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 December 18, 20231 yr by j swift

2 hours ago, j swift said:

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? 

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 December 18, 20231 yr by Wendy

10 hours ago, j swift said:

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.

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.

37 minutes ago, Liberty City said:

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.

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

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. 

Y&R successfully shifted away from its original families. Days ought to be allowed to do the same. 

On 12/19/2023 at 3:37 AM, EdibleFlowers said:

Y&R successfully shifted away from its original families. Days ought to be allowed to do the same. 

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.

22 minutes ago, Paul Raven said:

Completely different scenario.

💯 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.

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

On 12/18/2023 at 7:33 AM, Liberty City said:

Well, if Drucker were smart

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 December 20, 20231 yr by j swift

4 hours ago, Liberty City said:

💯 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.

I was under the impression that she was on from the very first year of the show?

 

5 hours ago, j swift said:

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.

 

Jack is no more objectionable than EJ or Stefan plus he’s a hell of a lot more popular.

2 hours ago, I Am A Swede said:

I was under the impression that she was on from the very first year of the show?

 

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 December 20, 20231 yr by EdibleFlowers

2 hours ago, I Am A Swede said:

I was under the impression that she was on from the very first year of the show?

 

She was, but she did not come until November 1973 after ratings were less than impressive, and it was Cooper's casting who really made people pay attention to the soap. 😉

7 hours ago, j swift said:

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.

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!

8 hours ago, j swift said:

Jack Devereaux is objectionable for the same reason that other reformed rapists are unpopular within a modern context.

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!

8 hours ago, j swift said:

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.

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.

Recast Matt Ashford? They tried that before and it didn’t work. Cady is also a failed recast like Haiduk and DePaiva before her.

55 minutes ago, Liberty City said:

She was, but she did not come until November 1973 after ratings were less than impressive, and it was Cooper's casting who really made people pay attention to the soap. 😉

My mistake. Since the discussion was about phasing out original families for new I thought you meant that Jeanne Cooper came on when Bill Bell did that on Y&R.