Jump to content

Days: November 2020 Discussion Thread


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 232
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Members

I was never a fan of them aging Belle into a teen when they did. I get it, but I think it complicated the complex story of Belle's conception and with Sami as a leading character they obviously did not want to age it made it all awkward for them when trying to write for the Sami / Belle relationship. I would've preferred it if they had kept Belle in the same age bracket as Will tbh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

They aged Belle too soon.  I get why because her parents were older, but it completely effs up the Sami part of the story and how important her conception/birth were.  Then they aged Belle again by aging Claire so much.  Belle should be in the Will age bracket and Brady should be in the Abby age bracket.

She has always looked too old to play Belle plus she has always looked matronly.  She had years of unflattering haircuts and wardrobe as well that didn't help.

Edited by carolineg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I think MM's portrayal of Belle works when you get her in scenes with Sami, because it then makes sense that Belle would be "old beyond her years" to compensate for her older sister's perpetual brattiness. With Sami acting out so much, it makes sense that her siblings Eric and Belle would have grown up to be mature and responsible to a fault, where they sometimes come off as joyless prigs.

 

That said, I have very little interest watching MM's Belle in romantic storylines with Shawn or Phillip. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Yup, we went over this in the backstage thread with the Mike / David rapid SORAS in the 70s and how it affected Mickey, Laura, Bill and Julie crew to have their kids age so much. One thing DAYS got right was to subtly age Will when they required a slightly older kid actor, but nothing too drastic and the slight aging only brought Sami closer to Alison Sweeney's real age. Belle is now essentially Sami's age and they have to ignore the history of Belle's conception and Sami kidnapping Belle which could've driven a lot of stories for them both.

 

In all honesty, I don't like drastic SORASing overall, but in some cases like Ciara I can see why since Hope is in her 50s anyway and Ciara's not tied to some big event, same thing with Alli I guess (though I'd argue that Alli should be 18-ish instead of 21).

Edited by te.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

I actually don't have a problem with MM's acting or how she plays off her scene partners.  I think she sparks with JkJ's Phillp.  Not so much Shawn.  But she looks the same age as AS's Sami.  She can be wise beyond her years, but she shouldn't look physically older like that.   But with Days wacky SORASing I guess it's fine.  It's just the affair storyline had effects for years and it's strange to mess it up with Belle being aged to quick.  They could have waited 4-5 more years on that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I agree.  I don't think it effected John/Marlena storylines much.  They have always been fairly front and center and were after Belle was aged.  It just took probably the biggest John/Marlena story and messed it all up timeline wise.  EJ being aged was weird and jarring, but baby EJ, in the end wasn't as pivotal as Belle was for storyline purposes long term.  Sami vs. Belle should have been more but now they are effectively peers when Sami was a teen when she was born.

Charity Rahmer was a hard act to follow lol.  But that's probably a big part of the love.  She was a lot better than that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

She was always a mediocre actress and people just accepted that too bc she wasn't Rahmer. Yes, she has chemistry with JKJ but they took years to get to that story and then dropped it. She still reads too old and is not worth the investment, unlike someone like, say, Marci Miller who is clearly very talented (IMO) even if she is often different from the Abby fans long came to know and a very different performer from what DAYS is used to. You can get someone better and younger-reading to play Belle at any time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

 Yeah I think most of us were relieved to have someone better than Charity Rahmer initially. It wasn't until Shawn got out of the cage and you had Jason Cook standing next to a woman who looked old enough to be his aunt that the red flags began to show. MM had zero chemistry with him too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I mean, I accept MM and BB as Belle and Shawn now and wouldn't want a recast. Neither are spectacular (though Beemer is easy on the eyes), but they aren't hopeless either. Unless they want to get Mike Horton-type of messy with Belle's age I wouldn't bother with a recast.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



  • Recent Posts

    • What else? #May4th

      Please register in order to view this content

       
    • In my usual account on my most used video hosting site with the video title  DAYS 1-8-15 Will & Paul Sex This is an edit I began when I was first teaching myself to edit & at that time I couldn't make it do what I wanted it to do. I pulled it up & finished it this morning. 
    • Or Megan is shot as retaliation for Dave's unpaid gambling debts...while Julie confesses she's the biological mother of Special Guest Star Barry Bostwick's little boy.
    • Finland seemed such an odd choice for a location shoot. ATWT went to Greece and later Spain while GL had Tenerife and there were others in that timeframe. But Finland not being a known tourist destination or offering the tropical/sunny atmosphere usually associated with location shoots seems off brand. Maybe they were negotiating a deal with a tourist association and it fell through.
    • 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. 
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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