Jump to content

SORAS predictions


Recommended Posts

  • Members

I think this is just a problem across all soaps, but Days seems especially bad at having characters in their teens and twenties act like young adults.  It's 2023 not 1965.  Most 21 year olds don't want to get married and have kids yet.  Days consistently ends up with characters under 25 with way too much life experience Ciara (married, 2 kids), Allie (1 kid, engaged once), Chanel (married twice), Johnny (married once), etc.  The last group of characters that felt defined by their ages was honestly JER's 90's characters-where the age groups felt different and Carrie/Austin weren't in the same place as Bo/Hope or Jack/Jen, but Bo/Hope were still younger than John/Marlena and Victor/Vivian were older than them.  

But to @Darn's point, on Days the vets still get stories that are very current and frontburner.  Marlena/John aren't Alice/Tom, but no one has really moved into that role as the next in line after them.  There isn't a steady married couple on the show to take over and everyone from Brady to Johnny get storylines in the similar vein.  While Days would have been much better served keeping Jack/Jen around or even building up Shawn/Belle/Claire, but we end up with a huge gap between the long time vets and their kids and everyone from 20-45 just feels the same age. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 37
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Members

I was saying John/Marlena aren't Tom/Alice.  I guess Doug/Julie could be considered that.  My point was that some time in the future John/Marlena have to retire as frontburner and there is no one directly behind them to take on John/Marlena's and Steve/Kayla's place.  Without Bo/Hope or Jack/Jen who is there?  There is no Carrie/Austin, Sami/Lucas, etc as a steady, established couple.  Sorry if that was unclear.  

I don't really care about Doug/Julie being the next Tom/Alice.  I personally don't really think they fit that bill, but I don't think John/Marlena do either.  I am more concerned about what happens with the next few generations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Absolutely and to be fair - I don't think the lack of sets help. If you're in (let's say) your early 30s you probably do have your own household, but in DAYS nobody else does. Chanel/Allie/Johnny etc would still be finishing out their educations and trying to get started in life. But there's no budget to have entirely separate storylines and sets, so they all end up in a blur. I agree that it's sort of problematic how there seems to be no characters to truly pass the torch to - of course a part of that problem is that even if they find a young actor to develop, DAYS's strange and erratic filming schedule scares them away and they bolt for the first best opportunity they can get (and in general, soaps used to be seen as steady work that could go towards your retirement, it's far from a given that these shows will be here in a decade so better to try to build your resume). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

You are absolutely right.  I tend to place Days issues with bad planning and management, but I don't look at the full picture.   Not to absolve Days at all, but daytime isn't what it used to be and the genre isn't producing stars like Deidre Hall, Susan Lucci, or Tony Geary anymore.   Of course Days has no budget, but I don't think it would be that hard to make a small classroom set or even say the younger crew goes to college over having Allie, Chanel, Wendy, etc having businesses and serious careers.  Days has also never been great at keeping young talent and they have had a lot, but I think the biggest blow might have been losing Ali Sweeney.  I am no Sami fan, but I think most thought AS was in at Days for the long haul and Days invested a lot in her to the point she could be the bridge in the gap in the canvas now.  It's too bad Days didn't invest more in Belle's adult life, left Eric as such a dormant character for so long, and either killed off or did very little in the next Horton generation. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



  • Recent Posts

    • Okay, well her reasons were that she had a mandate to reduce the size of the cast & she had another mandate to make the cast overall younger, so her reason for picking Donna to off was because she was too old.  So, is that what you understand? Or are you thinking of something else? Which if so, I would be delighted to hear about it!  She had arbitrarily picked 50 as the age people needed to be younger than.  And, that is why she got rid of both Bridget & Spencer Harrison.  And, getting rid of Bridget was another of her horrible ideas.  Why do you refer to her as the Face of the Show?
    • This is AWESOME, thank you for taking the time to post this! My first thought: My memory is a lot better than I thought it was, LOL! The first episode I clearly remember watching had a scene of Ed confronting Holly about Christina's paternity. He lamented how wonderful things had been over Christmas, so looks like I started watching the show early 1976. The only thing puzzling me is where is Evie? I thought she was around BEFORE Rita got involved with Tim, but maybe that's one gap in my memory. It makes Rita look slightly better--in that case, she didn't seduce Tim knowing her sister had a crush on him.
    • Oh, well.  At least he can cry into his hoodie.
    • Sorry, just realized I'd somehow lost a whole paragraph in that last post.
    • Thanks @Paul Raven  They should have brought Billy back in the early '90s for more drama with Hart and Blake. Maybe Blake would have gotten involved with him to try to ruin him in Roger's eyes, but realize under his sweet nature, Billy was a player himself.
    • Checked. Taggert last date, Wed, 7-19-23, so a long dadgummed time ago.
    • Please register in order to view this content

    • Watching the cult of Fetterman collapse is one of the few political bright spots for me. The best part  is watching all the people who built him up now decide they want to tear him down. I'll be fascinated to see how this ends for him. https://buckscountybeacon.com/2025/05/pennsylvanias-democratic-senator-john-fetterman-raises-alarms-with-outburst-at-meeting-with-union-officials/

      Please register in order to view this content

    • Long ago, this Rachel fan channel uploaded a number of clips of Rachel with Felicia during the alcoholism story, and this one in particular stands out for me. 

      Please register in order to view this content

      And then you have this scene, which is the dark mirror of the above, especially the final moment: Felicia started out as camp bitch on a very dreary show (with Cecile being the only somewhat fun character around that point) and then got into a lot of comedy. Some of the comedy was very stupid, but many viewers still felt drawn to it, to Lily, Cecile, Cass, Felicia, Kathleen, Wallingford. There was a vibrancy which Dano fit well in, her fashions and melodrama parodied in a gentle way. This was missing in some of the long-suffering parts she'd had had on shows like ATWT. By the late '80s, especially after Wallingford's death, those times were gone, and Donna Swajeski added further misery to Felicia with the Gold Street backstory. Luckily, after a bit of time the show found a good framing for this new twist on Felicia. The stories with finding and losing a love from her past, learning that a woman she hated was the daughter she'd spent years searching for, sinking into alcoholism, they all fit into the type of material suited for the '40s and '50s screen goddesses.  When Dano tried some of this old weepy type of material when she went back to ABC, it mostly fell flat, as the atmosphere wasn't the same and her character always felt shoehorned in. It worked perfectly at this period on AW because you had Iris, you had Rachel, you had Donna - you had a number of tough-but-vulnerable women of a certain age, most of them grandmothers by this point, but still trying to find love, find themselves. This is what AW could have had earlier if they hadn't dumped Pat and Alice, but better late than never. This is an approach you saw more often on British soaps than on US soaps, which for a number of years respected women in that age group. Both UK and US soaps have done away with this, both countries having the ladies devolve into perpetual ingenues (with added doses of endlessly self-aware camp in the UK) or just being shipped off entirely.  You could even see that on AW with the treatment of Iris (shipped off, never to be mentioned again, too old to return), Donna (repeatedly humiliated and crippled), Felicia (regressed into degrading herself with married John), Rachel (mother to newborn twins, put into lengthy periods of trauma through her new relationship with Carl). 
    • I'm of a certain age where I caught some of Upton's final year and it was not great but Jean Holloway was worse. All I remember is Bambi, Bambi, Bambi!
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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