FRIDAY

 

I'll say this much...SH has Kristen's body language and smirk down pat.

11 hours ago, jam6242 said:

@vetsoapfan I find it hard to believe myself.  I always thought they stopped interacting  because Deidre or tptb don’t want to remind people that Marlena is a peer (age-wise) with Maggie and Julie, not Hope, Kayla, and Jennifer.  Marlena and Julie rarely interact either and I know Susan and Deidre are still friends.

 

I guess that makes sense.  I do consider Kayla and Hope her peers, but Maggie too.  I never really considered Julie her peer because they aged Julie so much in the 80's.  I certainly don't consider Jen her peer.  She is marrying Marlena's son.  I think Deidre looks great, but I am certainly not fooled to think she is the same age as Hope or Jen.

50 minutes ago, Gray Bunny said:

I'm a week behind on DAYS, but I would've thought if Eileen weren't available to play Kristen (and Susan), Ron would've just delved into some DAYS history and pulled out someone random like Stella Lombard. Some back-from-the-dead bat-sh!t crazy loon to wreak havoc in Marlena's life and stash her in a pit that oddly resembles a blue room. 

 

Then, in another, even MORE shocking twist, John learns he's really Kellam Chandler, back from the dead as well.

On 8/26/2018 at 12:24 AM, carolineg said:

 

Agreed.  Even if SR and DH hare each other in real life there could have been some sort of mention to her absence ala Kate and Hope.  It seems obvious to me that both Victor and Maggie would have at least been invited.   I considered Maggie to be one of Marlena's best friends.  If they are going to completely ignore it at least write a half assed story about them having a falling out onscreen.

 

I thought it was odd Doug and Julie and Maggie weren't at the wedding (though because of the "possible tension" between Deidre and Suzanne I figured that was why but I don't even know if it's really that deep). At least they explained Hope not being there, and her tension with Marlena makes sense. Why bring that to the wedding?

 

They could at least push Marlena and Val as closer friends. They sometimes remember they are, like with the wedding but we still don't see the interaction, it was John interacting with Val.

 

I miss Maggie and Marlena's friendship. I have to imagine that the writers either forget they are or the problem remains that they exist in separate worlds on the same show. Maggie rarely interacts with anyone but Victor and his clan. It's so refreshing when she interacts with Hortons.

 

Suzanne likely has a low guarantee. She rarely gets more than 3-4 episodes a month - makes it a little hard to have her interact with people she should beyond her own bubble - why I think guarantees are a problem.

 

I wonder how it'll be once Sarah comes on? Especially if Sarah interacts with a certain Brady boy who killed Maggie's beloved egg baby.

 

I also miss John and Victor's friendship. Victor's lack of use, I imagine, is down to John Aniston's health.

 

I doubt Suzanne and Deidre "hate" each other. But I could see tension. Suzanne/Maggie became a central figure after Deidre was axed. But I wouldn't blame Deidre for that. Blame the writers for failing to come up with anything for Maggie to do other than marry Victor, get mad at him, leave him, look ridiculous forgiving him, and it's wash, rinse and repeat all over again.

 

Suzanne doesn't seem to get that pairing off with Victor wasn't ever going to turn them into the new Tom and Alice, that's Doug and Julie's place. All it did was put her in the same rut she was in with Mickey, except it's ridiculous for her to keep taking Victor back. My opinion of Maggie has steadily gone downhill over the last 10 years. I was like a sobbing mess when she was killed in 2003. Now? Bring back the bottle!

 

I don't mind Kayla and Mar being friends, but it feels more natural to have Kayla and Hope be best friends and interacting. I'm also annoyed we haven't had more Steve/Hope interaction. Hope is often way too isolated. Constantly saddled with Rafe has done the character zero favors. It's made me want a long break from her.

 

Personally, Marlena/Valerie should be the besties. Include Kayla. (Though the reason Valerie isn't used more is because Vanessa has a small guarantee)

 

Marlena and Kate's friendship is also one I like and I'm glad they've played on that this past year. Even if I could use a really long break from Kate (and Hope for that matter).

