That reminds me of another couple that definetely applies here, Lucky and Liz. They remarried 2 months after they divorced in 2007....lol. They used to be HUGELY popular but became so reviled over the years. People thought it was bc of the writing for GV and he didnt quite share the same chemistry with RH as the couple was originally depicted when they started but JJ returned and they were even worse.. Most people were beyond done with Lucky and Liz by the time he left this last time

Liz and Lucky were dead in the water as soon as Liz pounded up 90 flights of steps during a blackout to screw Jason. Nothing was the same after that and it was obvious that the show wanted them put at odds with each other over something.

I will try to keep my J&E comments to a minium because we all know how I feel about them. But I think the progression or Jack and Erica's fall from grace was clearly visible from 2004 on. They just kept doing this dance, over and over again. People would always say that it was okay to just watch them fight and break up fight because they loved each other. Well love isn't always enough. Jackson Montgomery no more loved the "real" Erica Kane than Brooke did. He tried to change her their entire relationship. And bless her, she'd try to be who he wanted her to be, but she'd fail, always. Leaving them right back where they started. Her tryingto fit the image he has of her; and him trying to love her despite that fact that he doesn't really like who she is.

Yeah, no thanks.

Now David and Erica on the other hand, they had the Rhett/Scarlett dynamic down to a T.

"Where's your curtian rod and hopped skirt, Scarlet?" David to Erica after she told him she was there to see (at the jail) to break him out.

Interesting that no one has mentioned Bo & Hope from DAYS. They seem to outlast all other couples without sucking the life out of each other. No wonder they were the one mainstream couple during the serial killer storyline of 2003-2004.

Bo and Hope are a bit different in that they're both adventurous characters. Days did saddle them with a kid or 12, but still allowed both of them to be actively involved. You can see Hope busting up bad guys and holding her own if Bo was in trouble (especially since she was a cop). Marlena? No. Kayla? No. Kimberly? Heck, no. Jennifer? Possibly. Lexie? A long, long time ago. Even Alice was written as being more resourceful. I think that's part of the allure of Doug and Julie. Not just that absence makes the heart grow fonder, but that Julie was written as a strong female, period, not just as a female who has gotten over trauma.

The supercouple era was useful in the 1980s, but the shows put almost all their eggs in that basket and quit writing for individuals as opposed to couples (to be more precise, they isolated the couples and gave them their own exclusive problems that half the time ended up with a dead spouse returning). When half a supercouple left, there was a good chance of ruining the other half. Days got lucky with Drake Hogestyn as Roman, but couldn't quite catch the same lightning with Diana or Isabella. Bo and Billie worked for the brief time it was allowed, but it's possibly because it was Kelker-Kelly instead of Reckell. Kayla never worked as a character without Steve and neither Shane nor Kimberly were successful as characters without the other.

Now, the approach has gone the opposite direction and eternal triangles. Why should we have faith in [name] and [name] as a couple? There is always an interloper. Or a baby scandal.

I think the thing is the supercouple while on canvas never had interlopers. It was always a villian or some external force that became angst and kept them apart and gave the audience incentive to root for them to be together even more.

Couple like Shick had angst they overcame but I think the audience just tired of the constant cheating and it became hard to root for them. Same with Liz and Lucky. But time and a well written story could restore both couples that still have cheerleaders out there.

I think the thing is the supercouple while on canvas never had interlopers. It was always a villian or some external force that became angst and kept them apart and gave the audience incentive to root for them to be together even more.

Couple like Shick had angst they overcame but I think the audience just tired of the constant cheating and it became hard to root for them. Same with Liz and Lucky. But time and a well written story could restore both couples that still have cheerleaders out there.

In some cases the show lost interest whether fans cared or not, or they used one to build up the other. GH did this with Liz/Lucky over and over. I always think back to PC, where they were so desperate to make sure fans wouldn't want Kevin/Lucy together that they had her blind her own child.

In some cases the show lost interest whether fans cared or not, or they used one to build up the other. GH did this with Liz/Lucky over and over. I always think back to PC, where they were so desperate to make sure fans wouldn't want Kevin/Lucy together that they had her blind her own child.

ITA about Kevin and Lucy but I also lost interest in PC a long time before it was axed. A lot of it just never worked for me

Liz and Lucky were a popular teen romance nothing more just like Billy and Mac were. I think the original LnL mystique and legacy made it more than it ever was in the eyes of some. But it was clear to me once JJ left the role the show lost interest and never regained it once JJ came back.

How about Jack and Jennifer on Days? Anyone mention them? They are awful today and I dont see much support for them here

I get the feeling the show has never actually liked them (or Jack) since the issues between Matt Ashford and the show in the early 90's.

How about Jack and Jennifer on Days? Anyone mention them? They are awful today and I dont see much support for them here

I think like the rest they still have fans. I loved them way back. Don't underestimate the appeal of nostalgia but its just much of the same. you cant redo the past. and in this case the show has for years overvalued Missy Reeves and undervalued Matt Ashford. As a fan of both characters from the past, neither of them apart or together do a thing for me anymore.The appeal of both actors and their characters is gone for me.

I think like the rest they still have fans. I loved them way back. Don't underestimate the appeal of nostalgia but its just much of the same. you cant redo the past. and in this case the show has for years overvalued Missy Reeves and undervalued Matt Ashford. As a fan of both characters from the past, neither of them apart or together do a thing for me anymore.The appeal of both actors and their characters is gone for me.

I think they did still have fans, until this last return, but there has been a lot of virulent hostility towards Jennifer thanks to the hack writing and MR's playing favorites. I'm not sure they can go back.

I watched Days in the early 90s, and I hated Jack and Jennifer. Jennifer was way too much of a goody two shoes for me. I can't stand female characters like that, and I can rarely tolerate the men who adore them.

I liked Jack and Jennifer, but they were played out years ago. I did like there initial story though circa 1990.

I liked Jennifer the most with Peter, or Mark Valley's Jack, but that's just the nostalgia in *me* Don't know why someone would accuse Melissa Reeves of playing favorites when the only person she's been loyal to is Frances Reid.

I liked Jennifer the most with Peter, or Mark Valley's Jack, but that's just the nostalgia in *me* Don't know why someone would accuse Melissa Reeves of playing favorites when the only person she's been loyal to is Frances Reid.

Her interviews and the way she seems to tank scenes which call for her to be ambiguous about her feelings for Jack.

So she is pro Daniel/Jen as opposed to Jack/Jen?