Jump to content

Days of Our Lives: January 2022 Discussion Thread


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 502
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Members

Even if it does happen they didn’t have to make Craig a cheating a.ss hole to be gay.

Even if it does happen they didn’t have to make Craig a cheating a.ss hole to be gay.

Just because it does happen doesn’t mean they had to make Craig a cheating ass for the story just so he can be gay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Agree.  With everything.

 

Again, I agree with everything here.

Yeah, but I wish he were played by someone more dynamic than the guy who used to play Derek Frye.  He always reminds me of Darius Rucker, for some reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

It's gonna turn into wacky hijinks even if Leo ISN'T involved.  Ron Carlivati doesn't know (anymore) how to write any story without wacky hijinks.  (JER would be so proud, lol.)

I could see Leo with just one guy, in a wacky sort of romance that recalls Eugene and Calliope, but it would take committing to making Leo a more rounded character instead of a plot device in '70's game show host clothing.

I feel as if Tom Langan was attempting to recreate Y&R's Brad and Traci there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Please register in order to view this content

I don't know.   I don't want to offend anyone but I find this story soooo disappointing.  Not because Craig's gay.  That's fine.  But because I really liked what Nancy and Craig represented.  They were were a love story that went beyond looks and it's seems demeaning to end it this way.  Not because of Craig's journey which should be told, but because of what they previously represented.   Listen, they suddenly wouldn't make John or Steve gay.  It feels cheap to make Nancy the patsy on this not knowing her husband was gay for like 75% of her life and also because she is regular size.  Craig can go out and find a foxy man, but Nancy gets left with the wreckage.  It feels a little gross.  I may not be saying this right but it just makes me feel for Nancy and her bad wig lol.  It just feels like of course the heavy girl's hot husband was gay all along.  Half the cast of Days bings all the time as gay/bi/fluid and they make it about this couple.

Please register in order to view this content

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I think what I object to is the internalized homophobia that requires that there is conflict with regard to Craig coming out.  Nancy and Craig have been together for around 30 years. Why not write a story where a wife is not surprised or betrayed by her husband's sexuality, but perceptive enough to be empathic with his development and supportive of his growth. They are both in their late 50s, there's no reason for this to be drama filled, and there may also be no reason for them to divorce.  The assertion that Nancy had no idea just makes her seem stupid.  This story does not need conflict, nor does it need Craig to be unfaithful to be told, those are old fashioned troupes about being in the closet that do not seem to apply to a modern culture that is more versed in fluidity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Yeah.  that. 

There have been very few populer soap couples where the woman was heavy and the man was hot for her just as she was.
On Days, there was Nancy and Craig. 
On OLTL, there was Marcie Al/Michael.
I'm talking major characters and not occasional recurring background characters.
Nancy and Craig were popular contract characters back in the day.

I know that heavy women viewers appreciated the representation.

Edited by janea4old
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

That's seems very rude.  Not directing that at you specifically.  I am a slim white women that appreciated that representation.  But of course people will think its fat housewives

Please register in order to view this content

Edited by carolineg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Sorry, I should have clarified. I was speaking for myself, as a heavy woman viewer.

And yes I agree that any viewer can appreciate seeing representation, even if the viewer is not a member of the group being represented.  As a viewer, I appreciate seeing a wide variety of humanity being represented on the shows I watch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

No worries.  I just thought you were saying everyone that liked Nancy and Craig were regular women having fantasies.   And true to life my husband of 15 years is on the bigger size and sometimes people ask me why I am with him, so that's a little triggering for me.  Looks aren't everything...but that wig still needs an intervention  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I never understood Craig and Nancy's relationship from the very beginning. At first, I remember the actors had a "MEATY" storyline with Craig wanting to be Chief of Staff or whatever, but later on, the two only served as Chloe's backup choir. Craig coming out as bisexual or gay is believable I suppose, but the thing is that I don't care. Craig is not a main character on the show and we're not really "invited" as the character explores who he is or what he's struggling with on an emotional level. We're not invited to this "journey" if that makes any sense. And yet, at the same token I'm relieved not to see it as the storylines last as long as a New York minute that's it's difficult to keep track. Then again, is it? Because all I see is cheating, kidnapping, and wearing a face mask. 

Can't think of the name of Lani's bio dad or how long the character will be on the show, but I sense that it will be short-lived and I'm predicting murder. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I don't mind the idea of making Craig gay, but I hate what they've turned Nancy into. This isn't Nancy IMO. You can't convince me that if she wasn't played by a traditional sized soap actress that she wouldn't still have her red hair. That grey wig may not be the end of the world to some, but the fact that this character has lost all of her spark, is dressed like an old lady AND she's losing her husband? It feels like such a slap in the face and it's insulting. I wish the story were positioned in a way where Nancy could still be the fun character she was and potentially find love (not to mention revenge on whoever Craig is dating). Instead, it feels like this was done only because the actor who plays Craig is gay and Ron wants to showcase him and have a gay storyline. Of course it's not over and they may do right by Nancy in the end, but so far I am very disappointed.

