Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]



Hello, soap fans -- and welcome to Daytime Royalty!

For those unfamiliar, we are an uncensored community for fans and lovers of the daytime genre. We have a no-holds-barred atmosphere in regards to the shows, writers, actors etc. but we do not allow member suffering succotash in any form.

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.

Join our community!

If you're already a member, please log in to your account to access all of our features.

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Michael Fairman Interview w/ PT, GDH, and JR
Topic Started: Sep 9 2016, 01:52 PM (6,328 Views)
Jennifer1580
Member Avatar


Lovejm
Sep 9 2016, 03:24 PM
bygnedys
Sep 9 2016, 03:20 PM
George says in article "In Orpheus case, his wife was killed in an accident, but nevertheless killed by Roman AKA John" etc------

So according to George, Orpheus still thinks it Ro-John who killed her. Did they do a rewrite or are they just ignoring it?
It seems clear now they're sticking with whoever they're going to call drake as the person who killed the wife. Whether they say he was Roman at the time or agent black

It seems to me that since Drake and Deidre did this story in 86 they are doing a slight rewrite to say RoJohn killed Orpheus wife because Drake face was seen throughout that story. And if they intend to use flashbacks, which they would be fools not to with all the history they have, making Josh's Roman a part of this story would be confusing. In 86 Josh played Chris.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Lovejm


Jennifer1580
Sep 9 2016, 05:59 PM
Lovejm
Sep 9 2016, 03:24 PM
bygnedys
Sep 9 2016, 03:20 PM
George says in article "In Orpheus case, his wife was killed in an accident, but nevertheless killed by Roman AKA John" etc------

So according to George, Orpheus still thinks it Ro-John who killed her. Did they do a rewrite or are they just ignoring it?
It seems clear now they're sticking with whoever they're going to call drake as the person who killed the wife. Whether they say he was Roman at the time or agent black

It seems to me that since Drake and Deidre did this story in 86 they are doing a slight rewrite to say RoJohn killed Orpheus wife because Drake face was seen throughout that story. And if they intend to use flashbacks, which they would be fools not to with all the history they have, making Josh's Roman a part of this story would be confusing. In 86 Josh played Chris.
Yep and I'm fine with it. Leave it about John and Marlena and limit Roman on the outside
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
dooldooldool


KLK
Sep 9 2016, 02:57 PM
This sounds really good! I can see it lasting through to sweeps...
I would think so. Sweeps begin October 28. That's just 7 weeks from yesterday, or roughly 3-5 SalemDays from now. The past few sweeps have barely consisted of 2-3 SalemDays.
Edited by dooldooldool, Sep 9 2016, 08:22 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Sweet1980
Member Avatar


Restless84
Sep 9 2016, 02:09 PM
Clyde not targeting JJ is ridiculous.


That I am scratching my head! :werd:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
lancer


bygnedys
Sep 9 2016, 03:20 PM
George says in article "In Orpheus case, his wife was killed in an accident, but nevertheless killed by Roman AKA John" etc------

So according to George, Orpheus still thinks it Ro-John who killed her. Did they do a rewrite or are they just ignoring it?
Just ignoring/glossing over it would be my guess. And I have a huge problem with it. Roman was the character in Stockholm in 1979. Roman was the person who killed Orpheus' wife which was the guy's entire motivation. Sorry, I have a major problem glossing over that for convenience sake.

Chris never had a single scene with Orpheus back then. Who cares if Josh played Chris? Maybe I should say I don't. Not in the sense that it should keep Roman sidelined in a story with a villain whose single defining motivation was his hatred of Roman Brady and his desire to make him suffer.

Frankly, they just don't want to deal with the complications and explanations of John having been Roman. Fine, thing is, Orpheus is not the character you want to bring back if this is the case.

