Jump to content

DAYS: Jett Carver and Jeremy Horton Cast!


Recommended Posts

  • Members

I prefer to judge now and re-evaluate again later. I am not happy about this news of two new faces. And I am going to say it and not wear rose-colored glasses. DAYS has been sucking for LITERALLY 90% of 2007, and I don't trust this. I can't defend or have a wait and see attitude with a show that has dropped the balled for every episode with the exception of about 20 in a 5 month period. That's pathetic!

I don't watch DAYS for diversity. And I don't watch it for family. I watch it because I want to be entertained and love it, and that is something DAYS has failed to do for 5 months now. Things were looking up with all the casting news, but now this is major Zzzzz.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 123
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members

If Eileen Davidson ever were to return to DAYS, then she should only play Kristen Blake DiMera and maybe Susan Banks. The upteen characters of Eileen Davidson was absolutely way overboard, too much and the chief reason I quit watching the show for some time. I did return for Eileen's final 2 weeks on the show though. The only staple character of Davidson is Kristen, and to quite a lesser degree Susan (the others were some of the worst characters ever to appear on the show, along with Willow Stark, Duck & Edmund Wells, Susan's hubby).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Kristen, if played by Eileen Davidson, would be a pretty big draw for DAYS. I'm not saying they made a mistake, but I think any time they could get her back, they should, no matter how she fits in the current storyline.

I loved Anna. I can't wait to see her again. Of the returns listed, only Stefano has the draw to lure in large numbers of lapsed viewers. The story may be excellent, but that takes time to build with characters like Tony and Anna. Stefano, and Kristen, puts asses in the seats just to see what happens. From day one.

She is not an end all be all character for me. I only really liked her early in her run, and at the end of Reilly's first era. But she was fun to watch, and people did.

Kind of like Vanessa Marcil on GH. Lots of people do not like her, but she brings viewers with her when she returns to the show. Ratings spike for her character. I think Kristen could do that for DAYS. I think the story could be excellent without her, but I'm not who DAYS needs right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

This show was never, ever going to roll back to 1995 with Eileen Davidson donning ten thousand wigs and false teeth and such, and the DiMeras running around like the Masters of Evil. You can't go home again and as it happens, it wasn't always so brilliant the first time. If Kristen was to have been brought back, they would've (and still would) have to find a way to exonerate her for her too numerous to mention crimes and make her relevant today with the current canvas. Simply not having Kristen is in no way a death sentence for a well-written, well-produced show. DOOL is still a few ticks away from that, but it's much, much better than it's been in over a decade as far as I'm concerned. I am not going to throw in the towel because it does not resemble hazy, badly lit memories of Aremid from when I was like thirteen.

For the record, I would be all for Kristen's return if she was not a cartoon villainness and they did not immediately try to roll the show back to her dubious "glory days." By the end she had jumped the shark for me.

Then what do you watch it for? Without family and consistency and quality in Days, you have Passions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I answered that right after I said what you quoted me on. I watch to be entertained by characters I love in interesting storylines. Adding on new Brady's and Horton's does not get me watching and neither does adding on minority characters. Neither of those will do anything to help the show.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

And that is your opinion my friend and, while I respect it, a good deal of the time things that sound bad on paper can be much better on screen. That also occurs vice versa at times. Look at Passions. Often times there spoilers sound like crap and they end up being good onscreen but, when they sound good, they come up bad. The bottom line is we don't get every last detail in spoilers so until one watches something we don't know how it will come out. The feel, tone, etc.-it could all turn out much better then it sounds. It's not rose-colored glasses. You can't have an opinion about something unless you see it first, which brings up another point. You said that you didn't watch the show for weeks earlier this year so how can you formulate an opinion on how good or bad it was? Not calling you out and, yes, the ratings went down and alot of people were not pleased with the show but unless you personally watched it your opinion of those months is lacking. I was ok with the show during those months and there were episodes I bashed (Yes, I know, the Days optimist bashing something....SHOCKING :lol: ).

All I am saying is no one knows how it all will play out. If you don't like the newbies, fine. However, to say such and such is bad for the show and so on can't be judged yet when we haven't even saw them here yet. We may see them once or twice a week.

