Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]

Viewing Single Post From: Ed Scott speaks to Michael Logan
Member Avatar

Aug 23 2008, 01:48 PM
I wish people wouldn't say, "[So and so] suits Days better than [so and so]." Days should NOT be campy. The classic Days wasn't. The '80s Days was, but it was still basically grounded and not as outlandish as GH or OLTL from the same years (maybe Gene and Calliope were as out there and unrealistic as it got). You know what I think would suit Days better? Stark realism and edgy stories barely air-able on a '00s soap. No, I'm not suggesting that it become a neutered HBO/Showtime clone, but hell, even Peter Reckell thinks it should be realistic and daring. I'm afraid the show is gonna continue to milk the '80s and '90s even though their tits are rotting off.
Well, the sad truth is some people ARE better suited.

Just look at the last two years. When Hogan joined, there was much debate about how his style was not Days-like. Yes, he could do camp but there was much more emphasis on characters driving story. The debates only increased once his material hit screen. Just look at last Fall. Hogan started camping things up a bit with Andre and the Vendetta story and only then did he seem to win over more fans. Up until that point, people either appreciated what Hogan had to offer or hated it all together and found themselves bored.

Ed Scott wanted to further take Days in the character-driven direction and many were still resistant. Just look at what happens in preview and spoiler threads. Whenever a story comes up pertaining to something like autism or Bo and Hope having a story where Bo's pride takes a hit because Hope got promoted over him and is now his superior at work, many say that isn't Days-like. I've seen that alot in the past few years and that is because Days usually mixed those stories in amongst camp and more plot-driven elements. My feeling has always been you have to mix up all storytelling elements to please the most fans. Days needs to have a mix of character-driven/realism, plot-driven, camp, etc. It needs to try to mesh it all together. It can't be one way or another. We've seen that in recent years. You always piss a large percentage of fans off. I think the additions of Tomlin and Whitesell can help that because I really do think fans miss the camp, whether they know it or not. They miss the Days of the 80's and 90's. You just have to look at the responses on the boards since 2006. It's clear. I, personally, want character-driven but strictly being that is clearly not good for the show. Too many are resistant to it. Days can't be Y&R. I've heard many say that of late too.

I also think anyone that thinks Days was mostly character-driven in the 80's and 90's needs to go back and watch those periods. Yes, it's subjective but you mean to tell me stories that include prisms, quicksand, a character called 'The Pawn," many characters being at the mercy of a maniac (Ernesto) who enjoys magic tricks and had holograms appearing all over an island and then suspended a woman over a vat of acid in a cage (keep in mind this story is considered by many to be one of the best in Days history), etc. I won't even get into JER's first run because we all know how campy and plot-driven much of that was. The thing is you had plot driven and character-driven elements along with camp and realism. Things remained grounded so it was ok. Once things are no longer grounded, things go bad. That is what happened with JER's second stint and I also think SSM went to nuts with the sci-fi. It would've been ok in moderation but she used brain chips and tooth implants too much.

I think if Tomlin and Whitesell can bring the elements I mentioned above together, Days may have a good shot at pleasing more fans. Judging by the boards and the responses of people around me that watch, that seems to be the right way to go in terms of pleasing the most people. I would love nothing more then to see nothing but character-driven but, whatever is good for the show is good for me.

Oh, and about Scott, I understand why he said what he said. He's taking the high road and it's to make himself look good. He's also protecting his own ass. I think many of us would do this. I know I would. It's all about survival and in today's world, and especially in the cutthroat nature of Hollywood, you have to do whatever it takes to get by, even if that means feeding the press BS and covering up some of what happened. I wouldn't blame him for letting loose and bashing the hell out of Higley and Corday and whoever else but he may burn too many bridges and come off looking bad. It doesn't seem like him to do something like that. He's a classy and smart guy. I think he knows what info has leaked out and how many view Higley. He doesn't really need to say anything. I think he realizes many know what she really is already.
Offline Profile Quote Post
Ed Scott speaks to Michael Logan · General Daytime News