Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]



Viewing Single Post From: DAYS:Dena Higley blog 10/28
Flying Monkey
Member Avatar


PhoenixRising05
Oct 30 2008, 12:10 AM
I wasn't going to respond because we've been down this road before (and you only seem to appear when discussions like this surface) but I figured I should respond.



I appear elsewhere you just havenít noticed. Am I required to make a certain number of posts or types of posts before I can disagree with someone and state an opposing view?

Quote:
 
The "shit" I'm referring too is what goes on now. The constant picking apart of everything. The sense of "entitlement" I talked about, among other things. My point is that if the Internet was around and everything was the way it was now in the 90's, everything back then would've never been looked at as great as it is now. Why? Because fans would know more. Fans would have the Internet and the same issues that exist now would exist then. I look back on that era now and find alot wrong with it that I didn't the first time. Why? Because I know more. Thanks to the internet and other sources. I look at things through a more critical eye rather then just getting lost in the entertainment of it all.


Well Iíve been lurking around the net since around í95 and reading the mags since the early Ď80ís (since R&M ushered in the supercouple era) and guess what, people complained and people picked the show apart then too. The difference between then and now is that there wasnít nearly as much to pick at, unlike today. The fans donít have to know more than what they see on their screens to make up their minds about things. What is it that you know now that you didnít know then thatís change your opinion of the era? I canít fathom what you could have possibly discovered that would make you change your mind so long after the fact. You say you look at things with a more critical eye then why do you continually complain when people pick things apart with a critical eye?

Quote:
 
Now I'm not a fan of Corday. I can't stand him and his constant interference but even I can admit he did nothing wrong in the 90's. He stayed out of it. He had to. Langan and Reilly had a nice working relationship and the show was up in ratings in a time when other soaps had difficulty doing that. Not sure why you are bringing up Ted Corday. Ken has control at the time you mentioned and while ratings were down for the late 80's and early on in the 90's but fans loved the show (afterall, that was during the supercouple era).


Youíre right he stayed out of things during the late '80's and early Ď90ís, but he most certainly didnít have to. Things were running smoothly and so Ken could kick back and rake in the money without having to do anything. It wasnít until Reilly quit that Corday was forced to take an active hand in the show and thatís when it all began to unravel.

Quote:
 
He also oversaw the great ratings upturn of the 90's and he also was the one who promoted B&C, who helped bring the numbers up and bring the show critical and fan acclaim after Langan's reign. He has done more wrong then right in the past ten years but before that it was the other way around for the most part.


There was no ďgreat ratings upturnĒ of the Ď90ís. The ratings stayed pretty consistent throughout all of the Ď90ís. Same with B&Cís tenure, the ratings did not go up, they went down a little and then were consistent. Funny I donít remember critical or fan acclaim for their year at the helm, if the critics and the fans were so enamored with them then why were they fired. And I won't accept that a handful of rabid fans pulled that one off.

Quote:
 
So, you really didn't refute my theory. I'm talking about what happened after JER left. From 1998 and on is what I'm talking about. All the dropped stories and all the changing of gears over the past decade, especially in the last 5 years. I mean, how can it be disputed that Corday listened to fans when Zack's paternity was completely re-wrote because J&M and Bope fans were upset despite how much dramatic potential the story had.


Okay, weíll use this time frame now. Days certainly didnít start then stop Jope. That story began just as Reilly was on his way out and lasted for nearly four years. So let me see if I have this straight. For four torturous years J&M fans and Bope fans just sat idly by while all this transpired without a word. Then on a whim they decide to up and complain about Zackís paternity and were immediately heard and suddenly catered to. Um, I donít think so. That was simply a case of a new head writer realizing and trying to right a wrong. If Days listened to and catered to those fans you mention then Jope would have ended as soon as it was begun and would not have dragged on for four years.

Quote:
 
That is just one example. What about Jate, John/Ava, Hope/Patrick, Steve/Billie and his brainwashing story, etc? Now, I'm not saying those stories wou;would've been successful if they were allowed to continue and they are not the only examples. They are just the ones off the top of my head. The issue is they were never given a chance because the show panicked due to fanbase response and dropped it. It's all part of a trend that has only gotten worse in the past few years where the show doesn't stick with anything because it panics everytime a fanbase gets upset. It all goes back to the mentality of trying to please everyone, which is impossible.


If Days were so easily spooked by fan base reaction they would never have attempted those stories in the first place. You donít know that those stories were stopped by fan base response. The more likely culprit in all of this are the writers themselves and their inability to plot and carry out a storyline start to finish. Trying to please everyone is a fairly recent development and isnít that something youíre constantly going on about? Giving everyone their chance in the spotlight, theyíre chance to ďshineĒ? No matter how or insignificant or unpopular the character is with the majority of the audience?

Quote:
 
First off, again look back at my posts. Again, I'm not saying that EVERY fanbase or person in them is all bad. I'm not saying that at all and, as I said, TPTB are primarily to blame as they created alot of this mess. I'm not going to point the finger at any particular fanbase. That isn't right. Also, I should say most fans are fickle in general nowadays. Even I am LOL. My point is the fanbase issue IN GENERAL has grown into a massive problem.


I merely asked a question about the veiled statement that you made. You do say that the TBTP are to blame for listening to and catering to fan bases, ultimately making said fan bases the bad guy in all this. I think the reverse is true, TPTB are to blame for not listening to and attempting to cater to the majority of the fans.

