Jump to content

DAYS OF OUR LIVES Moves to Peacock From NBC on September 12


Recommended Posts

  • Members

Yeah, definitely.  Peacock itself needs to upgrade it's content.  I thought they were doing okay with the Saved by the Bell reboot and The Fresh Prince until, you know, Will Smith lol.  Even the Housewives and Below Deck spinoff stuff is good.  Again, their sporting content is great I think.  Depending on a 57 year old soap to help a STREAMING platform seems idiotic.  So, I guess I just don't know how it will pan out.  I don't know if $4.99 seems unreasonable to pay for Days alone. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 961
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Members

I think this is utterly stupid.  How can the one in control of the show possibly think that people will pay to watch the trash RC puts out as entertainment?  The show is so bad and has been during his tenure.  The payoffs are zero and the plots are utterly ridiculous.

It would have been better, imo, to get a competent writer in to usher the old lady out in style and be done with it.  This way it will die an ignominious death on the least watched streaming service with a sliver of an audience.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

They would have to scrap most if not all that they have taped plus scripts. 

I just find it odd that they actually tried on Beyond Salem 1 and 2 but the main show on the air has been pure garbage for years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

We'll never know for sure but my understanding is the Bells never owned Y&R - what they had is/was a production deal that entitles them to profit and while Bill was alive, creative control. Once Bill died, it was overnight the changes started rolling in and have done so for the last 17 years to ill effect. 

I tend to be a bit more forgiving of Corday's business prowess. There is ultimately only so much that can be done with a 57 year old television property and Corday inherited the relationship with Sony.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I get that soap fans don't like change.  However, it feels like the argument for why people wouldn't pay for cable in the 1980s.  The decision was clearly not based on quality, it is part of the change that is happening across media and any hopes of change in production or writing seems to come from left field.

Articles about CBS affiliates wanting more cheap local news, as well as the rise of Paramount+ seems to predict a similar fate for Y&R and B&B. -- https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/paramount-plus-subscribers-earnings-report-advertising-1235191826/

Finally, the argument that many here are unwilling to pay $5 for Peacock seems erroneous when "the average household cable package is now $217.42 per month" according to US News https://money.usnews.com/money/personal-finance/saving-and-budgeting/articles/how-much-is-cable-per-month

I don't care how much any individual is paying for cable, piecemeal streaming packages will obviously be the predominant form of entertainment in the next five years.

As for a cliffhanger, NBC probably wants a seamless transition so that viewers will get into the habit of daily streaming.  The past two years are already on the service and I don't see them investing more in streaming old episodes when it has failed at Soapnet, Sony, PopTV, and RetroTV.

Edited by j swift
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I'm not sure if it was a "test", or if it was merely an "incentive".  

It appears to me that SONY Pictures and Corday Productions have known for the past year that "Days" would spend its final season (#58) on Peacock, so they shaved a little off the budget all along and funneled the savings into the Xmas movie and "Beyond Salem" to let the audience know, "Hey, we're capable of doing BETTER work on Peacock.  Join as a subscriber!"

(But what they'll probably present on Peacock is more of what they've been producing on daytime -- for at least the next six months.  Afterwards, as someone else pointed out, you may get a few bare bottoms, but you won't be able to see them very well due to the Peapack Production Values that will likely define the final six months.  And in September 2023 -- the end.)    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I am not as forgiving. Yes he inherited the deal but when the deal was up for renewal. He signs an indefinite deal. Corday never should have signed a deal where NBC could move the property to Peacock. Corday owns DAYS. Having an indefinite deal with SONY hampers his ability to control DAYS.  Even if Corday had to agree to move DAYS to Peacock not Peacock Premium.   I think just this will end with DAYS being shelved once the 2 year deal is over and its run on Peacock is over.  There has been no comment from DAYS, Corday or SONY about this. I wonder why. I think because they all know the handwriting is on the wall. Days will end it run on Peacock.

After 57 years, Days has earned the right to end on NBC in 2023 not on some streaming platform.

Edited by JoeCool
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

If the product is good people will pay...I have paramount plus. It has all seasons of love boat some which have not been released on dvd. It had all the reasonable happy days but for some reason only season 2 is now available. I've seen the RW reunions on it as well.

I originally got peacock for beyond Salem but it also has the entire run of punky brewster...a spin off Dateline, golf and tennis that are not on tv. They've also included MLB games. I don't think $ 4.99 is that bad compared to what others charge. But to get it to watch the garbage that is Days alone is not worth it IMO when it was free and I would miss episodes because the show is so bad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I paid about $260/month for cable/internet for years, so $5 a month seems like nothing to me-and you don't just get Days for that price.  But I definitely understand the principal of something being free now being a premium show when the quality is the exact same.  Why are we going to pay for it now when it's was barely watchable for free?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

This is not about soap fans not liking change, lol. Many of us have always felt streaming is the only future for soaps and have been saying so for years, and I was one of them. Nor is it about streaming not being the future - it's already our present. The issue, which many of us already elaborated on at length and you clearly ignored, is that Peacock is a struggling service which does not have a broad enough range of content that will incentivize enough people to sign up for its paid tier for on the strength of DAYS alone (which is NBCU's stated hope here). Hulu is strong, and Netflix is strong; until very, very recently HBO Max also looked strong (and hopefully the rumors about it this week due to Discovery's meddling will prove exaggerated). Peacock? Not so much. And for NBCU to be pinning Peacock's subscriber hopes on DAYS only leaves one loser: DAYS.

Next time listen to what people have been saying before you came along and before injecting your own pre-written editorial.

Edited by Vee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Which is why releasing classic episode would be a perfect incentive to get people to subscribe. 

