Days Of Our Lives Ripped To Shreds

[stenbeck212]

(I suspect contempt for the whole genre too.)

[YRBB]

Wow. That. is. MURDER! I mean, it's bad, but that bad?

[juppiter]

blah, yeah, I hate it when people who know nothing about soaps try to write/talk about soaps. So obnoxious.

[Pest Spray]

She's watching January stuff, so yeah it IS that bad (and well, J&M and B&H are barely on, so). However, that woman sounds annoyingly obnoxious.

[Ryan]

lol, I love when people who don't even watch soaps try to comment on the genre.

[PhoenixRising05]

Wow...yeah.

People should not be allowed to write about things they clearly know nothing about. Even if this person was talking about January, it was never that bad.

Now, if she were writing about Days in 2005, that would make sense since the dialogue was very cliched and just amateur-like. The show right now is superbly put together and is getting better by the day.

[ChangedBYSon]

You have to remember that in Australia, they're like 7 MONTHS behind, and it

probably is that bad.

Not to mention the ratings over there are so bad, Ken, Marlena, Thaao and John

went over there for a publicity blitz.

Still no ratings.

Another key point is that she was watching "Days" in its glory days--the 1970's--when

it was the best written, most compelling, romantic, addictive family oriented show

on television.

People on this site mainly remember the "action adventure version" of DAYS from the

1980's up to now. They don't remember the EMMY WINNING 1970s "Days" when Susan

Flannery (Stephanie, B& along with Doug and Julie, Mickey and Maggie and the lady

who plays Laura's mother on "General Hospital" were young, vital mega stars under the

direction of Bill Bell's marvelous storylines and Pat Faulken Smith's exciting way of

executing those stories.

When you put all that together, plus the terrible ratings in Australia (as she said, nobody

watches the show over there anymore), I can definitely see why she wrote that column.

I do LOVE Ed Scott's new improved "DAYS", though. Even with a low budget, he has

totally revitalized the show's "soapy" value and is making it very compelling and interesting.

Anyone with two eyes can see his stamp all over Hogan's writing. He's obviously having

a lot to do with the BREAKDOWNS, because his touches show in every scripted episode.

A good example was Marlena reading the wedding invitation at the very beginning of

Friday's show to let "samplers" know there would be a wedding that day---that's Ed

Scott.

He's also the one who FINALLY brought Shawn, Belle and Philip to life by making it a

soapy-soap story and involving their parents (something Hogan has not done in the

entire year he's been there). Look how much more fascinating they are with Hope and

Bo tied up in their mess? That's Ed Scott's touches and the campus rape story he

brought with him is working out fantastically--because he hired the right casting director.

If only they'd get back to making Marlena the "centerpiece" of the show, they could rise

up from the ratings cellar.

Marlena has been ratings gold since 1976. She's never failed to bring up the ratings.

I love Sami, but she's just not a great heroine. She was better as a villainous. E.J. is

perfect and I credit him being the one who makes their story halfway interesting.

Marlena should be the star, though.

[stenbeck212]

Why does the writer have to devote as much time to soaps as we do before forming an opinion? If it takes more than 3 episodes to tell whether a show works or not, something is very wrong. She had a longtime viewer's familiarity with the genre from childhood, and a fresh perspective because of her years away from it. That's pretty objective to me, but I will fault her for rushing to advocate cancellation and not offering constructive solutions, which is no better than banishing all negative opinions. At the end of the day I wouldn't want to be one of those people who obviously gives soaps a free pass for inanity that they'd never embrace in other entertainment.

[Paul Raven]

Catherine Deveny is not specifically a TV writer.

She writes weekly columns that regularly cause a flurry of letters in the next days paper.Sometimes she makes sense, but often she deliberately sets out to bait a particular group and they buy right into it and respond.

As for TV journalists in general,they tend to be disparaging of soaps,rather than takng the time to understand the genre.

[Guest ryan]

That really is such an obnoxious article.

What gives this woman the right to rip through the show when she's only watched three episodes?

Days is really bad at the moment. I admit that, but I think I have a right to that opinion since I've watched the show for years.

Australia is so far behind and they even skipped four years of episodes. Soaps aren't as popular in Australia and Days is treated pretty poorly over there.

The woman wouldn't even now anything about soaps. The don't show Guiding Light, As the World Turns, General Hospital, One Life to Live, All My Children or Passions there.

She can't even spell the title correctly.

[Andrew]

Right know Sami is a bit annoying, i miss her crazy self, but everyone really must admit, that Allison Sweeney is one great actress, along with Peter Reckell, Brian Datillo, Suzanne Rogers, and more i dont think you can call Days, that bad of any cast, was she comparing it with BB, cause Susan Flannery is great, but i kind of think the other castmembers are kind of usual actors!....

[Justhepope]

ALL I have to say is that, after 40 years, and people still talking about the show - DAYS must be doing something GOOD!!!!!!! -

[MichaelGL]

This woman mentions bad acting and poor production qualities. Obviosuly she hasn't watched any other soaps. While DAYS might have one or two bad apples, I would say that the show is pretty good in that department. As for production quality, well the fact that we have Ed Scott says it all; plus at least all of Salem doesn't live in a hotel.

[Quent]

Sorry, MichaelGL, have to disagree with you on that one. DAYS has always been known to hire models, not actors. This is why they almost never have actors or actresses nominated for Emmys. Any soap that would keep an over-the-top , scenery chewing ham as its lead actor (until recently) for years and years is not looking for quality.

[Y&RWorldTurner]

I agree to an extent, but I always have to point out, that outside of its late 70's heyday, Days never particularly had a good reputation with the Emmy's. Many like to criticize the new Emmy system and how it completely shuts Days out, yet things weren't much better for the show under the old system. Though it got some nominations, the last time Days won an Emmy for acting was 1988 - Billy Warlock for Outstanding Younger Actor. Not to mention its only wins for Outstanding Drama Series and Outstanding Drama Series Writing Team date back to the 70's. Many reasons can be attributed to the show's virtual neglect by the Emmy's, sloppy casting - yes? But it goes deeper than that, I think Ken Corday, in particular, has a HORRIBLE REPUTATION within this industry, which hurts Days and enables the industry insiders to think of the show as a joke. It's not simply an NBC issue either, because while Santa Barbara was dominating the Emmy's in the late 80's/early 90's, and AW was still capable of winning Emmy's for acting, Days wasn't winning anything.