 

But thinking about the wedding, I appreciate it wasn't "the whole cast". I saw some bitching about that but it made more sense to have a more intimate wedding with extremely close friends and family. I didn't need to see Chad (his can be later) and Abby or Maggie react to Kristen. Personally. I assume that, and episode guarantees, are why they chose who they did. It worked for me.

 

But I do miss the DAYS when everyone more or less interacted in some way. It always felt so natural. Sometimes it feels forced because characters go months and even years without talking to or seeing each other.

 

Sorry for the extremely long post!

Edited August 27, 20187 yr by KMan101

I also doubt it's that deep as to why Marlena interacts more with Kayla and Hope. But it would feel more natural having her interact more with Maggie and Julie and Valerie. Why not have her bestie be Valerie? Williams is ageless. She looks amazing.

 

They also don't play up Abe's friendship with John and Marlena enough. Him marrying them is nice (but remember how Marlena, a SHRINK, and Abe's longest and best friend, was NOWHERE when Theo was shot) but I'd like them to remind the audience how close these people truly are with each other. There has be a disconnect with any newer viewers. I just think they should try a little harder sometimes with friendships and relationships. But, again, this is where episode guarantees come into play. It's a big problem in terms of interacting the cast.

 

I mean, most of the time you'd never know Brady was John's kid and Marlena's step-son. He's written like Maggie and Victor's. But they sure do like playing up Eric and Brady as brothers, yet this is the most interaction Brady's had with his real family (yes Victor is his real family too) in ages. (Again, I think episode guarantees play a part in this; characters just can't naturally interact like they once did if they have to be in their own story).

Edited August 27, 20187 yr by KMan101

On 8/26/2018 at 4:46 PM, SteelCity said:

The episodes guarantee system can work if used correctly, like having proper A/B/C stories. It could be used to cycle characters and storylines in and out without overexposure. That would require proper pacing and playing beats.

 

This is true. I think Ron thinks he is doing this.

On 8/26/2018 at 5:15 PM, vetsoapfan said:

 

 I'd take any fan reports as suspect at best. Various fan bases have come up with some absurd whoopers over the years.

 

I'm not saying the rumor is or is not true, but I'd rather wait until a credible source confirms it. There was a rumor once that Susan Seaforth Hayes and Deidre Hall hated each other too, but both women strenuously denied it.

 

 

I've always felt that low-brow camp seriously crippled the soap opera genre. There are some folks who love it, who tell me that enjoy when the shows make them laugh in derision because everything on-screen is jaw-droppingly stupid, but I don't think stupidity is a drawing card for the majority of viewers. 

 

When soaps are created and intended to be dumb, like Passions, it doesn't bother me because I expect nothing better. It's hard to watch DAYS, however, which was so intelligent, sophisticated and adult in the 1960s and '70s under Bill Bell and Pat Falken Smith, reduced to this puerile level.

 

To each his own, however.

 

I'd love a well-written, deep soap opera. Unfortunately our soaps just aren't that anymore. I'd rather have DAYS embrace it's camp at this point, personally, but I don't want camp all the time, but DAYS jumped that shark a very long time ago (not an excuse or defense, just a reality). 

 

But I'd always prefer "real" and deeper stuff. I adjust my expectations I guess; I'll take this hot mess over many things I've had to watch. The soaps just aren't what they were in the 70s or 80s. Or even early 90s. It's unfortunate they aren't. I get longing for that, but it's just not the current reality  I'll take what I can get. I'd never enjoy anything.

 

And I agree on Suzanne/Deidre. I don't think there's any "hatred". I could maybe see tension but I think fans are reading too much into Maggie and Marlena not being friends anymore, IMHO. I really do think the writers forgot or just don't care. And it makes it hard to have them interact when they have such low guarantees and need to be in their own storylines. It's unfortunate that friendship has been lost or forgotten. I really can't see either actress being that petty.

 

But looking back at the canvas in the 90s and 00s, it made sense to have Maggie, who had no story what-so-ever besides always being by Alice's side, be Marlena's go-to. I'll never forget the period in time when Langan had Maggie become a slightly bitchy and nosy busybody who John despised. LOL. It was so random. 

