|Viewing Single Post From: Episode Rankings as of 4/30/09|
|PhoenixRising05||Apr 30 2009, 09:56 AM|
Yep. And in the 90's too . Maybe it wasn't to the same extent in the 90's but still plenty of new faces were near the top then too after many familiar ones (Mary Beth Evans, Patsy Pease, Charles Shaughnessy, Crystal Chappell, etc.) left.
That is what bothers me. I can understand if you just don't like who the show is focusing on or if you miss those who have left and no longer want to watch. I just don't understand it when people act like a turnover like this has never happened before and act like this was an isolated incident. Was it unfair to do it the way they did? Yes. It should've been gradual but Corday is to blame for wanting to live in the past for far too long. However, it's just as unfair as when it was done in the 80's and 90's too and the fact that some act like it was ok to do that then just because they like Bo, Hope, John, Steve, Kayla, etc is something that really just irks me. It reflects the sense that some often give you that they believe the show should be about them and only them when it's an ensemble show. I'm sure just as many fans resented the fact that Bo, Hope, Steve, Kayla, etc were replacing people like Maggie, Mickey, Doug, Julie, etc who were shoved to the backburner or cut altogether at that time. Same goes for the 90's when characters like Peter, Kristen, Billie, Austin, Carrie, Sami, Lucas, etc came on when characters like Kim, Shane, Carly, Lawrence, etc were let go.
Eventually, the spotlight has to shift. The show can't rely on the same characters forever. No show can, especially with soaps because they are continuous. Change has to happen eventually. Sure, it can and should be handled better then the way Days did it but they've handled it just as horribly before too so this is not an isolated incident.
Edited by PhoenixRising05, Apr 30 2009, 09:56 AM.
|Episode Rankings as of 4/30/09 · DAYS: News, Spoilers & Discussion|