I did get a kick out of George saying he had Orpheus' death on a vhs tape.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
lysie


lancer
Sep 9 2016, 09:06 PM
bygnedys
Sep 9 2016, 03:20 PM
George says in article "In Orpheus case, his wife was killed in an accident, but nevertheless killed by Roman AKA John" etc------

So according to George, Orpheus still thinks it Ro-John who killed her. Did they do a rewrite or are they just ignoring it?
Just ignoring/glossing over it would be my guess. And I have a huge problem with it. Roman was the character in Stockholm in 1979. Roman was the person who killed Orpheus' wife which was the guy's entire motivation. Sorry, I have a major problem glossing over that for convenience sake.

Chris never had a single scene with Orpheus back then. Who cares if Josh played Chris? Maybe I should say I don't. Not in the sense that it should keep Roman sidelined in a story with a villain whose single defining motivation was his hatred of Roman Brady and his desire to make him suffer.

Frankly, they just don't want to deal with the complications and explanations of John having been Roman. Fine, thing is, Orpheus is not the character you want to bring back if this is the case.

I did get a kick out of George saying he had Orpheus' death on a vhs tape.
They still might explain it. We haven't gotten to that yet. I think they have a built in cheat here, though. They used the wrong face in those flashbacks in 1986. I think GDH calls him Roman/John because he was Roman then and is John now. I don't think that's a hint that they're not going to address it.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Lovejm


lancer
Sep 9 2016, 09:06 PM
bygnedys
Sep 9 2016, 03:20 PM
George says in article "In Orpheus case, his wife was killed in an accident, but nevertheless killed by Roman AKA John" etc------

So according to George, Orpheus still thinks it Ro-John who killed her. Did they do a rewrite or are they just ignoring it?
Just ignoring/glossing over it would be my guess. And I have a huge problem with it. Roman was the character in Stockholm in 1979. Roman was the person who killed Orpheus' wife which was the guy's entire motivation. Sorry, I have a major problem glossing over that for convenience sake.

Chris never had a single scene with Orpheus back then. Who cares if Josh played Chris? Maybe I should say I don't. Not in the sense that it should keep Roman sidelined in a story with a villain whose single defining motivation was his hatred of Roman Brady and his desire to make him suffer.

Frankly, they just don't want to deal with the complications and explanations of John having been Roman. Fine, thing is, Orpheus is not the character you want to bring back if this is the case.

I did get a kick out of George saying he had Orpheus' death on a vhs tape.
I think the reason it's 'easier' to gloss over it is because they created that 79 backstory and it never was shown on camera. We saw RoJohn and Marlena battle Orpheus on camera.

I think the other reason is they get people in general just don't care enough about JT's Roman.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
lancer


But ALL the guy's motivation is about Roman. He is only battling Drake 's character is because he thinks he is Roman. He didn't hate Marlena. She was a tool to hurt Roman.

JT is certainly my third favorite Roman, but I'm not prepared to butcher the actual history to avoid involving him.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
lysie


lancer
Sep 9 2016, 09:17 PM
But ALL the guy's motivation is about Roman. He is only battling Drake 's character is because he thinks he is Roman. He didn't hate Marlena. She was a tool to hurt Roman.

JT is certainly my third favorite Roman, but I'm not prepared to butcher the actual history to avoid involving him.
Well, my point was that maybe it turns out it wasn't Roman and he knew all along. But either way, Roman was his issue then, but after what happened in 86/87, I think it makes as much sense as possible that a crazy person might now have an issue with the people he was fighting back then, too.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Lovejm


lancer
Sep 9 2016, 09:17 PM
But ALL the guy's motivation is about Roman. He is only battling Drake 's character is because he thinks he is Roman. He didn't hate Marlena. She was a tool to hurt Roman.