 

But remember Marlena and Laura are also close friends. Marlena's had a LOT of close friends depending on the canvas layout. (Kim Brady comes to mind as well, especially around Kim's alters storyline)

 

I've always felt Marlena's closeness to Hope and Kayla and Kim were that she considered them and will always consider them family. It makes sense she's "close" with them. But I like her having real friends. I still think they should make Valerie that go-to best friend. Kayla and Mar's best friendship thing felt like plot. Not that they wouldn't be close and supportive of each other. (I'd have rather they play on Kayla and John; I mean she once thought he was her brother and they were very close but they rarely mention it - it was jarring it was more or less glossed over during the John poisons Steve storyline - it should have been played on more to add more weight but, you know, plot and all that)

Edited August 27, 20187 yr by KMan101

50 minutes ago, KMan101 said:

 

This is true. I think Ron thinks he is doing this.

 

I'd love a well-written, deep soap opera. Unfortunately our soaps just aren't that anymore. I'd rather have DAYS embrace it's camp at this point, personally, but I don't want camp all the time, but DAYS jumped that shark a very long time ago (not an excuse or defense, just a reality). 

 

But I'd always prefer "real" and deeper stuff. I adjust my expectations I guess; I'll take this hot mess over many things I've had to watch. The soaps just aren't what they were in the 70s or 80s. Or even early 90s. It's unfortunate they aren't. I get longing for that, but it's just not the current reality  

 

Many fellow fans express the same sentiments to me: that soaps are now what they are now,; the only option available to viewers is campiness and dreck. We have to accept it because that's all the networks are giving us, and "crappy" is better than nothing.

 

With so many viable alternatives to choose from on the internet and elsewhere, however, I tend to answer, "If my only choice is between total garbage or NO daytime soaps, I choose the latter." I personally feel that if the shows can never be well-produced and well-written again, they should be put out of their misery.  Let the networks then have the option of producing SOMETHING, ANYTHING worthwhile in their place. Being a devout soap lover, I have had to, out of necessity, find high-quality alternatives outside of American daytime television hours. Shows like This is Us,, Chicago Fire/Med/PD, Outlander, Poldark  and many more satiate my soap craving. So do easily-findable rerun series like Party of Five, Peyton Place, Downton Abbey, Upstairs/Downstairs, etc.

 

Heck, even Breaking Bad, Game of Thrones, The Walking Dead, etc., are soapish.

 

The more I search, the more high-quality serialized dramas I find. I don't have to settle for the dreck, when I cannot even keep up with all the GOOD stuff available.

 

I will always long for and want to watch American daytime soaps. They entertained and enthralled me through five decades. The trouble is, in my heart, I don't believe they really exist anymore.

 

 

1 hour ago, vetsoapfan said:

 

Many fellow fans express the same sentiments to me: that soaps are now what they are now,; the only option available to viewers is campiness and dreck. We have to accept it because that's all the networks are giving us, and "crappy" is better than nothing.

 

With so many viable alternatives to choose from on the internet and elsewhere, however, I tend to answer, "If my only choice is between total garbage or NO daytime soaps, I choose the latter." I personally feel that if the shows can never be well-produced and well-written again, they should be put out of their misery.  Let the networks then have the option of producing SOMETHING, ANYTHING worthwhile in their place. Being a devout soap lover, I have had to, out of necessity, find high-quality alternatives outside of American daytime television hours. Shows like This is Us,, Chicago Fire/Med/PD, Outlander, Poldark  and many more satiate my soap craving. So do easily-findable rerun series like Party of Five, Peyton Place, Downton Abbey, Upstairs/Downstairs, etc.

 

Heck, even Breaking Bad, Game of Thrones, The Walking Dead, etc., are soapish.

 

The more I search, the more high-quality serialized dramas I find. I don't have to settle for the dreck, when I cannot even keep up with all the GOOD stuff available.

 

I will always long for and want to watch American daytime soaps. They entertained and enthralled me through five decades. The trouble is, in my heart, I don't believe they really exist anymore.

 

 

 

I get it. I hate "accepting" lower quality but it kind of is what it is at this point. I'd love for them to do better.

