Jump to content

October 4-8, 2010


Toups

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 213
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members

I think most people were complaining that the teens were boring and written shiteously -- not that the show was teen-heavy. Age bracket doesn't matter much as long as the writing is there.

Viewers complained about Nighttime Hope because it was a dumb story. Simply putting Kristian on the screen isn't enough to make us happy. If that was the case, I'd just go online and stare at pictures of her all day long and make myself happy that way.

As for putting more focus on Sami, that's the last thing this show needs.

Alice's memorial was well received by most fans. I didn't see alot of complaints about that (minus the fact that we didn't get an actual funeral/church service), nor have I seen any complaints about Victor and Maggie, so your argument that nothing satisfies viewers is invalid. People will always have different opinions, of course, but that doesn't mean the writers should shy from telling an engaging story just because they're afraid a portion of the audience might not like it.

I think you're confusing general Days fans with fanbase psychos.

Most people in fanbases are crazy and logic doesn't apply to them. The rest of us just want to be entertained.

I, personally, have never stopped watching just because someone was fired. There have been two or three times in the past where I've stopped watching and that was because the writing was so bad that I just couldn't stomach it anymore. Being pissed about Deidre and Drake (or anyone else) getting the axe has never been enough to make me tune out, and I think most other viewers are the same way. We just want to be entertained. We want good stories. When TPTB stop delivering, we tune out -- and rightfully so.

I have no obligation to watch this show when it's bad, so how can my lack of viewership be blamed for the show's current woes?

Give me entertaining stories and I won't tune out. Simple as that. If the writers don't deliver (their fault -- not mine), I'm not going to watch. What is wrong with that?

"One thing pisses them off so they stop watching."

Nope.

As a Days fan, I've put up with many things that have pissed me off over the years and I've continued watching, but there does come a point where the straw finally breaks the camel's back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I was gonna say, no one I've met has ever been invested in a show then tuned out the moment ONE thing they don't like happens, it's just a chain of questionable decisions compounded over many many years that build up into a spiral of anger and rage until you're verging on aneurysm and decide to watch Oprah instead.

The problem is that Days for me already had a strike or two against them when I came back to watch it last year in that I have to have a mental break to accept the current situation where Sami is living/in love/having babies with a man who is two years younger than her oldest son, but appears to be 30, just as an example. Compound that with the fact that the young crowd are dull as dishwater (why should I care about Melanie and Nathan? I know nothing about Nathan other than he's non-threatening and shouldn't have graduated Med School yet, and Melanie giggles a lot and has trouble completing sentences often), and you have a good case for tuning out.

I don't think the problem is that "the fans are never happy" it's "the fans remember when stories were complicated and the scenes would play out for more than 30 seconds, thus allowing something more than the most basic of conversations to play out, maybe a bit of SUSPENSE to happen?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I think you are not fair. For example, I love Shelley Hennig as Stephanie. She was introduced in 2007, she is in her second contract cycle now and she still didn´t have even one successfull romance or a story people could remember as something special. Her whole "story" for this year can be sumarized by one line. Or look at Arianna who was introduced in 2009 and spend year and half just wandering around Salem with very little direction and purpose. Will and Mia were introduced as a new teen couple two years ago and DAYS teen scene is still unexistant. As I already wrote on DR, I really liked Taylor Spreitler as Mia, but just watching 10 episodes of her new sitcom I saw her more and know more about the character she plays than by watching approx. 350 episodes of DAYS when she was playing Mia. That´s problem. Chad was just wandering around Salem for year, finally they introduced him as Stefano´s DiMera son, even made a big mystery around it for a while, but we already know it for few months now and nothing happened. Gabby had nothing to do, was recasted, and has nothing to do once again.

I saw many new viewers getting interested in these characters and into the show as whole, I saw twitter post and new website and fan youtube accounts created, but all of the interest eventually died because the characters they liked were either not shown at all, their story had no movement, or the writers decided to rewrite them and put them into a different couples thus killing everything what initially made them work.

It´s nice people can theoretically catch their favorite characters 260 times per year, but who cares when they can get 10times more romance and 100times more story movement just from one 45 minutes long episode of Vampire Diaries. That´s the reason nobody new wants to watch. Primetime had always advantage in the plot and execution, but daytime was the clear winner in the romance and character development. They had the luxury to show all these emotional heart to hearts, lingering looks and slow dances. They had the ability to make the characters really get under your skin so you didn´t mind to watch them doing anything, even reading papers for a whole hour.