JT is certainly my third favorite Roman, but I'm not prepared to butcher the actual history to avoid involving him.
The thing is we don't really know his motivation now yet. It may be that John 'killed' him and he and Marlena went on to have a happy life (eventually) while he's been rotting in jail (for whatever reason) and still without his wife
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
lancer


Nothing this show does with Canon would surprise me. But saying that wasn't Roman in Stockholm in 79 would contradict everything we were told back then which involved more than just the killing of Orpheus' wife. It involved Roman getting bo out of treason charges, working with Brittany, etc.

Again, the guy's obsession was payback for his wife's death. Who caused that. Now I could certainly see anger at John, he did shot him. But that is not an obsession.

Dehoyo mentioned seeing Orpheus' POV. The only thing I see that being about is the wife. Any ounce of sympathy we felt was about that. Whoops, forgot the children. I'll lay the ranch they aren't mentioned.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
lysie


lancer
Sep 9 2016, 09:29 PM
Nothing this show does with Canon would surprise me. But saying that wasn't Roman in Stockholm in 79 would contradict everything we were told back then which involved more than just the killing of Orpheus' wife. It involved Roman getting bo out of treason charges, working with Brittany, etc.

Again, the guy's obsession was payback for his wife's death. Who caused that. Now I could certainly see anger at John, he did shot him. But that is not an obsession.

Dehoyo mentioned seeing Orpheus' POV. The only thing I see that being about is the wife. Any ounce of sympathy we felt was about that. Whoops, forgot the children. I'll lay the ranch they aren't mentioned.
I understand what the issue was for him back then. I do think they could easily change that in a way that's not particularly harmful to the overall story. But even without that, I don't think it's a stretch that his priorities might have changed in the last 30 years.

I also doubt they'll mention the kids. That time on the island has really never been referred to since it aired.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
lancer


Well not much about him has been referred to since he died. I guess I'll need another ranch because I'll bet it that this is all about what happened back then. Nothing about something off screen since then.


Saw your point about drake's face in the flashback to the shooting. How they ever let it air like that I'll never know.
It was shot outside on a darkened street. Maybe they thought it was too dark. He had a ski cap on. They just should have shot it from behind like they did all the other flashbacks he had of Stockholm. However, you clearly hear Orpheus' voice. Look out, Roman, KGB.

I have no doubt that a cheat is involved. Not a legitimate one, though. More like the standard rewrite or glossing over history
Edited by lancer, Sep 9 2016, 09:40 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
lysie


lancer
Sep 9 2016, 09:38 PM
Well not much about him has been referred to since he died. I guess I'll need another ranch because I'll bet it that this is all about what happened back then. Nothing about something off screen since then.


Saw your point about drake's face in the flashback to the shooting. How they ever let it air like that I'll never know.
It was shot outside on a darkened street. Maybe they thought it was too dark. He had a ski cap on. They just should have shot it from behind like they did all the other flashbacks he had of Stockholm. However, you clearly hear Orpheus' voice. Look out, Roman, KGB.

I have no doubt that a cheat is involved. Not a legitimate one, though. More like the standard rewrite or glossing over history
I guess I'm confused. Who said anything about something offscreen since then? I just mean it's been 30 years, so his stance on things might be more focused on the people he interacted with last. I don't think that's a stretch at all. In fact, I think it'd be a stretch for him to feel and think identically to the way he did 30 years ago. You certainly don't have to agree, but I wasn't trying to imply something else happened. Though I guess I do think it probably has more to do with 1986 than 1979. Losing then has just made him angrier over the years (my spec).

I don't know how they aired that either. I also don't remember Orpheus ever commenting on his face being different. That was such a big part of the what was happening then that it was kind of weird for them to make that mistake and not make that reference. There were comments about his memory, but I don't think there were any about his face (and height lol) change.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
lancer


To each his own. I have zero problem with him still carrying that grudge over his wife. That is something a character like Orpheus should never get over. It's referenced in the interview. It's an emotional cancer for the character.