 

I agree that there's a lot better dramas out there. And it's a shame soaps haven't kept up with the times. They were far more progressive than most and now they're so behind it's laughable. I was so encouraged at the prospect (no pun but still funny) of AMC and OLTL on the web and I liked they felt almost on par with current things. It worked for me. I also think GL mishandled it's attempt at modernizing. The idea wasn't at all bad. The execution was abysmal. Missed potential. Personally, if CBS and P&G *cared* they would have attempted to move Guiding Light online. The Peapack version just couldn't work on television where viewers were used to better quality (they'd probably have a stroke seeing the UK soaps film outdoors and in realistic looking homes and bars). It should have been the soap to re-invent itself on the web.  

Edited August 28, 20187 yr by KMan101

5 minutes ago, KMan101 said:

 

I get it. I hate "accepting" lower quality but it kind of is what it is at this point. I'd love for them to do better.

 

I agree that there's a lot better dramas out there. And it's a shame soaps haven't kept up with the times. They were far more progressive than most and now they're so behind it's laughable. I was so encouraged at the prospect (no pun but still funny) of AMC and OLTL on the web and I liked they felt almost on par with current things. It worked for me. I also think GL mishandled it's attempt at modernizing. The idea wasn't at all bad. The execution was abysmal. Missed potential. Personally, if CBS and P&G *cared* they would have attempted to move Guiding Light online. The Peapack version just couldn't work on television where viewers were used to better quality (they'd probably have a stroke seeing the UK soaps film outdoors and in realistic looking homes and bars). It should have been the soap to re-invent itself on the web.  

 

Yes, that's another thing: for DECADES, soaps were far ahead of primetime TV in terms of dealing with topical, adult, current issues. Viewers expected and even embraced sophisticated stories based on mature themes. Then, somewhere along the line, TPTB seemed to be afraid of offending ANYONE about ANYTHING, and the shows turned to pablum. Once we were mesmerized by Ruth Martin on AMC railing against the senselessness of war, Bert Bauer  on TGL dealing with uterine cancer, Chris Brooks on Y&R surviving a horrific rape, Pat Matthews on AW having TV's first illegal abortion.. Later, we were forced to endure mad scientists freezing the world, evil geniuses using brain implants, clones aging rapidly, time-travelling matrons jumping into paintings or travelling back to the old west, Satanic possession, and more stupidity than we could shake a stick at. How are we supposed to remain emotionally involved in soaps and find them relevant, when their stories became akin to those found in 1930s' silent film shorts? I don't think viewers abandoned the soaps as much as...the soaps DROVE us away, by refusing to give us what we wanted, decade after decade.

On 8/27/2018 at 5:06 AM, Taoboi said:

What? You don't got them.

 

Didn't think so .  

 

 

If you can't see it for yourself, you're just delusional. That man has no ass, it pretty much concave. Hellen Keller would tell you that.

I can't be the only one cheering Belle on when she finally served Sami the cold hard truth about herself. 

6 minutes ago, Winchester91 said:

I can't be the only one cheering Belle on when she finally served Sami the cold hard truth about herself. 

What Belle said about Sami's PAST, SPOT ON

 

HOWEVER

Eric body slammed Sami and the Gun ernt off. Why is all the blame on Sami, Eric deserves some as does Kristen

 

bTW, Stacy is awesome in the roles. Maybe eventually Eileen can reclaim Kristen and Stacy can stay on as Susan 

Edited August 28, 20187 yr by John

4 minutes ago, John said:

What Belle said about Sami's PAST, SPOT ON

 

HOWEVER

Eric body slammed Sami and the Gun ernt off. Why is all the blame on Sami, Eric deserves some as does Kristen

The gun wouldn't have gone off without her finger on the trigger. Eric redirected the shot from John to Marlena. Let's not forget facts here. 

Just now, Winchester91 said:

The gun wouldn't have gone off without her finger on the trigger. Eric redirected the shot from John to Marlena. Let's not forget facts here. 

They all played a part but it all rests on Kristen

Just now, John said:

They all played a part but it all rests on Kristen

Kristen is a psycho that set all this up, but you're telling me Sami wouldn't have shot John (someone with whom she had issues going back decades) in order to seek out EJ (the love of her life)? This is Samantha Gene we're talking about.