Jump to content

Days: November 2020 Discussion Thread


Recommended Posts

Martha Madison is 43. Brandon Beemer is 40. But poster after poster is going after her for being too old? Huh???

 

i’m no huge MM fanboy, but this ageism is really unfair in my eyes. I do think she looks and is styled much better on this run than she has been in the past, when Beemer seemed like a reach for her. Now? I’m ok with them being together.

 

As I’ve said before, I do think nuClaire is a complete miscast. She’s a new character, and that’s not what the show needed. I don’t see any chemistry with Charlie either — or with nuTheo.

 

NuTheo has fans here, but again, he felt like a new character to me. Kyle Pettis’ acting has been criticized, yet I always felt his autistic side came through. I never forgot he had autism, and I credit Pettis for that. He wasn’t just good abs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 232
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

6 minutes ago, ranger1rg said:

Martha Madison is 43. Brandon Beemer is 40. But poster after poster is going after her for being too old? Huh???

 

i’m no huge MM fanboy, but this ageism is really unfair in my eyes. I do think she looks and is styled much better on this run than she has been in the past, when Beemer seemed like a reach for her. Now? I’m ok with them being together.

 

She's looked too old for the part since the day she debuted. Beemer looked a bit old too.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean, they only slightly SORASed Shawn to begin with (from being born in 1987 to 1984) and both Beemer and Cook were born in 1980, so them playing a character that's four years younger than them isn't a stretch. But the discussion we were having was that Belle shouldn't even be in Shawn's age group at all, much less Sami's. There's nothing to be done about it now I guess, but still.

Link to post
Share on other sites

FWIW I always preferred Madison & Beemer to the crappy overrated Cook & Spears but I just never cared for Belle & Shawn in the first place. At least Brady, Chloe, Mimi, and JKJ Phillip(not KB’s Phillip) all had personalities, Belle & Shawn were just written as an afterthought imo, two children of the show’s two biggest super couples just thrown together. I’m actually surprised that Claire is the only child and that the show didn’t push more kids on them. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I am definitely not saying MM is too old to be with BB onscreen.  Just that she's too old to be Belle in general.  Belle should be 27 but that's without SORASing.   She should at the very least be 7-10 years younger than Sami with SORAS.  She's not.  No huge deal. They just aged her way too fast too young.  I have more problem with her being old enough to be current Claire's mom than anything.  And, let's face it, the most interesting thing about Belle is her conception.  She's not a groundbreaking character in personality.  Any 30 something actress that's decent and resembles Deidre Hall could probably play her.  Don't get me wrong, I like MM and think she has her good points, but Belle should be mid 30's at most without a 20 something daughter.

6 minutes ago, soapfan770 said:

FWIW I always preferred Madison & Beemer to the crappy overrated Cook & Spears but I just never cared for Belle & Shawn in the first place. At least Brady, Chloe, Mimi, and JKJ Phillip(not KB’s Phillip) all had personalities, Belle & Shawn were just written as an afterthought imo, two children of the show’s two biggest super couples just thrown together. I’m actually surprised that Claire is the only child and that the show didn’t push more kids on them. 

It would have been better if they made Belle more of a schemer instead of just a good girl.   But it was redundant with Sami on canvas.  Belle's always been so bland.  Even her cheating was boring.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, carolineg said:

It would have been better if they made Belle more of a schemer instead of just a good girl.   But it was redundant with Sami on canvas.  Belle's always been so bland.  Even her cheating was boring.

I think OKR's Claire is essentially what Belle should've been quirky and a bit unstable considering her family history. I don't buy into that because Sami's so bratty her siblings need to be "good"; she already had both Carrie and Eric to balance her bratty behavior.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, te. said:

I think OKR's Claire is essentially what Belle should've been quirky and a bit unstable considering her family history. I don't buy into that because Sami's so bratty her siblings need to be "good"; she already had both Carrie and Eric to balance her bratty behavior.

True.  I think Claire's personality would have fit my image of what Belle should have been.  She is basically a Carrie clone, but I never thought Carrie was as uninteresting as Belle.  Maybe Days felt Belle had to be good because she was Jarlena's only child? Early KS's Belle at least had some spunk and was a little bratty.  I am actually surprised they never gave J&M a retcon 1986 kid or a late in life kid like they gave Steve and Kayla.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, soapfan770 said:

FWIW I always preferred Madison & Beemer to the crappy overrated Cook & Spears but I just never cared for Belle & Shawn in the first place. At least Brady, Chloe, Mimi, and JKJ Phillip(not KB’s Phillip) all had personalities, Belle & Shawn were just written as an afterthought imo, two children of the show’s two biggest super couples just thrown together. I’m actually surprised that Claire is the only child and that the show didn’t push more kids on them. 

 

I was never much of a fan of the original Shawn and Belle given the writing, but Storms and Cook had some life to them at least as performers. Beemer is not a great actor but gives it his all. Madison has always been a bore. Shawn and Belle's only purpose onscreen at their height was to be 'the new young leads'. Giving them any personality came much, much later and has always been a patch job, and it's hard to accomplish with two extremely boring or flawed actors.

Edited by Vee
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, carolineg said:

I am actually surprised they never gave J&M a retcon 1986 kid or a late in life kid like they gave Steve and Kayla

They got rid of Marlena’s late in life kid because it was Roman’s. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dr Neil Curtis said:

They got rid of Marlena’s late in life kid because it was Roman’s. 

 

Lol.  That one was a little too late in life.  I am talking about in 1997 or 1998, but I guess it never really fit in the story.  I am just surprised Days never gave J/M another kid because on Days being a super couple means you get 2 children of your own lol.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, carolineg said:

 

Lol.  That one was a little too late in life.  I am talking about in 1997 or 1998, but I guess it never really fit in the story.  I am just surprised Days never gave J/M another kid because on Days being a super couple means you get 2 children of your own lol.  

 

See: Doug and Julie 😥

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Bright Eyes said:

 

See: Doug and Julie 😥

 

Poor Doug and Julie.  Is there any reason why they never gave them a child?  I know they wanted one and then it weirdly never happened.

I have no use or desire for another Jarlena kid, but it would have been funny in 1997 to watch Sami, Kristen, and Stefano's heads explode over the thought of another J&M kid.   Much better than bringing JT's Roman back for another round of Roman/Marlena/John.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, carolineg said:

 

Lol.  That one was a little too late in life.  I am talking about in 1997 or 1998, but I guess it never really fit in the story.  I am just surprised Days never gave J/M another kid because on Days being a super couple means you get 2 children of your own lol.  

Yeah, I'm surprised that they didn't retcon a kid into the timeline when Marlena was presumed "dead" between 1987-1991. Considering how much DAYS loves pulling the "long lost kid I didn't know I even had" card it's a bit shocking even.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, carolineg said:

 

Poor Doug and Julie.  Is there any reason why they never gave them a child?  I know they wanted one and then it weirdly never happened.

I have no use or desire for another Jarlena kid, but it would have been funny in 1997 to watch Sami, Kristen, and Stefano's heads explode over the thought of another J&M kid.   Much better than bringing JT's Roman back for another round of Roman/Marlena/John.

 

I think a lot of it was down to due to things like David being aged up, which also aged Julie up as a character. There was still a period where she and Doug could have had a child, in the late '70s and early '80s, but it seems like they were moved into an older bracket by that point.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...