You watch the show to be entertained and that is what we all do. However, there are also some who care about diversity and new blood so we can avoid incest and other roadblocks. It's subjective to the individual but nothing can be determined until June 1 and beyond when we see these characters come aboard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

You know the answer to this. I did watch during January through late April - I just tuned out ten minutes (or less) into the episode because they sucked so badly. It was a horrid, horrid time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Hmm...well, I remember you saying around the week of the fire at Bo and Hope's house that you had not been watching AT ALL since mid-January due to being busy and all and that it was the first full week you had caught and you had said it wasn't bad. Then, I think it was towards mid-April or so, you said that you would have to tune back in because you were hardly watching or something. If you were busy, fine and really that is all beside the point. I just think it's hard to judge something that is based off of the story and execution without seeing it first. Something that seems bad can be saved by the execution of it or by the writing. One never knows. I just think it's the fair way to go about it but to each their own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

You think it's far too early to be so negative about it, and I think it's far too early - and we've been burned too many times - to be so positive about it. So, there's no winning here, so let's just move on from it then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Andre, it may seem that way and yes, I am always optimistic, but that isn't really the case.

There are just some instances where things get overblown and I feel there are some issues that are. I always preach watching and seeing because you can't judge anything until it's on the screen. Period. Otherwise, how can you really know how good it is? Not by spoilers? Spoilers don't have dialogue or music or anything like that. They are just detailed reports of what happened. That is all I am saying in this thread and others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



  • Recent Posts

    • This is 100% correct.  It was even on the nightly news where the US Government would not let the cast and crew travel to Egypt because it was deemed not safe.  The Achille Lauro hijacking took place on October 7, 1985, when the Italian ocean liner MS Achille Lauro was hijacked by four men representing the Palestine Liberation Front off the coast of Egypt, as she was sailing from Alexandria to Ashdod, Israel. The location shoot was probably scheduled to be filmed in mid-October to air throughout November with a two week tape to air date.  Remember on the show they did some in studio scenes doubling for Egypt before shifting the action to Arizona.  It was an awkward end to a truly bizarre storyline.
    • Please register in order to view this content

      New episode from late 1973 or early 1974!
    • Coronation Street had a very good story where one of the characters befriended a man who she later learned had been involved in her husband's death - when told right it can be very powerful (not like AMC trying to make it a romance). ATWT almost had a big fire in mid-1994, so this seemed to be a "thing" with P&G at the time. I guess it fits the disaster backstage atmosphere.
    •   @jmgaw did not refer to Luke and Laura. Throughout 78 GH's ratings continued to rise as AW's fell. That turnaround was getting a lot of attention in the soap press with Scotty/Laura, Rick/Leslie/Monica etc . So the 90 min decision was a reaction to that. I guess the thinking was that 60 min expansion had worked so starting AW a half hour before might keep viewers from switching to GH at 3pm. I don't think anybody really thought it would work. The most sensible solution would have been to expand The Doctors and hope for a GH like turnaround, but for reasons unknown TD never went to an hour.    
    • Like I said competing organization But this is not what I want to happen.
    • Hotel no doubt benefited from the Dynasty lead in and didn't move until it was jettisoned to Sat night wasteland to play out a final season. Maybe it should have been moved earlier to perhaps bolster another night and allow ABC to nurture another show in the post Dynasty timeslot when the former was still a ratings winner.  
    • Who is going to say, "I'm headed home to watch The Chew?!?!" One of the most ridiculous names ever. I didn't watch AMC or keep up with it towards the end, but OLTL still had life in it and could have gone on. OLTL 2.0 was entertaining and worked because RC was not involved. A real shame that did not work because I think the show could have gone in good directions. 
    • Another episode with Chandler uploaded.

      Please register in order to view this content

       
    • I've always said that JFP's main problem is that she comes up with some shocking event and she plans around the event but she never thinks much about the emotional fallout for the characters or the fans. That's why so many of her stories don't work and damage her shows. I like your idea about Lando playing the person involved in hitting Maureen. It would have given Peter Simon something to do which is the feeble excuse they gave for killing Maureen off in the first place. Instead, they gave us the dreck they did.  And they were so obsessed with recreating the blackout week that they kept putting characters in fires and blizzards. None of which I saw, but going through the Logan columns I noticed: every few weeks, someone at GL would give an interview to Logan saying GL was going to get better because they had a great new storyline (A fire! A blizzard! A fire!) . Insanity.  
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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