Idk anything music licensing/copyright, but considering you can watch every episode of SNL, with musical guests, on Peacock, I don't think that's the reason.

Edited by AbcNbc247
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



  • Recent Posts

    • I think they’re desperately trying to cover his awful tattoos. But anyway them being unable to style short kings properly has been a major pet peeve of mine for a while now.  I honestly don’t understand what some people expect from actors to even begin considering them for recognition. Let’s be real—awards mostly mean that an actor is respected by their peers and has some level of cultural relevance. Actual judgment on the acting itself? That’s often secondary—highly subjective and shaped by the times. I completely agree on both points. If you’re an actor or a dancer you shouldn’t get any tattoos (sorry not sorry). Tomas’ tattoos are ugly too. And regarding the couples- you’re completely right. These writers are unable to write romance.   Further comments: - Kat cannot be this dumb to keep tampering with evidence over and over again. And I’m officially not a fan of the actress—every time she’s in a scene with Leslie, she doesn’t seem intimidated at all. She plays it like comic relief, which is just too much, especially when paired with Leslie’s histrionics and over-the-top antics. Leslie is older, dangerous, and has literally been portrayed as homicidal—Kat should be at least a little scared. • I also didn’t like Kat playing damsel in distress with the hotel manager. It gave off the same weird energy as Dani with the cop. I would’ve much preferred the version Paul Raven suggested, with her sneaking in through housekeeping. • And yes, Dani again accused Hayley of faking the pregnancy—this time even specifying she might be using a pillow under her shirt. (No fake miscarriage being mentioned) I stand by my take: this is ridiculous writing. No one in the real world—except us, the chronically online soap watchers—would even think of such a conspiracy theory. Haley is no Beyoncé. • What in the world was Chelsea wearing in her hair the other day? And this whole thing with Madison is beyond cringe. Chelsea’s coming off as needy and toxic—basically like every other Dupree. • I’m glad the casino storyline is moving forward, but it’s still boring as hell. Honestly, I’d be so here for a plot twist where Vanessa and Doug take Joey out. • The direction and editing lately have been rough. Abrupt cuts, weird pacing… something just feels off overall. There’s a strange uneasiness to how it’s all coming together. • And finally: Tomas is too much of a saint. Where are the messy sluts when you need them? (Vanessa doesn’t count.)
    • I was watching some August 1987 episodes and they brought back so many memories. I had some thoughts: Lisa and Jamie were so dull. Lisa was such a nothing character. It boggles my mind that so much story was centered around her in such a short amount of time. Joanna Going is a talented actress, but the material was just not there.  It was so good to see Wallingford and Mitch again. I know there was talk about Felicia a while back, but these episodes reminded me how integral Felicia was for the show.  Sally Spencer was done so dirty. She is turning in superb performances in an icky storyline. I wish she had stuck around longer. She has chemistry with everyone. The McKinnons should have lasted longer. Spencer had some strong stuff with Stephen Schnetzer and Mary Alexander. AW waster such a talented actress by getting rid of her. Justice for Cheryl too. I also missed Ed Fry when he left. Sandra Ferguson was a star from the moment she came on. She was charismatic and just popped. She had immediate chemistry with RKK and blended in well with Wyndham and Watson. I'd forgotten about the teenage Matthew.  I have no memory of Peggy Lazarus. She must not have lasted long. Was the original plan for John that he was going to turn out to be the twins' real father?      
    • If the new and improved copies that @rsclassicfanforever has uploaded can be manually moved into the "by month, by year" folders, that would be awesome. I personally don't think it's necessary to keep the older versions (which either have Dutch subtitles hard coded on them, or are lesser in picture quality). That's a lot of valuable drive space that could be cleared. Just my view but can appreciate others may feel differently. The structure had been by month by year previously, so I think it would be easier to conform to that, where so much prior work to get it to that format has already been done. Hopefully you can "drag and drop" so the new copies are in the right month/year? Re Clips, I never look at them now we pretty much have the episodes in full. Appreciate others may use, however. Thanks for all your hard work here @BoldRestless!
    • Oh yes defintely, Josh Griffith repeats and repeats the same storylines.
    • Isnt’t this storyline similar to the Cameron Kirsten situation though? Sharon thought she killed him. He ended up being alive and Sharon was being tormented with thinking she was seeing his face everywhere and that’s how we got that iconic scene with her and Nikki in the sewers.   I understand in Mariah’s case this is different circumstances but it does seem like a play on that whole thing. Maybe I’m wrong. I just wish if they were going to make any character follow in Sharon’s foot steps it would be Faith. Mariah wasn’t even raised by her, and her personality is different. I would expect her to take a different path. I understand I could be completely jumping ahead because the storyline hasn’t even played out yet but we’ll see. 
    • Thanks again @Paul Raven Monica was completely without redeeming qualities at this point. I always found the whole Monica = Carly narrative regressive, as I don't think shows comparing characters so heavily is ever a great idea, but she's actually worse than Carly was. Was it the Pollocks who had Leslie have a miscarriage?  Giving her a child, especially by rape, was not a good idea, but a part of me wishes they'd committed to it just to see what story it might have had in later years.
    • @janea4old Your detailed explanation and delving into the psychology and motivations is no doubt the opposite of what we will see onscreeen. As @ranger1rg stated we will get a few scenes and some sketchy explanations. Like the adoption of Aria, most of it will take place off screen.
    • I'm suddenly fearful that DAYS is going to pull a Flowers-for-Algernon stunt and Bo's progress will be reversed.  While @te. is stuck on Abe's tiny bedroom, I can't stop thinking of the size of Bo's huge hospital room.
    • Okay, why are Paulina and Abe sleeping like that?!  I'd take a screen grab if I wasn't lazy, but come on.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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