Jump to content

DAYS: One year later...


Recommended Posts

  • Members

Do you remember Hogan's SOAPnet interview, this time, last year? He said such great things and gave us such hope of what's to come. I remember being so excited after watching this.

Take a look at it. You have to scroll down and click on the Days of our Lives links. They go in an order, so you should start with the frist one, with the caption, "Kat and DAYS head writer Hogan Sheffer talk fall storylines."

http://soapnet.go.com/specials/fallpreview06/videos.html

Now, here we are one year later. Lets take a look at what Hogan's done, shall we?

First of all, I'm going to point out that he didn't even know when DAYS premiered. He said 1966. No, Hogan. DAYS premiered in 1965. Small mistake, I know, but just something that bothered me after watching this again.

Hogan loves John and Marlena. They were going to be central to the storylines that were going to be told. Hogan planned to make Marlena the heroine she once was. And he said that John and Marelna had a lot to do (along with Steve and Kayla). John and Marlena were never central to the storylines being told. They supported Steve and Kayla's storyline when they went to find the cure for Kayla. Sure, we got some great scenes between the couple in the cabin, but I wouldn't say they were central. They did have the whole search for Stefano, but that only lasted a few days, and this included their wedding in Italy. That brings us to the end of December when John was shot and the couple disappeared from our screens. They were no longer central to nothing. They appeared about 15 times from January until May. Even now, John and Marelna are still not central to any story on this show.

Next thing discussed was the supercouples and how DAYS basically coined the term. Hogan said that he planned on taking the show back to having supercouples being what they were about, and that was romance and adventure. I won't deny that Hogan has given us loads and loads of adventure storylines, but where is the romance that was promised? Sure, the couples are together, but they're not romantic in the very least. The part that made fans fall for the supercouples of the 80s was the beautifully done love scenes that made viewers drool. They wanted to see beautiful people making love with the one they loved. Aside from Santo and Colleen, we haven't gotten one love scene since Hogan took over the show. I know there are some that feel that love scenes are not essential to the show, but I'm going to disagree. I want to see my favorite couple expressed their love to each other in the sheets. Sex sells! Isn't that the number one rule in entertainment?

the young demos and how the younger audience doesn't want to see people their own age, but family scenes with problems and resolutions that come along.

Next, Hogan talks about the BS that is the show catering to the younger demos by having younger characters shoved down our throats. He makes mention that we won't be seeing 15 year olds hiding condoms in their lockers, but what do we have? We have a group of people in their early 20s, acting just like a group of high school kids. Maybe not so much anymore, but when Stephanie (Shelley Henning), Jeremy and Jett came on board, the kids were acting like horny high schoolers. And the worst part about them? They were islanded. We never got scenes with Jeremy and the Hortons, aside from that one 4th of July episode.

That brings us to the next video when Hogan says the biggest problem with introducing new character is that you can't shove them down the audience's throat. He says that the biggest example of this was Stephanie's introducition last July. She came onto the show and immediately started clinging to Max, and he thoguht that viewers didn't care about that. He's right about that. Hogan says that he wants to establish the younger set so that the audience can get to know them before giving them their own story. Has that been done? No! The only characters that the audience have had at least 2 years of knowing them were Chelsea and Max. Nick, Stephanie, Jeremy and Jett, we really know nothing about. And who's on our screens almost everyday? Nick, Stephaine, Jeremy and Jett. Hogan basically lied about that. And he was right. We don't care about these characters, and we do want to know why the hell they are on our screens in their own stories. Throwing them into an already established family doesn't make things okay, Hogan.

And the sad part is that Hogan did a fantastic job with this in the beginning of his run. None of the younger set was really in a real romance for a while. You had Abby harboring her crush on Max. It took a while before Chelsea and Nick even became an item. We saw these characters develop in the romance department, and it was done slowly and realistically, and that is the reason why these romances were a hit rather than Jeremy and Stephanie or Jett and Chelsea.

And don't get me started on his comment about Max and Stephanie. He said that they were related and he wanted to get away from the incest angle. What's going on right now? I believe that Stephanie and Max are discussing their relationship status, and not just their family relationship status, but a romantic relationship status. Way to go, Hogan. You're really staying true to your words, my friend.

And I have to LOL at his comment that we are going to end up loving Stephanie. Sorry, Hogan, but there was a point when I loved Stephanie, and that was when Shayna Rose played the part. This Stephanie that you have on right now, there are feelings for her, but it surely ain't love.

I remember hearing about Shawn and Belle's on the run storyline and how excited I was for it. And when Hogan said that Belle would be taking a walk on the wild side, I was estatic. But now, here we are, one year later, and where was that wild side that Belle was supposedly going to walk on? She hasn't really changed her personality at all from the way she was. She never really did any wild walking either. She went on the run with Shawn. Unless that was the wild side that Hogan was referring to, I saw nothing. And I wouldn't necessarily consider that a wild side, but that's me.

