Jump to content

DAYS: Huge Recast


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 84
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members

It is a head scratcher. I feel for NL. She just got steady work and is fired just like that. I can't believe that it is about acting ability or talent because that never has been important to Days. They must have just wanted a prominent role for Tamara.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

This is so random. I think Natalia Livingston is a poor actress, love Tamara Braun. But this Taylor character is a non-starter. This insta-love story between EJ and Taylor is a non-starter. That's not Natalia's fault, that's the writing, Dena. They should just bury the character at this point. EJ had a chance at redemptive love and that was Adriana.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

This is WEIRD. I'm glad they pulled the plug on NL-as-Taylor so quickly, because she's not really working -- however, some of that is the writing, which has her walking around being sad-eyed and then looking at EJ like she has bad gas. But she's not really skilled enough to elevate anything the way, say, Zuker can.

However, Braun-as-Taylor is a strange fit. We don't need another "edgy," bitchy woman on the show. I'm curious to see where they go with this, but it's a head-scratcher in terms of fit.

Re: Taylor as a character. I don't mind that they're trying to make her work. She's essentially a blank slate, and she's related to an important character. I'd much rather they build a character around Nicole's pre-existing sister than give us a random insta-sibling for someone!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Disagree! Not that the show NEEDS Taylor, like I said above, I'd much prefer they find a way to make Nicole's sister work as a character than just bringing on some random woman. At least Taylor has some ties to the canvas and is essentially a blank slate waiting for definition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Bizarre! Tamara was a rare Emmy win and they're bringing her back so soon in a new recast role? Wow. And Natalia Livingston has always been a dreadful actress so IDK why anybody is shocked. They knew what they were getting. Even her second role at GH was a bust.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I liked her on AMC. I think she and ER worked well together. There was so much potential there. Of course, the outcome of their storyline was terribly written and just plain offensive, so I can understand her not returning. Couldn't see her having any chemistry with CBL anyway. Why did she leave GH in the first place? To branch out into prime time and films? She was much better in the role than Laura Wright.

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 was talking about 1986, but the glimpses of 1982 are about the same. 
    • I skimmed some of the 1982 synopses; Steve was planning on an opening an office in Finland, and I think Jim went there as part of the preparation. That probably was a big issue; AW had already gone to San Diego that year, with Rachel/Steve/Mitch. And to upstate NY with Pete and Diana. I wonder if upstate was as expensive lol  AW in 1982 has always fascinated me, because of how messy it was 
    • That makes sense. What a messy time for the show. And any changes they made were mostly for the worse.
    • The transition from Neal to Adam was very abrupt, and to be honest my theory is that the character of Neal was designed so that we think he is super shady but then it turns out that he was on the side of good all along so Neal could have seamlessly become a hero of the BCPD with no need for Adam. I don't know whether Robert Lupone was hired on a short contract or if he was fired from a longer-term contract because they decided they wanted someone who was more of a leading man type, but I can imagine a scenario where Charles Grant did both the undercover Egyptian treasure/flirt with Victoria and the straighter-arrow day to day police investigation. But in my imagined scenario the MJ prostitution plotline probably doesn't exist and instead he probably continues a relationship with Victoria. The story seems very odd to me. I assume that David Canary would have been included only because a plotline where Steve is going to Finland in which only Rachel is seen in actual Finland seems unlikely. The synopses explicitly mention that Alice can't go with Steve but would whoever was playing Alice at that time have had the kind of clout to get the remote cancelled? It also strikes me as unlikely that production would have approved the expensive location shoot and *then* cancelled it only because of jealousy. It seems more likely that they rejected it because of the expense but then the jealousy part got added to the gossip speculatively, possibly because while it was being worked out they justified not including more castmembers because of the expense. 
    • My comment has nothing to do with cast resentment, but does relate to the Finland location shoot: It may be a coincidence, but Jim Matthews died in Finland in 1982.  Hugh Marlowe's final episode was in April 1982, but the character probably didn't die untll May or June. (I'm unable to find the character's date of death, only the date of Marlowe's final episode). SInce Jim and Rachel had very little interaction after around 1975, it is unlikely Jim's death in Finland had any connection to Rachel's potential visit, but the choice to have Jim die in that location at that time is a head-scratcher.  I'm sure the writers sent Jim on an extended trip (and off-screen) because of Marlowe's illness.  But Finland seems like a strange choice considering the (then) recently cancelled location shoot.  
    • I totally understand your sloths concern about it and I agree with you. Let’s hope the show plays it’s cards right.    Further comments about the last few episodes: - I liked that one of the attendees was filming the scene. That’s realistic. I wonder if the writers will follow up with that.  - Martin and Smitty trying to drag Leslie out was very heteronormative, so perfectly in line with them two as characters lol.    As for the future: it’s obvious the Duprees will come to accept Eva one way or another, but the rivalry with Kay should be here for the long term   On the topic of acting: the only bad actors I’m seeing are Ted and Derek. Tomas hasn’t proven to be either good or bad, so far, but he’s certainly mediocre and uncharismatic. He sucks the energy out of the scenes and I don’t see any couple of women ever vying for him. 
    • I’m trying to think which actors VW were working with at the time, and none of them had been there for a while. Even like Mac and Ada didn’t have that big of a part in Rachel’s storyline.  And Jamie was involved with all that movie stuff.
    • Brooke did ads before ATWT too. That probably helped get her the job. After ATWT she seemed to branch more into hosting, along with ads.  I think I saw Kelley in an ad or two, but you're right she wasn't on as much. 
    •   Thanks for sharing these. I wonder if Charles might have been in the running for Adam. I know Preacher was a bit of a bad boy at times on EON, but Neal seemed to be a step down, and Robert Lupone had played a similar part on AMC. Given the huge cast turnover at this point I wonder who thought they had been there long enough to go.  Laura Malone/Chris Rich would get a remote within the next year. 
    • Interesting.  It seems to allude to that statement that Warren Burton made around that time about some AW actors getting special treatment.  I wonder who was resentful about not getting to go. 
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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