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

1 hour ago, janea4old said:

Wendy, we posted at the same time, LOL.  

It's interesting to see how the Hortons of a single generation are in very different agegroups.

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!

10 hours ago, DRW50 said:

I still wonder if Sheffer just drew an old name out of a hat. They never even bothered, beyond claiming Mike was a deadbeat or abusive.

There are still Hortons who should have returned, like Sandy...and then there was Bill, although that has likely long passed (I can't remember if he's dead). Such a waste all around. 

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.

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 April 23Apr 23 by j swift

1 hour ago, j swift said:

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.

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.

37 minutes ago, DRW50 said:

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.

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 April 23Apr 23 by j swift

22 minutes ago, j swift said:

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

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 April 23Apr 23 by DRW50

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 April 23Apr 23 by j swift

15 minutes ago, j swift said:

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.

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 April 23Apr 23 by DRW50

On 4/22/2025 at 11:57 PM, janea4old said:

It's interesting to see how the Hortons of a single generation are in very different agegroups.

Right, Julie’s branch. Lol

I think in Days case bringing in Scotty Banning or Spencer Olsen would work with Julie still prominent on the canvas.

I agree that there has to be a strong story and actor for that to work. Which is the same proviso for an all new character or someone from the past.

https://x.com/soapsdotcom/status/1918252878512247265

Get an exclusive sneak preview at what's ahead as we move towards the summer on #Days, plus check out our May sweeps previews and predictions! Get it all here:https://t.co/QKmEDjZDFg

— SheKnows' Soaps (@soapsdotcom) May 2, 2025

https://soaps.sheknows.com/days-of-our-lives/news/780051/spring-preview-who-shot-ej-trial/

From soaps.com (soaps.sheknows), May 2, 2025
That website says that this info is from
their same interview with Cwikly&Ford that they had published on April 21.
That website is releasing additional details here in this May 2nd article.
(See the second post of this thread for original April 21 interview)

The focus of this new article: the plan for May 2025 and into the summer.

Omitting the website commentary; posting here only the actual spoilers:

Soaps.com asked the writers what character might have a surprising trajectory this spring.
reply from Cwikly and Ford:
“It’s impossible to pick just one,” “EJ, Xander, Philip, Leo, Sophia, Stephanie…”

As for EJ, “The ripple effects” of his shooting: “This story presented us with the perfect set-up when we took over. Half of Salem was established to have the means, motive, and opportunity. Suspects are eliminated, suspects are added, an arrest is made, all leading to a summer trial that involves and affects many characters.”
the “lovers Belle and EJ facing off in court.”

“The escalation of Xander and Philip’s war over Titan, which jeopardizes both the company and the family”

“The courtship of Alex and Stephanie that includes him encouraging her to explore a new chapter of her professional life.”

“The teens head toward graduation as Sophia heads toward her due date, delivering complications for Holly and Tate.”
_______________

Edited May 2May 2 by janea4old