Stefano Dimera and Victor Kiriakis (in the 80s) were two of DAYS' biggest villains in their heyday.

If you were to pit these two against each other in a storyline (at their absolute worst, not the cobbled down versions we see today), who would come out on top?

Stefano Dimera and Victor Kiriakis (in the 80s) were two of DAYS' biggest villains in their heyday.

If you were to pit these two against each other in a storyline (at their absolute worst, not the cobbled down versions we see today), who would come out on top?

Victor. Stefano liked the thrill of playing games. Victor was just ruthless.

Back then? Victor. Only because Victor had grit to him and was believable. Stefano became a cartoon character thanks to JER and someone just needed to drop an anvil on his head to stop him. 

 

Nowadays, neither. Both of them need to sit down and be happy they aren't put out to pasture. Especially Stefano. I still feel like they should kill Stefano off as they've gotten all the milage out of him and the Dimera clan. Bring in a new villainous clan. 

I think the days of villainous families on soaps are over. Soaps can't even get a basic family right these days. 

Days made the mistake of hanging on to these gents way beyond their use by dates as serious threats.

At any rate the 1980's approach of not punishing villians also contributed to them losing effectiveness - why would viewers really care if they knew those guys would be back mixing it up with people they tried to ruin (or worse)?

They should have nurtured the next generation of both those families more carefully...

 

Both would probably lose to Ernesto Toscano...

If you were to pit these two against each other in a storyline (at their absolute worst, not the cobbled down versions we see today), who would come out on top?

Victor. Stefano liked the thrill of playing games. Victor was just ruthless.

 

Agree.

 

I think the days of villainous families on soaps are over.

 

Agree.

 

Days made the mistake of hanging on to these gents way beyond their use by dates as serious threats.

At any rate the 1980's approach of not punishing villians also contributed to them losing effectiveness - why would viewers really care if they knew those guys would be back mixing it up with people they tried to ruin (or worse)?

They should have nurtured the next generation of both those families more carefully...

 

Agree.

 

(Seriously, can't someone say something for me to disagree with?)

Edited November 30, 201510 yr by Khan

I think the days of villainous families on soaps are over. Soaps can't even get a basic family right these days. 

True. 

 

I'm beginning to think that the town pariah characters are a thing of the past too. They have no boundaries and writers will implant them in any story just for controversy and to push the envelope. 

In a perfect world, soaps would just get back to telling stories about "average" characters and families whom the viewers can understand and relate to.

In a perfect world, soaps would just get back to telling stories about "average" characters and families whom the viewers can understand and relate to.

 

Yes. Make most people of comfortable means, but not extravagant. I've also always thought it was a mistake that soaps made put so many characters in the law enforcement profession. An odd Ed Hall here and there sure, but having a significant portion of the cast with these professions takes away so many story possibilities.

 

As for Ernesto Toscano, he was about as scary as The Wizard of Oz.

Edited November 30, 201510 yr by Bright Eyes

In a perfect world, soaps would just get back to telling stories about "average" characters and families whom the viewers can understand and relate to.

True but we live in a world where we love sensationalism. Subtle storytelling wouldn't go over well nowadays. 

 

I don't mind a villainous family or a pariah but give them boundaries. When I look at old clips of Roger Thorpe, he had boundaries. Alan Spaulding had boundaries. John Dixon had boundaries. Jake McKinnon had boundaries. 

 

None of them have boundaries nowadays. None of them are remorseful for their actions. None of them pay for their actions in some sort or fashion. They don't even have Achilles heels nowadays. Look at Victor. Adam. Bill. Stefano. Sonny. They all lack boundaries and shades of gray. They're all too dark and one note for my taste. None of them have layers. None of them possess human characteristics ... until sweeps. 

In the 1980s, Victor. In the 1990s, Stefano.

 

I'm watching a lot of DAYS on YouTube and it's just beyond ridiculous Stefano hasn't been killed off for good by ... 10-15 years ago. The s--t that character has done and the characters now just seem amused by it, like "Oh Stefano, you silly non-kill-able boy."

 

As for Ernesto Toscano, he was about as scary as The Wizard of Oz

 

True dat. He was a lover scorned turned angry magician. Meh.

Watching some episodes from late 1988, it looked like Days was aiming for a Victor-Stefano feud, or possibly a three-way feud with Victor, Stefano and the ISA.

Stefano and Victor never fully interacted, but leading up to the Island finale there are scenes in which Victor is using Shane (who thinks he's using Victor) to get nearer to Stefano. Unfortunately, it never progressed beyond that.

Perhaps I'm too much of a CBS soap person, but the DAYS and GH storylines from the 80s always read like very bad B level comic books to me...

I liked the Stefano-Victor feud from the 2000s where Victor had Stefano hostage and was denying his medication unless EJ did something or other.  I think that started with Philip accidentally killing Tony?   I forget what that story was all about but I liked it.