On a more positive note, I think Johnny works much better possessed than Marlena did. Of course it was fun to revisit the story with her, but with Johnny it's more interesting because it's less expected. I'm enjoying him wrecking havoc around town and I like that everybody isn't being dumbed down for it to make sense. With him EJ's son it isn't outrageous to think he'd act similar to his father. This could have real legs if Ron restrains himself and doesn't overdo it.

Edited by Chris B
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

That's my concern as well, @carolineg

Now, look: I, for one, never bought Craig and Nancy as this blissfully happy duo.  To me, it made more sense that Craig was a schemer who married Nancy for the money, and that Nancy knew it but didn't care, because she was just happy to be married to such a great-looking guy.  I'll cop to being biased in that respect. 

But to suggest that Craig has been gay or bisexual all along?  And that Nancy never knew until now?  There's garden-variety infidelity; there's knowing all along that you've hooked up with someone who's out of your league, but you don't care, because it beats being alone; and then there's realizing your spouse has basically lied to you for your entire marriage.  The latter is what's going on here; and in the process, it makes Nancy look stupid, and it makes Craig look like the biggest [!@#$%^&*] who ever walked the planet. 

And I'm sure Ron Carlivati will suggest that it was always obvious that Craig was sexually attracted to other men and that Nancy kept her head in the sand about it.  But that won't wash, Ron.  Craig and Nancy were never written with that subtext in mind, and their fans (of which there are many!) will never believe it.

 

Edited by Khan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I mean, obviously, it's not the norm for a couple to have that disparity in looks/physique/whatever on a soap.  Not that I don't think PD isn't attractive or anything, but KS is a very good looking guy.  But I got onboard with Craig loves Nancy and everything about her because that what was shown onscreen.   I could maybe buy Nancy keeping her head in the sand about this because she was so happy she had a hot husband, but that's not Nancy.  She was confident, secure, funny, intelligent and never cared about what people said.  These are fictional characters but to make Nancy's whole romantic life a lie really sucks for her. That's devastating. Whether Craig is gay or bi or whatever he owed his life partner (who I assume he does love) the respect of telling her he was confused or attracted to men because he obviously didn't wake up at 55 one day to being gay.  I have no problem with this particular story being told but it really does [!@#$%^&*] on 2 characters that were fine as is.  This feels like a story for shock value more than an organic story and I don't think we are going to get much of Nancy's POV.

Could you imagine being 55, 60 whatever age Nancy is supposed to be and starting over in the romance department?  That would be an interesting story, but we know the story is going to be Craigs wacky hijinks with Leo or some [!@#$%^&*] 

Edited by carolineg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



  • Recent Posts

    • 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. 
    • I’m trying to think which actors VW were working with at the time, and none of them had been there for a while. Even like Mac and Ada didn’t have that big of a part in Rachel’s storyline.  And Jamie was involved with all that movie stuff.
    • Brooke did ads before ATWT too. That probably helped get her the job. After ATWT she seemed to branch more into hosting, along with ads.  I think I saw Kelley in an ad or two, but you're right she wasn't on as much. 
    •   Thanks for sharing these. I wonder if Charles might have been in the running for Adam. I know Preacher was a bit of a bad boy at times on EON, but Neal seemed to be a step down, and Robert Lupone had played a similar part on AMC. Given the huge cast turnover at this point I wonder who thought they had been there long enough to go.  Laura Malone/Chris Rich would get a remote within the next year. 
    • Interesting.  It seems to allude to that statement that Warren Burton made around that time about some AW actors getting special treatment.  I wonder who was resentful about not getting to go. 
    • Good morning, boys!  I figured that it was time that our Gio was introduced into the hotness thread

      Please register in order to view this content

      @ranger1rg I even included a close up of his face for ya!
    • Under all of Madonna's social media today there is this wave of negative, toxic, absurd comments by Lady Gaga fans telling her how Gaga surpassed her in concert in Copacabana. I mean... Who the hell cares? Why are these fan communities so freaking toxic??? I'm sure Madonna doesn't care... But still. Have some respect for M. Leave her social media alone. Go cheer Gaga and be happy. Why come and spew hate on M??? Crazy world.
    • FYI, again, Ruth/Letitia is not in either of these 2 episodes. So that concludes the 4 episodes I had from Nov. 1983. I don't have the October episodes.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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