Jump to content

DAYS: Holiday Gatherings | promo (December 15, 2023)


Recommended Posts

  • Members

I've never enjoyed maintaining a family in name only.

Either we get Cousin Schlomo Horton, who we've never met, but they just happen to be a distant relative who can talk to Julie.

Or people like Sarah, who are named after a legacy character, but their current circumstance is not informed by their history, because we didn't see them evolve on screen.  I mean, it is nice that Maggie has a reason to exist, but how is Sarah's relationship with Xander related to anything about Micky, or Neil as paternal figures?  It is not an intergenerational story just because two characters share a last name, there has to be some nod to the past for it to be meaningful.

Edited by j swift
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 61
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Members

Neil shouldn't count, either. When Sarah was a teen, she discovered Maggie's affair with Neil and, thus, hated him. So much so, teenage Sarah - just before leaving in 1990 - set it up so Maggie would see her in bed with an unconscious Neil. (If I recall, he was drunk or drugged?)

(And apparently Sarah found a portal in Tennessee, where she lived with sister Melissa, that kept her from aging in almost 30 years. Lucky her!)

Either way, she was furious on behalf of her father, Mickey.

So, the crap when she came back when Maggie gave her Neil's stethoscope was ridiculous when you look at actual history. Neil even once tried to use that connection with Sarah, and she shut him down fast. (Not to mention, Neil himself was a retcon. Evan Whyland [then played by Lane Davies pre-Santa Barbara ] was the actual sperm donor. The writers pulled the Neil angle out of their ass during the Maggie/Neil affair.)

Edited by Wendy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Well, if Drucker were smart and we got a capable head writer (hopefully a female), we could see the return as Matthew Ashford & Cady McClain as Jack & Jennifer, respectively, which could begin the relaunch of the Horton family. Returning with them could be Mike Horton (Roark Critchlow) and Jeremy Horton (Trevor Donovan / recast), with the former being re-hired at Salem University Hospital. And then we could see Lucas be [finally] released from prison and sober (for once), rebuilding his life in Salem. And then, once this stupid Victor Kiriakis storyline is dropped, Melissa Horton (Lisa Trusel / Martha Byrne) and Nathan Horton (Mark Hapka) can return to town and establish roots in Salem to be with her mother, which is long overdue, and connect with sister Sarah.

There is a way to re-build the Horton family, with paired with the Brady family, should be an integral focus of the canvas in 2024.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Cady?! Lmao no Jack and Jennifer fan wants that!

Please register in order to view this content

Instead of bringing back forgotten characters that the show has moved on from, the show should be shifting to Marlena’s family. She has the largest family onscreen: her, John, Brady, Eric, Jude, Tate, Johnny, and Rachel. And Deidre has appeared in more episodes than any other character. It’s time. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Completely different scenario.

With the intro of the Bradys and Di Meras that shift away from the Hortons took place. But there was (is) no reason not to nurture the Hortons at the same time so they can continue to be a strong presence on the show.

Who's left of the Bradys now-Roman and Kayla, plus some children. They're almost in the same boat as the Hortons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Please register in order to view this content

It was a shift that was needed to keep the soap alive, due to poor ratings. The introduction of Jeanne Cooper's Katherine Chancellor changed everything. Once the show expanded from half-hour to one-hour, [most] of the deals for actors forbid them from acting that full hour, so it meant William J. Bell had to re-develop things, and it brought forth the Abbott and Newman families, and they slowly transitioned out the Brooks and Foster families, due to their success.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Honestly, nostalgia aside, what would be the reason to expand the Hortons in 2024? @Liberty City

I hope you take this quip with the harmless humor that I intend, but I hardly think it is an appropriate assessment of a producer's intelligence if they agree with the opinions of those of us on a fan message board.

For example, Mike Horton's story feels like it has been exhausted, and I don't hear a clamor for a Rourke Critchlow renaissance after his last visit to Salem.  Besides, it doesn't feel politically correct for Kayla to have to step aside as Chief of Staff for Mike because he's a privileged male nepo-baby.  Jack Devereaux is objectionable for the same reason that other reformed rapists are unpopular within a modern context.  We've got a consensus that Melissa, Sandy, and Jessica are not characters who are fondly remembered.  So, why does it feel “smart” to resurrect these characters, simply because they represent the first decade of the show?

I respect your fandom for classic soaps, but I don't think revisiting the past attracts new viewers, and it is bound to disappoint those who remember the good ol' days.  As a guy who streams it daily, I would much rather see more diverse characters telling stories about modern romance than go backward to an image of a family that represents what sold soap in 1965.

 

Edited by j swift
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

She was. She debuted later in 1973.

I’m in favor of making Marlena’s family the core family as she is the star of the show. 

I’d like to see John and Marlena move out of that ugly, tiny, cheap-looking townhouse and into the rebuilt Alamain mansion. Noah and Sydney could live with them.

I’m not saying get rid of the Hortons or their set. I’d like the current iteration of the Hortons center around Jennifer, Jack, and their kids (if Jennifer is played by Missy, that is. Otherwise I’d like to see the Hortons center around Hope, Bo, and their family).

Days could save some extra money if they bumped Rogers to recurring and only showed Doug and Julie at Christmas. 

Edited by EdibleFlowers
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

By my saying "if X were smart" is merely a saying. Not questioning her intelligence as I have full confidence in that she's making the decisions she needs to make to not only make the set safe, but also put the show back on the right track, hopefully!

While I would normally agree, the character of Jack Deveraux has been that "reformed" prior to now. And, if the T****-esque storyline did not turn viewers away from him I doubt they will at this point. And, honestly, I'd recast Jack with Mark Valley and bring in Cady McClain, LOL! They would have FIRE chemisry!

I'm not saying to "go backward to an image of a family that represents what sold soap in 1965." I'm merely stating we need a healthy mix of both. Old and new, but to completely wipe a family, in gearing up towards a sixtieth anniversary, is a mistake. I think now, more than ever, a lot of viewers would like more history and family included on their stories, and I feel like Days of Our Lives was one of those soaps that excelled with FAMILY as its cornerstone, and, again, with the proper head writer / head writing team, it could have a nice healthy mix.

Link to comment
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
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
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.



  • Recent Posts

    • 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. 
    • 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.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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