I have no idea why they are not able to do it anymore, especially when so many names in the credits are still the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Hmm... You make it sound as if people need 45 minutes of drama a day (or a week) the same way balanced nutrition calls for 57 mg of vitamin C a day. Are things really like that? I don't know, which is why I'm asking. Everyone keeps mentioning these "fixes": "daily fix of drama", "fix of comedy", "fix of controversy and intrigue", how someone will dump a soap and replace it with a "CSI or L&O rerun fix" and so on, but I find that rather bizarre in a way. It should be pretty simple: if a person's interests and taste click with a particular show or a storyline, he or she will watch, as much as their free time allows it (and sometimes even more than that). If they sought "fixes", they'd pick any drama and get their "drama fix".

People don't just migrate to a "CSI fix" or Vampire Diaries "fix" once their soap dies. It's all rather random, accidental, haphazard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

If people quit watching when one thing pissed them off, then how have these dinosaurs managed to stay on the air for 30, 40, 50 years?

All I see is someone making excuses for the fact that soaps are no longer competitive. Sorry but you'll never "save" soaps by blaming the customer for not buying the product. "If people stop watching, then revenue drops..." Oh noes! Daytime TV has to function by the same economic rules as...gasp...every other tv show on the air.

I know! Let's set up an alternate universe where people can put something on television with low quality storytelling that spits in the face of its audience, ignores the realities of 21st century living (we have birth control now, you know) and ignores or dismisses the feedback it gets from said audience and then reward them with decades of loyalty! Oh wait...we did.

I think that's precisely the problem. Experience gave way to stagnation while the people who were open to new ideas just gave the hell up and washed their hands of the genre. In a perfect world, the Agnes Nixons and Nance Curlees would've been able to pass their expertise on to proteges who would've taken these shows to satisfying conclusions then created new shows to replace them. Instead we have these permahacks who go from show to show accomplishing nothing all while they try to coast on - or worst - redo the work of real innovators.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Yeah but P&G is a major company responsible to shareholders for profit. I get that TV is only a small but of their business but even an extra million dollars must mean something to someone at the company. I think PGP may be afriad that older viewers might not be aware of a sale and hold the company responsible for stoex., Luke and Noah get naked. Also, I think PGP may want to sell all of their old soaps as a library because the repeats do have value abroad. I'm still stunned that people in China are watching Marland's ATWT right now.

I agree with the poster who wrote about the lack of progress with the genre. It has no way evolved over the past 20 years. Bell was Irma's student and, when the time came, he innovated and created Y&R--the youngest, most sexual and most modern looking soap ever. Maybe a few new shows would have been good for the genre. I refuse to count SB and Passions as examples. Santa Barbara was great but had AW as a lead and was up against power house GH and GL. Had SB been on CBS, the show might have thrived. B&B is the youngest show and, from a ratings standpoint, has thrived.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Another good post.

Just want to say too that the show can do better. Any of these soaps can. I won't disagree with that. However, even if they did do better, it would only please most people for a few months before people are complaining again. I've seen it too many times. That is why these shows shouldn't even bother looking at message boards or most fan letters. What people want one day changes the next day and that issue has gotten progressively worse over the years. Not to mention, it's not just in regards to daytime anymore. I've seen people doing the same thing about primetime too. It's like nobody likes much of anything anymore. It's gotten to the point where going on nearly any message board is depressing. I don't think most people would know what to do with themselves if they liked something anymore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I´m not sure what´s so weird about it. Certain people prefer certain genres. If someone likes sci-fi and the sci-fi show he watches is canceled/gets boring, he will very likely try another show of the same genre. Soaps are the same. They have certain functions in the society and people expect from them certain things. When they are no longer able to provide them or are doing it poorly, the fans of the genre will try to find their fix (as you called it) elsewhere. The amount of airtime daytime provide was once it´s main advantage, because when people fall in love with characters they want to see them as much as possible and know everything about them. Only daytime soaps were able to provide all these little nunances and literally daily progresses all other media (except novells) always has to gloss over. In feature movie it usually takes a few crafty written scenes to make two people fall in love, on primetime soap it´s a few episodes, but on daytime soap it´s a few months or even a year. That´s what IMO once made daily soaps so uniq and attractive for its audience.

Unfortunatelly, for some reason daytime soaps lost that ability. Or maybe the producers even think the viewers would not care. They still have all the time, but usually show as little as primetime does, only repeat it at nauseum. That of course brings the question why even watch?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I agree. Soaps started dying out when they started trying to be like primetime and stopped taking advantage of the best of their format, seeing stories slowly unfold, grow and change over time.