I do like the way he talked about the transitioning from the older characters to the younger characters, and it is something that I do agree with. Hogan said that Philip will be the new Victor, while Shawn and Belle are the new Bo and Hope. He doesn't mean they are going to be literrally like their predecessors, but in a figurative way, they are.

Now this was not supposed to be an attack on Hogan, although it may turn into one, but I'm personally not attacking the man. I think he is a great writer, but I think he put his foot in his mouth a lot during this interview and said some things that he couldn't back up with his writing. Most of the things he said came true in that first 3 months of writing the show. And then, something drastically changed.

That brings me to the budget issue. Now I know that head writers usually plan a bible, of sorts, for the next 6 months to one year away. And I know that the head writer has to pass through the executive producer before things can be given the greenlight to tell the story. If Corday saw that Hogan had plans to keep John and Marlena frontburner, and he saw that he had plans to really keep the vets on to establish the young cast, why would he not tell Hogan that his writing could not be told because of the budget from the beginning? Corday is a rich man, and I'm sure that he doesn't handle the budget problems personally. I would think that the show would have several accountants that handle the money issues. Shouldn't Corday have checked with the accountants to make sure that the stories that Hogan wanted to tell would merit the budget? It just seems that if the budget was the problem, that Corday Productions is a very unorganized and unresponsible company if they couldn't even tell that their money couldn't handle the writer's demands.

That theory right there kind of trashes the budget excuse, and I'm not buying the budget excuse anymore. I did defend the show because of that reason for a while, but after thinking about it, it doesn't make much sense.

I don't know much about contracts, but doesn't an actor's contract entitle payment whether or not the actor is being shown or not? I thought that is why actors were placed on contract, so they would have a steady pay. If not, they should be on recurring with the other recurring cast that only gets paid when they make an appearance.

Putting those two things togehter juts totally blows the budget excuse out of the water for me.

There was something else going on, and I don't know if we'll ever get Hogan, or Corday, or whoever to fully admit what the real plan was. Was the show trying to phase out the vets to see if the show could survive with out them in order to save more money? Something was going on, and I'm not buying the budget excuse anymore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 4
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members

I can't figure out why fake Stephanie is on such front-burner shoved in your face all the time mode. She drives me crazy. I loved Shayna Rose. This one is quite another story.

The entire show either obsessed on a bunch of young bland characters or throws a tiny bit of the far more exciting Stefano feud story then yanks it away for more silly stuff.

Now, I do have to admit that even the worst silly stuff seems to move faster and be less repetitive than the Reilly 2nd run. But is it worth it if the characters are so bland and at time incredibly annoying? I'm not sure I can say it's really better....

Now if the Stefano story had a great deal more airtime that would be different. If Anna Dimera were on a lot more, more Lexie, more Marlena, etc., I would be saying very different things.

But this crowd of silly kids & Valley Girls bores me to no end. I've more than had enough of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Drew, I never bought the budget excuse in the first place. I personally thought Hogan just made it up to cover his butt when fans were outraged that the Big Four weren't used at all. I'm not saying that I think Hogan made the decision to backburner the big 4 in a vacuum and that Corday wasn't possibly on board for the Big 4 backburnering experiment too, but I just really don't think Hogan ever had any interest in writing for the Big 4 and especially not John and Marlena after January.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I too never bought the budget story for the very reason that the OP pointed out. Soap contracts have guarantees so regardless of whether or not the actor actually appears on the show he or she gets paid. And there is simply no way in hell that Diedre Hall would skip one paycheque. Ditto Alfonso, Reckell and Hogestyn. And they shouldn't have to! They're worth every penny.

In all honesty I'm finding DAYS very boring and I'm a longtime fan who has seen it up and down many times. This is one of the worst times for DAYS. Ratings have hit an all time low, the show is the lowest rated soap on the air and they've only got a contract till 2009. Although it may not be completely fair I blame Hogan for a lot of this. Corday, repeatedly, has exhibited that he does not really put much into the show creatively. Furthermore, Corday knows that DAYS is his big meal ticket (aside from a minority stake in Y&R) and without it his bank accounts will no longer grow at an exponential rate. Hogan, quite simply, lied to the viewers of DAYS.

He said that he planned a new, exciting story for the fabulous Lauren Koslow which would be different from what we'd previously seen her do (the Sami vs Kate merry go round...and yet nothing. Not a damn new thing for Ms Koslow who has always made the very best of some truly laughable material which she continues to do with complete professionalism. Hogan fired and then rehired Renee Jones to waste her. Ditto Tanya Boyd, Suzanne Rogers, Susan Seaforth Hayes, Joe Mascolo, Thaao Penghilis and so many others like the Core 4 Kristian Alfonso & Peter Reckell and Drake Hogestyn & Diedre Hall.