Presumably, they are using the character because they think some viewers will remember him from back then. You are using history. Speaking for myself, that means staying true to the character as we saw him.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
lysie


lancer
Sep 9 2016, 09:54 PM
To each his own. I have zero problem with him still carrying that grudge over his wife. That is something a character like Orpheus should never get over. It's referenced in the interview. It's an emotional cancer for the character.

Presumably, they are using the character because they think some viewers will remember him from back then. You are using history. Speaking for myself, that means staying true to the character as we saw him.
I don't have a problem with that either. I'm not sure why you think I do...
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
lancer


Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what you are saying. Read to me like you giving them more leeway than I am. I mean as far as the plausibility of them giving us can explanation that honors history.

All I'm doing is giving my opinion. People who are okay with Roman being on the outside of this story or who believe they'll have a plausible explanation for it, okay.
They have just as much right to like it as I have to dislike it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
lysie


lancer
Sep 9 2016, 10:06 PM
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what you are saying. Read to me like you giving them more leeway than I am. I mean as far as the plausibility of them giving us can explanation that honors history.

All I'm doing is giving my opinion. People who are okay with Roman being on the outside of this story or who believe they'll have a plausible explanation for it, okay.
They have just as much right to like it as I have to dislike it.
Yes. I specifically said that last part earlier.

And yes. I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying. Maybe I'm not saying it well. I AM giving them more leeway, but mostly I'm just waiting to see how the explain it or don't. We haven't gotten to that yet. I don't have a problem with him being mad at people other than Roman, though, because even though they weren't his original enemies, they became his enemies in 86. I think it would be weird if he were just like "Oh, nope. Got it wrong. Never mind, guys. Be happy. I'm gonna go after this other guy who doesn't even have a wife for me to kill in front of him."

You don't have to agree. Your responses just aren't matching what I think I'm saying, so I feel the need to keep explaining it.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ashtonion
Member Avatar
Mrs. H and Mr. B

Inara Serra
Sep 9 2016, 02:23 PM
Deverauxfan
Sep 9 2016, 01:57 PM
PT: ..... confused lust for Nicole. I'll take it at this point.


Xcole :wub2:
Confused lust over Nicole....?????

Me likey.
Days really dropped the ball on this pairing. Daniel ended up dead anyway, Eric in jail. Xcole had heat and Xander was so into her from the start. It was really nice to see Nicole being first choice. Now it seems they created Deimos, an older version of Xander, with issues with Victor and revenge on his mind and now paired him with Nicole, to which chemistry is non-existent, at least to me. Well, Days, the first try stuck and that was Nicole and Xander. I hate wasted potential. Good God didn't they see that man walking around shirtless. You snag that man up. :shrug:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
lancer


I have zero problem with him being mad at John, the guy shot him. Marlena did nothing but be his captive. Yet on his first show back he is calling her the person he hates most in the world. Sorry, that doesn't exactly inspire confidence in the writers.

Steve and Kayla were no doubt contributors to foiling his plan in Stockholm. Clearly didn't anger him enough to have a scene with either after they left Stockholm.

To clarify my position, I can certainly buy him seeking some sort of revenge on John, Steve and Kayla, but certainly not leaving Roman out of the equation. That is a different level of hatred. Visceral, an obsession.

The interview listed the people he is going after. I don't see Roman and I don't buy that they will give me a satisfactory explanation for why not. Just continuing to act like John was the one who shot his wife( the motivation for the character's raison d'etre,if you will) is not a satisfactory explanation, IMO.

Let's see what happens. I don't think they will outright retcon anything. None of Orpheus' anger will be about anything that happened offscreen since 1987. I mean against the parties involved. I don't think they will do a region of John shot the woman , not Roman. Maybe just act like John still did it without referencing that they used to think he was Roman or that roman had been the person in Stockholm. More just gloss over it than retcon it.

Anything Days related that involves John Black and history usually does not end in anything that honors Canon.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
DealsFor.me - The best sales, coupons, and discounts for you
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · DAYS: News, Spoilers & Discussion · Next Topic »
Add Reply