Now people get that elsewhere as they really have little choice in the matter, even if they wanted to watch a soap. It's about emotional investment in characters and stories.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Funny I've seen plenty of message boards where people like their shows. That doesn't mean they adore everything but if you visit a True Blood, The Good Wife or Leverage board you see people who love their show but feel perfectly free to discuss what they don't like without the guilt trip of being told they THEY are the problem. You know what else you see? You see TPTB visit those boards from time to time to interact with their audience. Imagine that. Instead of longing for some mythical halcyon days long ago then everybody liked everything (read: when the audience knew their place) look at the product their putting out without the nostalgia glasses.

If TPTB are following your advice on how to produce these shows then I will gladly padlock the door on every last one of them without a second thought. Then I would wait for 15 people who would show up for the the pathetic, yet inevitable, "Save our Soap" rally, grab my paintball gun and fire away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

That's OK, I don't disagree with that. I do, however, disagree with the fact that just because someone has a bit of spare time at 1 PM he or she will watch All My Children or The Young and the Restless. Or, when those get cancelled, a rerun of Law & Order or Charmed or whatever. People don't watch for the sake of watching, and I thought your previous post implied that. Something about it has to intrigue them. So if they just dropped Days, they might migrate to a rerun of a primetime show or just plain find something else completely to do at the time, and that something won't involve television.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I agree. I think that the one trait soap fans share is an attraction to storytelling but that's really it. It's not like it HAS to be a procedural (L&O, CSI, Cold Case, etc..) or a supernatural/sci fi show (BtVS, Vampire Diaries, Smallville, etc..) they just want the something that draws them in, something they can connect to. My favorite shows right now are The Good Wife, Leverage, Mad Men and Fringe. And not because I have a need for "a" political/crime/historical and scifi show but because I love the characters and stories each of those shows provide. When soaps provided that, I loved them too.

