps that managed to grow from its initial ratings on broadcast and was impressive in the younger demographic (which is how it survived almost a decade on air). It's just that as JER increasingly lost the plot, so did Passions (and by extension DAYS in his second run).

A bit dumb to compare ratings from a decade ago considering how hard broadcast ratings have fallen. The only thing this shows is how far Passions had dropped by the end of its run on NBC.

I imagine Dallas struggled a lot with rising cast costs early on, especially with Larry being a breakout star and already re-negotiating his pay after the Who Shot JR cliffhanger; it probably meant that a lot of other cast members started demanding raises especially with the show being an international phenomenom. Being a show about a family also meant that they just couldn't replace them easily. Meanwhile, Knots wasn't a phenomenom and no one was really a break-out star like JR. Add that if someone tried to pull rank they'd just remind them that the character could move out and be replaced, so they didn't have the same negotiation power. Plus early on they lost four original cast members and kept costs down that way.

I mean, ideally they should've known this move would happen when they got renewed for 2 years - personally, I would've liked to see most storylines tied up and then a(nother) time jump leading into a soft reboot on Peacock. But alas, NBC did make this decision at the very last minute so we can't get nice things.

They had a month and one week to get everything together, including doing promotional rounds/material to advertise the move which I'm sure took front seat. Add the regular recording of episodes - I just don't think they realistically had time, especially trying to insert something that would still respect the continuity. This isn't on Corday/Ron - this is entirely on NBC/Peacock. This move was by all accounts sudden.

@j swift The guy who is blackmailing Liam is the nephew of a literature professor. Liam had a brief stint at a university to get over a writers block, met this professor who died unexpectedly and stole his manuscript to sell as his own since he was pressured by his publisher to deliver a script. Until now, only Sam knew about this, but obviously the nephew found out and is now blackmailing him. The person who is trying to take over the company isn't Fallon's assistant - she's a board member. Was it just me or did "Graham"'s voice change during that last bit? 🤔

I don't think it's really that unusual if you think about it this way - they started developing in the 1973-74 season for the 1974-75 season. It eventually got on air in the 1975-76 season, probably because it had some re-toolings in the pilot/concept. But it "only" skipped a television season technically and it's not entirely unheard of. It's certainly no The Gilded Age that took a decade and change of network to get on air.

Alison's going to be very high up for sure. Look at the amount of episodes James Scott racked up for being on the show for eight years thanks to being paired with her.

To be fair, I always got the impression that Charla Doherty was popular/like by viewers - she just didn't want to be there after a year. If DAYS had lasted five years and gotten released like Dark Shadows, I'm sure there are people who would've defended Julie #1 to death.

I don't think any character is unrecastable since it's such a soap staple - I mean, who thought they'd ever re-cast Ridge? But they did. It's funny that their #1 female is Brooke / KKL since she's probably one of the big soap staples/characters that I could see fairly successfully being recast (nothing against KKL or that I want Brooke to be recast, but I could just see it). With that said, there are some characters that just shouldn't be recast - I guess most veterans fall into this category, especially those that are past carrying a storyline since there would be little point.

I mean, no matter how you twist it they'll need to adjust for streaming somehow - soaps on broadcast are constructed the way they are because network heads knew that a lot of people didn't tune in daily, hence why you have certain DAYS of the week where more important things happen and some where there's obvious filler. On streaming that filler to fill airtime is pretty unnecessary if not something that will turn audiences off more than anything. The advantage they have now is that they'll have raw data to analyse - I can only hope they make the most of it; but it's also why it's a shame that they couldn't have given them a year to prepare for this move.

Eh, after having watched Dark Shadows I don't think you need any of those things to write an enjoyable show. Not that I want DAYS to become Dark Shadows, but you get my point - soaps have been done on shoe-string budgets before with limited amount of cast appearing in each episode before.

It's just speculation - there's been no spoilers with the indication that it's where they're going. While making Craig essentially a failed serial killer would suck, at least it's somewhat a surprise twist since there's not been much speculation about it.

Reading between the lines, it sounds like even the affiliates were taken aback by this move as they had by all accounts planned and committed to airing DAYS for the 2022-23 season. DAYS might not have been doing blockbuster numbers on broadcast, but now they're stuck trying to fill a hole in their schedule with... Dateline reruns? This was clearly a last-minute desperation move to try and save Peacock, not kill DAYS. It's just how it'll likely play out.

It's not successful in linear ratings no, but it still has sizeable audience on streaming since it appeals to the 18-34 demographic. Which is the point. Nonsense can survive on streaming and I don't think there's necessarily a quality-meter as to what survives on streaming. Of course, DAYS would've needed to make a big splash and a soft reboot to get people to watch it instead of doing this wet far thing, but that's another issue.

I'm not too surprised that ML had mixed feelings about the storyline, because for better or worse, once you give a character an addiction storyline it's just not something that they can shake off but is ultimately an on-going character trait. I could see why she would've felt conflicted with going down that route as it means no more getting carelessly drunk with "the girls" etc.

To be fair... have you seen Riverdale lately?

You can see it if you enlargen it. It looks like a glass shard.

Ally McBeal essentially flamed out very fast and also, how on earth would it work to have a show named after a character where they're not even the lead if it's supposed to follow a "young black woman"?

I'm sure that won't stop you from going on repeat.