Quote:
 
Again, your reflecting the mentality that it's all about a few characters for the show and not about balance. Any character can be given lead material and I believe everyone should have their turn in the spotlight. Of course, some should be in the spotlight more but limiting certain characters to lead or supporting is IMO disrespectful to fans of those characters and the actors that play them.


Again, youíre reflecting the mentality that this is like little league where everyone gets the chance to play. Trying to please everyone rather than the majority, the very thing you claim is ruining the show. I donít consider it being disrespectful in the least especially since I am a fan of several supporting characters. Itís simply a reality.

Quote:
 
Soaps are ensembles, meaning no one character or characters are more important, just like no one fanbase or fan is more important then the other. Of course, I'm one who believes the show needed to pass the torch and stop relying on the same couples years ago, just like it did in the 80's when couples like Doug and Julie were pushed to the background for the couples who are big today. As I often ask, how do you think those fans felt having their couples pushed to the back for characters who were "newbies?"


That sounds to me like more of the ďtrying to please everyoneĒ mentality again. Besides ensemble meaning a united group performance it also means a cast other than the principals. In case you havenít noticed Days has been ďpassing the torchĒ for close to ten years now, starting with the Langan era and thatís is primarily the reason the show is where it is today. When Doug and Julie were pushed into the background, the fans didnít seem to mind (myself included) unlike the fans of ďother couplesĒ who do mind, very much (again myself included).

Quote:
 
As for the ratings, they are what they are so any increase, particularly in demos which are all the rage again it seems, is positive. Your not going to see soaps back where they were so what Days is doing is a success, if only a minimal one. I agree the stories lacked direction in spring and summer but now? Nope. The double pregnancy drama has direction. Kate's story has direction. The Trent murder story has direction. Again, still work to be done but alot better then where the show was a few months ago. I feel alot of what your saying is dictated by what characters are on the frontburner right now, which is fine. I can understand that reasoning. Oh, and back to stories being dropped and lacking direction, alot of that was Higley/Scott backstage related but, as I said, that goes back to Corday panicking too much.


I wouldnít put much stock in a small rise in a fickle demo group. Here today, gone tomorrow and weíre left with the fallout. You can consider if a victory if youíd like, but itís hollow and meaningless in the grand scheme of things. I would also disagree that now magically the stories have direction, all I see is more of the same. The Trent murder story is all over the board, just like all the other stories currently being featured. Centered around a host new characters and relatively new characters that the audience doesnít give two shits about.

I wonít go as far as to solely blame Higley for the starting and stopping and changing horses in midstream. Thatís a phenomenon was started back during Langanís reign of terror and has continued through to this day. Some worse than others.

Quote:
 
Well, I won't deny he's a liar but the constant need to reassure fans is because he worries about losing any fan or fanbase. I think I've made the statement enough in my posts as to my thinking on why he does that and I wish he wouldn't. Talk about making it hard to invest. Giving away the endgame of a story. Now that is dumb.


I have no idea what youíre referring to about being hard to invest and giving away the endgame of a story.


Quote:
 
I won't quote you on this but as for Higley's blog, I understand what you and others are saying but if you don't like that aspect of her blog, just skip it. I mean, if you just skim it and pick out the parts that interest you, there wouldn't be an issue. I see this as no different then actors who have personal blogs, particularly actors who have blogs on NBC's site. Ali Sweeney, James Scott, and Deidre Hall all have blogs on that site. Stephen Nichols once did. They all wrote more about their personal lives then they did topics that were show-related. Everyone in the business who has a blog does that. They can't give away things in the blog. They have to be careful.


Trust me, I do skip it. Actors blogs are different from a writers blog. People are interested in the actors and in their personal lives because they are on our screens. I do not believe that many people are interested in what Higleyís kids are doing, or what the key grip or best boy had for dinner last night. Why isnít Higleyís blog on the NBC site if itís just supposed to be fluff like all the rest? And I havenít seen anyone demanding or even implying that she should give away anything in her blog.

Quote:
 
Dena probably is told what she can and can't say and she seems to be listening in that she is talking a bit about the show. Part of the purpose is for us to get to know her, just like the actors want us to get to know them via their blogs. It forms a connection. If your not interested, that is fine but that is one of the purposes of her blog and she can't spill too much about the show so she has to write about something. I will agree she could focus a bit on how she writes and the process she goes through. That would be nice to see but, other then that, she can't really give out spoilers or too many specifics.


Of course actors/writers are limited in what they can and cannot say about the show thatís ancient news. Everyone has always been interested in the actors and their lives. Caring about a writer in that way is a wholly new paradox. No one clamors to know about writers, most people donít even know their names because the audience doesnít care about them in the same way they do about actors. I donít need to connect to who Higley is, I only need to connect with what she writes and I canít. Perhaps she feels if she can elicit enough sympathy the audience about her personal life they wonít be so critical of her writing and again she would be barking up the wrong tree. Again I donít think that anyone is suggesting that she ďgive awayĒ anything or reveal too many specifics.

Lastly, I know that Ted Corday passed away and I also know that Betty Corday staunchly maintained that she was following Tedís bible, his plans, his methods, his visions, making them essentially one in the same.


Offline Profile Quote Post
DAYS:Dena Higley blog 10/28 · DAYS: News, Spoilers & Discussion