DAYS: Cwikly/Ford (the new writing team) interviews with spoilers

[Paul Raven]

Thanks for the more detailed lists. Why they keep saddling the younger generations with so many kids is puzzling.

[Wendy]

Yes, we did. LOL!

And yeah, it's kind of funny to think that Julie and Lucas are first cousins, as an example. But it does happen in real life!

My late father was the youngest of six, and the age gap between him and his oldest brother was just shy of 17 years, so I have first cousins much older than I am!

[1974mdp]

Plus, you could create a whole new branch of the family. We don't really know much of what happened to Tommy after all these years. His grandchildren, for example, could pop up.

[j swift]

IDK...

It gets to the point where you're recasting parts just to have the last name of Horton, and doesn't make much sense.

If we needed more professionals, like doctors and lawyers, it would be nice if they were a Horton.  But, the do-good/upper-middle-class historical family holds no promise for me without the rest of the clan.  There aren't many fascinating Hortons that I really want to know what happened to them, except Laura.  And she's both dead and a not a Horton by birth.

I would reiterate, that if you want the soap to be popular and gain new viewers, you can't live in the past and make it too unreasonable for a new viewer to jump in.  If Sandy Horton and her kids haven't been seen in a generation, I don't think she would inspire writers or viewers to re-connect with the show in 2025 as much as a good modern plot with lots of current references.

Edited Wednesday at 07:29 PM by j swift

[DRW50]

I don't think there's a need to bring back a Horton just to fill a quota but it can be done in a way that honors the past and plans for the future. It makes more sense to me than, say, bringing back Nancy and Craig's daughter just for a brief, cheap stint.

[j swift]

Nobody wants characters like Joy, but are there any current Hortons out there compelling enough to make you tune in daily?

And, it subverts the question about seeking new viewers, and how a rigid adherence to the past is often perceived as a barrier to those that didn't grow up with the show.

I'm simply wondering if it's time to reconsider the old paradigm. Instead of longing for a return to the soap era’s heyday, perhaps we should explore how revisiting the past through the lens of a new writer is rarely rewarding.  Because, to me, that's the lesson of the Carlivati era. Leave the past in the past, or you wind up with doctors thinking that they're Renee Dimera.

Allow this to be my entry into the anti Make-Soaps-Great-Again (MSMA) movement.  Honor progress, not regression.

Edited Wednesday at 09:21 PM by j swift

[DRW50]

I don't know if a few characters are enough to make someone tune into a show daily, but I do think the Horton family unit is still a strong enough framework that it can benefit the show if they don't let it rot away. Julie, for instance, even if she isn't always given the greatest material, is a bridge to the past who works with the present canvas. I'd like to see that type of framework continue if the show goes on for more than another year or two. I don't really know why characters like Melissa weren't woven in the same way, even just for guest appearances. It may be too late now, but you never know.

I don't believe bringing in members of the show's core family is regression. Regression is just bringing someone back if their story has already been told and they have nothing new to offer. 

I don't even think bringing Rachel back in of itself was a horrible idea, if they were going to keep Kristen around. They just, as often happens, made a wretched mess of the whole thing.

Edited Wednesday at 09:29 PM by DRW50

[j swift]

First, @DRW50, I want to begin by expressing my respect—I hope my tone reflects that. I’m engaging here in the spirit of thoughtful debate, and I truly value your insights.

Regarding Rachel and Renee, I see them as examples of writers attempting to revisit the past, only for the audience to find the result underwhelming. Personally, I’ve never lost sleep over Megan Hathaway’s absence. In that context, wishing for character returns often feels like a reflexive response, one that overlooks how frequently those storylines disappoint.

In other words, it’s a rare feat for a new writer to successfully right old wrongs or reframe the past in a compelling way. We might be better served by letting go of that hope. Instead, there’s rich potential in crafting a Salem that draws influence from its history without being tethered to it—contemporary, engaging, and forward-looking.

Stories about issues affecting the culture now (or 18 months ago), rather than trying to recreate a nuclear family that may not be relevant to how families live today.

This may stir another pot, but I feel similarly about characters who remain on canvas despite past misdeeds. To be specific, the writer who penned EJ’s rape storyline, and the actor who portrayed it, are no longer with the show. In a genre where recasts are standard, it seems unfair to saddle a new actor and writer with the weight of those past decisions. EJ's continued presence suggests he remains popular, and if the creative team wants to explore his story further, I think we have to allow it to evolve.

 

Edited Wednesday at 10:03 PM by j swift

[DRW50]

If it were up to me, Kristen would go as well, but I think if they are keeping her, then Rachel could have been a logical way to give her story now. She was shaped by Stefano's manipulations and by her not having Rachel in her life. And she is a mother herself, with her kids mired in the same world of lies and manipulations. Rachel was originally meant to be the antithesis of all these lies, a good person horribly mistreated. If they had stuck to that premise, then it could have led somewhere today, with Kristen questioning her life, and her choices as a parent. As it is, we just got another psycho.

I would agree there was no reason for Megan to return.

I don't have a lot of hope for new writers to know what to do with past characters or future characters, but the past will always be there, tempting. It just depends on whether they have talent and have creative freedom. Ron had the latter, never the former.

Edited Wednesday at 10:07 PM by DRW50