Is there anyone else who watches Days that likes aspects of all the couples? I love Steve/Kayla, Bo/Hope, John/Marlena, Jack/Jennifer/ and now I'm beginning to love Shawn/Belle, Nick/Chelsea, and Max/Abby. I even have my Days where I enjoy Sami/Lucas although they tend to get on my nerves sometimes. Maybe I'm too much of an optimist, but I have watched Days for 20 years, and I think each of the couples have had their ups and downs, but for the most part I have enjoyed their love stories. I have never found myself rooting for one couple over another. All of them together make it Days of our Lives to me.

johphil, I came back to Days for Steve and Kayla and when I first started watching in May I couldn't imagine ever caring about anyone on the show. I was appalled by how awful the writing was and the characters were all cardboard. I pretty much hated everyone *g* Things have gotten progressively better since then and now I'm actively following several storylines although S&K remain my faves.

I flove Nick & Chelsea and I adore Bo & Hope and Sami & Lucas (although Lucas makes me nuts half the time. Safer to say I love Sami). I think Phillip's a hoot and I think Willow's a fabulously written character though I can't stand the actor's portrayal of her. EJ rocks my world and I will always love John. I want him to wake up like yesterday.

While I'm here, I'll respond to the subject of the thread. No surprise that I disagree with the original poster. I couldn't be less bored by Steve and Kayla and I think the current storyline (especially the last two weeks) has shown some of the most incredible acting and writing I've seen since I came back to the show. They completely blew me away last week and this week they're doing the same. Like mlynnd I'm not going to try to talk anyone into liking them. You do or you don't, just as I have characters I don't like. But when I read words like "whiny" and "passive" about Kayla, it makes me think people are watching a different show -- especially the past two weeks. Girl is FIERCE.

You are not being lectured and you certainly aren't being singled out. It was just a friendly warning to try to avoid something ugly breaking out. Simple as that. No one is saying the icon can not be used but it should be used carefully as others could be off by it and then a fight breaks out. Same goes for the tone of a post. You did nothing wrong but your post was very close to reaching a level that could cause something to break out. It's a case of being more safe then sorry. Your opinion is differing, just like many posters in this thread and on this board. I just made the statement that everyone's opinions are welcome and that everyone respect that. I apologize if you felt offended in anyway.

Now, I don't want to waste space in the thread discussing this so if you have an issue with this, please take this up with me through PM or with another mod. I am just doing my job to prevent things from turning into a flame war.

I hope you will serve Bree the same "friendly warning", because she has been rude to me in more than one post.

Oh, Okay! Great! Now I can start to enjoy this stupid storyline!

:lol: :lol:

There's big differences though... The returns of Marlena and Hope were both hyped up to the extreme, BUT, they lived up to it. Bringing in the ratings (DAYS was #9 in the ratings and brought to #2 and/or #1 - people have said both - with DH's return, and I'm not sure the ratings effect with KA, but there was a bump, I can't remember how big). And they were gone five and four years respectively, not 16.

Linn, you're not following your own logic, and setting up an argument that you can't sustain. If Kristian and Deidre bumped ratings for their respective returns, then wouldn't they still have the ability to effect ratings? If you concede that they don't, why is that? If the fault lies with the quality of writing, then you've created an explanation as to why Steve and Kayla haven't caused a ratings increase, and your original argument collapses. If it's simply a "bump" you're looking for, then I have to ask why you would think a short-lived increase would translate into anything more than a shrug of the shoulders by network execs. What exactly would that prove?

I'm surprised how little the bigger picture is looked at, why no one thinks, "Hey, when soaps purge over half their audience in a decade, maybe that will effect things like big name returns." You can't blame character/couple X for that, then look back and compare them to time periods where soaps actually had a substantial, built-in audience. Shows' refusal to turn inward to stop the mass exodus of viewers is the problem here, not who is featured and how often---the latter is simply a byproduct of the former.

Edited February 27, 200718 yr by Kate DiMera

Linn, you're not following your own logic, and setting up an argument that you can't sustain. If Kristian and Deidre bumped ratings for their respective returns, then wouldn't they still have the ability to effect ratings? If you concede that they don't, why is that? If the fault lies with the quality of writing, then you've created an explanation as to why Steve and Kayla haven't caused a ratings increase, and your original argument collapses. If it's simply a "bump" you're looking for, then I have to ask why you would think a short-lived increase would translate into anything more than a shrug of the shoulders by network execs. What exactly would the prove?

I'm surprised how little the bigger picture is looked at, why no one thinks, "Hey, when soaps purge over half their audience in a decade, maybe that will effect things like big name returns." You can't blame character/couple X for that, then look back and compare them to time periods where soaps actually had a substantial, built-in audience. Shows' refusal to turn inward to stop the mass exodus of viewers is the problem here, not who is featured and how often---the latter is simply a byproduct of the former.

Oh, KateD, I love it when you post here.

I agree.

Linn, you're not following your own logic, and setting up an argument that you can't sustain. If Kristian and Deidre bumped ratings for their respective returns, then wouldn't they still have the ability to effect ratings? If you concede that they don't, why is that? If the fault lies with the quality of writing, then you've created an explanation as to why Steve and Kayla haven't caused a ratings increase, and your original argument collapses. If it's simply a "bump" you're looking for, then I have to ask why you would think a short-lived increase would translate into anything more than a shrug of the shoulders by network execs. What exactly would that prove?

I'm surprised how little the bigger picture is looked at, why no one thinks, "Hey, when soaps purge over half their audience in a decade, maybe that will effect things like big name returns." You can't blame character/couple X for that, then look back and compare them to time periods where soaps actually had a substantial, built-in audience. Shows' refusal to turn inward to stop the mass exodus of viewers is the problem here, not who is featured and how often---the latter is simply a byproduct of the former.

Superb post.

The era when any single couple/character can significantly boost viewership is long gone.

Edited February 28, 200718 yr by Ponz

Excellent post, KateDimera.

you know, i really liked them before and on GH but i find them really boring and dull...he is way over acting just like Phillip now and she is just maintained the same....i like her evil. i could do w/o them on DAYS to save a couple bucks...Kayla and Marlena are the same character..im sure Kayla could have been the Marlena of the show if she stayed.

Linn, you're not following your own logic, and setting up an argument that you can't sustain. If Kristian and Deidre bumped ratings for their respective returns, then wouldn't they still have the ability to effect ratings? If you concede that they don't, why is that? If the fault lies with the quality of writing, then you've created an explanation as to why Steve and Kayla haven't caused a ratings increase, and your original argument collapses. If it's simply a "bump" you're looking for, then I have to ask why you would think a short-lived increase would translate into anything more than a shrug of the shoulders by network execs. What exactly would that prove?

I'm surprised how little the bigger picture is looked at, why no one thinks, "Hey, when soaps purge over half their audience in a decade, maybe that will effect things like big name returns." You can't blame character/couple X for that, then look back and compare them to time periods where soaps actually had a substantial, built-in audience. Shows' refusal to turn inward to stop the mass exodus of viewers is the problem here, not who is featured and how often---the latter is simply a byproduct of the former.

W-wait? A SON poster who has formed a coherent, logical rebuttal in an argument? There is only one explaination for all of this...

WITCH!! SHE'S A WITCH!!

Ban her, then burn the corpse!!

IT'S THE WORK OF THE DEVIL, I SAY!!