te.

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.

Another character for them to destroy! I'm not surprised that Darren Star showed up for that event. In all honesty, SatC started going downhill after he left over the reigns - pretty much all his shows tend to decline in some way or another when he does.

Pretty much. It's like moving a show on its last legs into an impossible time slot - if it succeeds there (which might be a fairly low bar) it's great, if it doesn't... oh well. Is that intentionally killing it? Well, maybe by indifference to it. DAYS was always going to go online at one point, but they aren't exactly nurturing it to make that transition effectively. If it does get renewed beyond September next year, it'll be in an entirely different format. ETA: one thing that might work in DAYS's favour, besides increased subscriptions, is if they notice that DAYS viewers interact and watch other shows - ie people'll log in daily on Peacock, watch DAYS and then something else, especially since there's still ads on some tiers to my understanding.

I guess that confirms what a lot of people thought - that the two year renewal deal had a clause that would allow them to move it to Peacock. Still, you'd think they would have been able to gauge this months ago if they were going to move it and prepare better. Now any change won't be visible until February and any curiosity watchers who might tune in to see if the show has changed will be long gone by then.

To be fair, I think a lot of it had to do with that the age difference between Jason and Gabrielle became very obvious, especially as the show progressed. I assume that's why they finally did go there with Susan, who was basically an Auh-ndrea stand-in. I think the age thing also might have hindered some other pairing - ie how Ian Ziering mysteriously never hooked up with any of the OG main cast, not even having a rebound fling with Kelly (which seems like an obvious plot line). They probably should've gone ahead with an Auh-ndrea and Steve pairing at one point, but maybe it was for the best - look at what happened on Melrose Place when they finally did pair Alison and Jake together after teasing it in season one!

While I think it's possible for her to land such a job, a huge thing for those streaming series is that they don't really tend to end up paying the bills because they're usually so short (8-10 episodes and maybe two/three months work and long breaks). There was a story the other month about one of the Euphoria actresses really struggling to make ends meet outside the show. Maybe she'll be able to make enough money on doing "social media influencer" work, but that seems like a "job" that will probably go on a downward trend as we're entering a huge recession...

Nothing about this is surprising - for the past decade CW (the network) has been functioning as a storefront window to sell CBS Studios and WBTVs productions to streamers; ironically, both getting their own streaming services (P+ and HBOMax) changed the business model and they sold it, so now they'll have to concern themselves with live ratings again. And the 18-34 demographic just doesn't watch television live - this means focus on live events and other things that draws in that casual viewer.

You know what's weird about this is? That Ron's storyline's doesn't even last that long ultimately - it's not a case where it seems like they keep them going because they're such a big hit with the audience that they're forced to extend them, they all seem to come from a "why don't we do this" perspective, there's no real plan to them and then he gets bored with them and then he lets them splutter out in the background.

The reason why Alexandra Moltke's exit was so abrupt was because her doctor supposedly put her on bed rest for her pregnancy - if it was true or if it was a way to get out of her contract earlier, we don't know. But either way, they were supposed to wrap up her story with Moltke in the role, at least temporarily. That's why Victoria #2 was so short-lived - she was only playing out what was supposed to happen. When they decided to use Victoria again, Victoria #2 would only appear again if she was given a contract and since they weren't really interested in anyone but Moltke playing the show in the long-term Victoria #3 happened for a few episodes. They apparently kept approaching Moltke to re-appear, but she was happily married to a wealthy man and had a child, so why should she do a daytime television show?

I thought the mini-series was great, even if the story of a woman who gets her face eaten by a crocodile and becomes a super model is a bit unrealistic. The following 22 episode series... eh. I thought it started out by doing pretty much all the 80s prime time soaps tropes and it didn't really feel like they put as much thought into the story as much as getting those beats in. The original cliffhanger was great though. I guess it was nice to get a wrap up, but on the other hand I've also stopped minding soaps ending on a cliffhanger (which in a way feels more "true" to the genre).