I'm sorry but Hogan had a year to mend the show and he failed. It's time that Ed Scott let the axe fall and hire someone from the Bill Bell Family (Trent Jones perhaps? Even Jack Smith would be a good fit for DAYS. Sally Sussman Morina's reign in the late 1990s was very underrated, I'd like to see her back) Hogan's time on this show is up. It goes to show that lightning doesn't strike twice and that his reign on ATWT was a one shot deal.

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

    • Emphasis on the work...VANISH.

      Please register in order to view this content

          I've discussed this at length in the monthly threads on the main A stories as established by Week 1...which Martin's secret was one of them. Most soaps would have an A story one week with all the B/C plots just orbitting about. BTG did that well itself in the first two/three weeks. But like I mentioned before one of the A stories (Dani/Bill/Hayley) they can't keep going to that at the moment since it was already overkill by the end of Month 1. The other one...the Silk Press storyline...was really the only one that has been well-paced in my opinion with twists, turns, and builds...including subplots and near-misses. But that was not going to explode before May Sweeps. So that left Martin's secret...which as I said...started off well. I loved how it started with Martin having problems sleeping, but NO images. Then we got sounds. THEN we started to get images. And NOW those images are getting more established. But before we got all that, his storyline...which has been established to be a main one...vanished for a month and a half. While it worked for the storyline since Month 2 gave Martin (and Brandon Clayborn to grow) time to be more established...along with his family...the story of his secret could have also been a story that had a nice slow burn (which I love) to the show while having the other B/C plots orbitting it. Again, not mad at it since it allowed the audience to learn more about Martin and his family life. It also allowed for other B/C plots to grow on the audience. I also think the story development for that A story might have suffered from the writers still trying to find a rhythm that works for this show.   In any case, I also said that I felt they might go old school soap in May. And by old school I meant as an A story is climaxing, the writers take another story that will be the next one and start to build it up again, while also starting another plot as a C plot. And right now, we have the SilkPress storyline climaxing while Martin's nightmares (with images) have finally started to come back into play. I mentioned when I saw the promos of Martin vs Ted that hopefully the reveal would trigger Martin to the point that we FINALLY get to see what he did. So far...how Martin's been acting since the reveal, being so triggered, I still feel that is how we will see how things happened...allowing the next A story to finally take off.    Fingers crossed.   
    • You know what? After all the men she's been with dying, it's only appropriate that she try her hand with women. Only then will she discover how much of a curse she is when it comes to relationships. Of course, I don't think the show would go there, but if they do, I wonder how Carly would react to her daughter being with Robin's.
    • If I'm not mistaken, much of this took place while Claire Labine was writing LOL -- and believe me, it was a very compelling show!  Probably the best soap on the air during Labine's short tenure as head-writer.  I assume Labine left LOL to create Ryan's Hope in 1975, but much of the action your describe seems to be her work.  Not sure why -- maybe some dates are off.
    • Felicia and Rachel were suddenly represented as friends when Mitch came back to Bay City in 1986 in order to try to add tension to the storyline of Mitch and Felicia getting together. I suppose we are lucky that Margaret DePriest didn't eliminate Felicia as she did Quinn and Maisie for being outside the "core families" of McKinnon/Love/Cory.   Felicia was more antagonistic when she was first introduced. She brought Carl to town not knowing he was Donna's ex. She was carrying on an affair with Cass while he was sneaking around with Cecile behind her back and was livid with him when she found out. She was resentful when Cass signed Julia to Winthrop Publishing. She was friendly with Lily though IIRC.     
    • Just coming to comment about Joss and I see there is some conversation. I want to know what's with the subtle "moments" between Joss and Emma. I've been noticing it, but maybe I'm just overthinking it. 

      Please register in order to view this content

    • In regards to Sam and Amanda... both of them were immature and crappy people.  She was a spoiled daddy's girl while he had a chip on his shoulder.  Both were stubborn and pigheaded... and I'm thankful I've resisted wearing the 2025 lens of assuming women are empowering and men are toxic.... when quite frankly both men and women could stand to be a little less toxic (in real life, of course).. not on my soaps where toxicity should be the norm.
    • I'm copying and pasting the entire post because, while I enjoyed the watch, I agree with every single one of your points (as I posted above I thought the dialogue tried for clever sophistication without sounding realistic throughout, in fact.)
    • I've just been over Josslyn since her corn costume on Halloween, putting her into a "leading lady" kind of position, simply because she is Carly's daughter, all while backburning other children is annoying AF.
    • Hilarious that Steffy just barges into Brooke's house to see Hope without knocking. Ridge bought it, so I guess she feels she's entitled to.
    • Joss is nowhere near the top of my list to keep currently.  I just wouldn't kill her off and consider bringing her back sometime down the line.  I guess it depends on how well the show is able to develop the next generation of talent with Rocco, Danny, Georgie, etc.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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