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

    • I feel like the lawsuit storyline was resolved quickly because the show didn’t want to spring for more sets.
    • It's been a while, but we have seen the foyer to Bill and Hayley's house as well as the exterior entrance to their house. The foyer was first seen in the premiere episode when Hayley met Vanessa at the house.
    • There's still a year or two before Larkin arrives. Joel is there already. EON does noticeably youthify, although I think they carry it off. Admittedly I haven't seen most of the Jody stories, which from what people here have said aren't great.
    • I don't mind the actor who plays Brian. He's fine. The problem for me is that Paige seems so wishy wishy. She doesn't seem to have much of a personality at this point so I don't see why Brian would be so besotted with her. She just lurches from one trauma to the next. Granted, it's only been a month, but she's not as vibrant as April or even Deborah who has had minimal screen time by this point.  I do worry about the influence of GH on the show since I'm in fall of 1979 and characters have conversations and there's not the drive to "youthify" the show. However, I think Marceau (sp?) is gone. He was given a rather tame sendoff. How long was the actor on the show? I hope this is not a sign of things to come. I worry the show is setting up a murder mystery around one of my favorite characters and I will be mightily annoyed. I also noticed in recent Search for Tomorrow episodes uploaded to YT that the actors playing Logan and Eliot showed up. I don't watch the show but they were in the screencaps. When does Larkin Malloy show up or has he already left? Joel Crothers hasn't shown up either unless I've blinked and missed him.
    • Dr Linden. She treated Vanessa's drug addiction (although Vanessa seemed to forget that by Henry's suicide attempt) , and she's mentioned during Reva's PPD. Although I can't recall if she's actually shown right off the top of my head. She probably was temporarily shelved when Sonni was a therapist (between her crazy times) And I think Billy sees her after he falls off the wagon after Reva's death.
    • Kinda agree. I have some issues with the sets. Nicole's living room is bland-looks like a display home. Bill and Hayley's is too small and basically hideous. And neither of them have a front door/entrance or staircase. People just appear from the corridor. Those green accents  at Uptown are way too much. Also,Naomi and Vanessa not having an office or a home .
    • Thanks @Paul Raven  That Grainger story always reads like hog-wild melodrama, not very similar to the more subtle stories for Rita in her last few years. I wonder how Lenore played the material.
    • More from 1976 Lynn, apparently making every effort to overcome her alcoholism, accepts a baby-sitting job. However, when the baby starts crying, Lynn begins to get nervous and takes one drink, then another. By the time Bruce and Van arrive home, Lynn is on the floor, ineffectually trying to find the doctor’s number, sure the baby is ill. When the mother arrives; she vows to let everyone know what goes on in the mayor’s house.Bruce insists that Lynn has to go, but Van, learning that Lynn can’t remember drinking the cooking sherry, calls Joe to report Lynn’s blackouts. Joe wants her institutionalized but gives in to Van’ s pleas that Lynn needs loving attention. Eddie has sent some of Felicia’s work to a New |York gallery owner and reports to Charles that Lisa Cooper wants to exhibit Felicia’s work. Charles refuses to tell her this and later admits he feels he has “cowed”her attention because of his being confined to a wheelchair. What Charles doesn’t say is: that he’s plagued with fears she’ll leave him for another man. Felicia is exuberant as she starts painting again. She tells Charles how she feels about it, but, jealous of anyone or anything that takes attention from him, Charles tries to undermine her confidence. Eddie finally professes his love for her. He will be happy to step forward if she will only let Be and admit that they belong together. Charles tries to stop Felicia’s ‘trip to New York by making her doubt her own work, and when that fails, he finds business reasons at his bookshop to keep Di, his ex-wife, who is running it for him, from accompanying her. Felicia finally decides it’s not going to work and tells Eddie they might as well call it off. Instead, he arranges for Lisa Cooper to come to Rosehill. Charles is rude and insulting to Lisa when she arrives at the house to view Felicia’s work, and his derogatory remarks about shady gallery dealings prompt Lisa to tell Eddie that living in such an atmosphere could permanently stunt an artist’s development; if Felicia is subjected to this indefinitely, it’s not even worth Lisa’s while to take her on as a client. Felicia finally decides she can’t be torn apart any longer and must accede to Charles’s demands. She tells Eddie her career is over and she won’t paint any more, breaks down in his arms, crying bitterly, then pulls away, unwilling to acknowledge that her feelings for him are deeper than she dare face. Charles is delighted when she prepares to dispose of her art supplies, insisting everything will be fine once she has accepted that this part of her life is over. But she cannot do it. She promises him that he can set the limits and terms, but she must paint. Arlene discovers that her mother is planning to avoid the surgery she needs, and the accompanying medical bills, by leaving Rosehill and moving in with her sister Dorothy out west. Arlene manages to prevent this by calling her aunt and telling her the truth about Carrie’s condition. Dr. Tom Crawford has been footing the costs of Carrie’s presurgery tests, but Arlene knows that Carrie won’t like this. So she tells Carrie that David Hart, the son of Meg’s late husband, the former mayor, has heard about their plight and forwarded the money as a gesture of friendship, to be repaid when possible. To convince Carrie that she does indeed have the money, Arlene asks Ray to just lend it to her for a few hours, so she can convince Carrie and then immediately return it. Ray instructs her to get dressed for a night on the town and takes her, out implying that the money will be waiting at the end of the evening. When Ian Russell happens to join them, Arlene doesn’t suspect anything is afoot, but when e Ray suddenly leaves, she becomes furious, realizing what he’s done. But she finds Mr: Russell a distinguished and cultured man, and decides there’s no harm in having a drink. After cocktails and stimulating conversation, Ian suggests that they go to his place, and Arlene agrees. But when they get there, Ian matter of factly suggests that they skip the preliminaries and get on with it. Ian is embarrassed and annoyed to discover that Arlene is not a professional call girl and that Ray didn’t explain to her the purpose of their |meeting. He is apologetic and solicitous, until Arlene, explaining why Ray felt he could pull this on her, mentions her sick mother in need of an operation. Ian starts to laugh at this overworked standard line, and a livid Arlene storms out of his apartment. Thinking it over, Ian decides he’s more intrigued with Arlene than he is annoyed at Ray, and calls Ray for her telephone number. But Arlene is not delighted to hear from him, and he has to use a good deal of soothing charm before she agrees to have dinner with him at one of the better local restaurants.During dinner Ian again apologizes for his mistake, and he gives Arlene a diamond pendant as a token of his gratitude for her forgiving him. Ray arrives to interrupt an otherwise enjoyable evening with a business matter, and quietly reminds Arlene that Ian is his customer and she’s not to cut herself in with him. At home, Arlene examines the pendant and is convinced that it’s genuine. She hides it in her dresser drawer, unable to bring herself to show it to her mother.
    • LOL!! That's funny.  I actually thought he got a little better.

      Please register in order to view this content

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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