te.

So... DAYS OF OUR LIVES, how do you feel about it.

Weirdly, I think both - if there were more hours in the week, then maybe they could've developed both the new characters and the old ones. But as it was, they were fighting for airtime and the old characters won.

TBH, it seemed like they early on would struggle to bring in people outside the "core" group, so all these characters would ultimately be jettisoned off sooner or later. The Schusters were just the first ones after the first storyline resolution, but then you had all the Chernaks, Fowlers, Webbers, Winters, Jills and Rachels that only seemed to pass through the show. Maybe more episodes per week could've eased more characters into staying (though I do like how broken so many characters that pass through end up getting). Unfortunately, losing Allison that early really did a trick on the show - Rachel was sort of working, but then Leigh Taylor-Young got pregnant and they wrote her out, leaving the Carsons without much to do again. I do wonder if the show should've just recast Allison and been done with it, then again, once Jill enters the scene the show is so obviously old hat with the changing 60s. The endless droning about the scandal of her being a single mom while they're also doing more "modern" teen storylines / "race" politics was an interesting contrast at least.

I think she's still living in 1989 when there were 12 soaps on air and vaguely keeping up with one or two episodes per week on VHS was enough to print out an article. It's obvious she maybe at best has dipped into the show during the first few months and haven't found it as engaging, but gets all the wrong takes on what's off. There are certainly things that I think could be fixed with BTG (noteably I think they haven't gotten the pacing right), but her article isn't going to fly with soap fans today. It's not like there's a lot of soaps these days to keep track of.

I feel like this has been an issue since the 80s with the Ewings / Carrington's originally being far more "bad guys", but as the Reagan era started taking hold they became more and more the protagonists that you were supposed to root for. I don't see that changing unfortunately as all soaps seem to be clinging onto that era.

I love it because it was incredibly true to life in a way - sometimes people disappear. With that said, it wouldn't work today. You'd have people arguing about needing to know what happened!

I mean, they kept trying to kill Allison with those movies but she's more resilient than we know, just like the real life actress. I do want to see the daytime soap. TBH, I wonder if Peyton Place would've been better off just recasting her... but then I did enjoy the consequences of her leaving.

If there's one thing I've always been curious about it's how people reacted to Allison just walking out of Peyton Place. To me it's something that's just haunting - we just don't know what happened to her, though there's certainly heavy implications that Jack Chandler killed her and Rachel knew what happened.

Yep. That was earnt. The lily pond catfight was actually kind of random.

I think there's a distinct reason why "true crime" skews so female lol.

I don't actually get the impression that Jen or Jack are being written as unreasonable. So far everyone's being written as kind of fair? Of course it's leaning in Cat's favour because she's about to be paired up with Chad, but I don't think they're doing this black-and-white but feels like a dilemma.

Oh please no. Beyond the Gates ruined.

Current intro: Though with Henrik missing will it be as such?

I learnt the other month I could watch Dolda liv (finnish soap) and now I'm obsessed. What's going on with Aaro? Also, Kalle's going to get with the hot cop.

I like the slow burn of the Cat / Chad storyline. Often we get rushed storylines but they're taking their time at least.

When you look at the overall vibe of the show - that it's 50s wholesome Americana with a dark undercurrent in combination with how nothing is as it seems with the "perfect" Palmer family, it's obvious from that point alone. And who is the most likely perpetrator in such a situation? I suspect it's logical deduction, even if your mom might've done it subconsciously.

I guess I'm the only one who kind of enjoyed demon seed Rachel, but I just can't otherwise make sense of her total personality switch. It could be as you said that the new writers just didn't like that direction for the character and changed it. Either way, with the actress going to Little House on the Prairie soon, I kind of assume she'll be sent off to the Boarding School of SORAS for a few years before returning as a teen.

TBH, I've been somewhat impressed that more haven't leaked lately - the rumours of Rachel being the culprit were around for months, so maybe they've just learnt to keep things on lockdown. The Salem U storyline also came out of nowhere for instance. Theo also seems to be here for the long haul if backstage pictures are correct. The most long-term stuff we've heard is recasts of Chad and possibly Javi, but they couldn't keep that under wraps for obvious reasons (actors joining other shows).

Interesting. Does anyone remember his occupation? Could he be a professor at Salem U?

Also, here's them singing "Shook" acoustic: And Hole in the Head: Why do people like 1.0 again?

They've released SHOOK and WEEDS since then: SHOOK is the massive pop anthem: WEEDS is more of a taster: If I were to compare WEEDS to anything it's GOLDFISH by ms Siobhan: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7d5iB7VO9Q

I can't be the only one seeing how she's playing coy and telling on everyone but herself? Or am I delusional and think way too much of the writers?

It can't be just me thinking that yes, Rachel knows exactly what she did and she's a little sociopath?

Starting to catch up on the last two weeks and I'll have to say that Belle has been so enjoyable lately. It's a shame Sami's not her to slap her up.