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 bashing 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
DAYS:Big Nicole spoiler *UPDATED*; from CDN TV Guide
Topic Started: Sep 12 2008, 10:06 PM (9,648 Views)
LorrieOw
Member Avatar


This is just my opinion, but I don't get what the big deal is. I enjoy almost all of the characters on the show, I like Nicole, I like Dan, I like Melanie, and I even enjoy the chracter of Trent, and I enjoyed Ava. I haven't always enjoyed the writing for all of the chracters, but I am glad to see new blood to the show, it keeps the show and the main characters new and fresh, and if written corectly, give a new direction and something for the core cast to play against.

All in all I feel the show is slowly getting better, and in my opinion, a lot of the credit goes to some of the "new" chracters, for bringing a new fresh vibrancy to the people they interact with. One point is Melanie. i was really tired of the Max/Steph love affair, but the introduction Melanie has made them enjoyable, and haw brought BB back into a s/l.

I like Nicole's character, feel she brings a lightness to the role, and is fun to watch with others.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
PhoenixRising05
Member Avatar
GET EM STEPH!!

Ellie
Sep 16 2008, 10:34 PM
PhoenixRising05
Sep 16 2008, 10:17 PM
It's not like they are taking Melanie and making her a lead.
But according to your argument, why would it be a problem if they did?
Because she just started. Nicole didn't. Lexie didn't. Kate didn't. I could go on but I won't. Characters who have been on for 5 years or more I think can be pushed as a lead in a story. I think after 5 years you can figure a character is ready for it and that the audience is comfortable with it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
PhoenixRising05
Member Avatar
GET EM STEPH!!

LorrieOw
Sep 16 2008, 10:45 PM
This is just my opinion, but I don't get what the big deal is. I enjoy almost all of the characters on the show, I like Nicole, I like Dan, I like Melanie, and I even enjoy the chracter of Trent, and I enjoyed Ava. I haven't always enjoyed the writing for all of the chracters, but I am glad to see new blood to the show, it keeps the show and the main characters new and fresh, and if written corectly, give a new direction and something for the core cast to play against.

All in all I feel the show is slowly getting better, and in my opinion, a lot of the credit goes to some of the "new" chracters, for bringing a new fresh vibrancy to the people they interact with. One point is Melanie. i was really tired of the Max/Steph love affair, but the introduction Melanie has made them enjoyable, and haw brought BB back into a s/l.

I like Nicole's character, feel she brings a lightness to the role, and is fun to watch with others.
Could not possibly agree more.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ellie


PhoenixRising05
Sep 16 2008, 10:48 PM
Ellie
Sep 16 2008, 10:34 PM
PhoenixRising05
Sep 16 2008, 10:17 PM
It's not like they are taking Melanie and making her a lead.
But according to your argument, why would it be a problem if they did?
Because she just started. Nicole didn't. Lexie didn't. Kate didn't. I could go on but I won't. Characters who have been on for 5 years or more I think can be pushed as a lead in a story. I think after 5 years you can figure a character is ready for it and that the audience is comfortable with it.
Ok thanks - we'll have to agree to completely disagree (on both your posts, lol). I do not think having a character on x number of years makes the audience comfortable with him/her as a lead, nor do I think it makes the actor or actress ready for that role.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
PhoenixRising05
Member Avatar
GET EM STEPH!!

Ellie
Sep 16 2008, 10:54 PM
PhoenixRising05
Sep 16 2008, 10:48 PM
Ellie
Sep 16 2008, 10:34 PM
PhoenixRising05
Sep 16 2008, 10:17 PM
It's not like they are taking Melanie and making her a lead.
But according to your argument, why would it be a problem if they did?
Because she just started. Nicole didn't. Lexie didn't. Kate didn't. I could go on but I won't. Characters who have been on for 5 years or more I think can be pushed as a lead in a story. I think after 5 years you can figure a character is ready for it and that the audience is comfortable with it.
Ok thanks - we'll have to agree to completely disagree (on both your posts, lol). I do not think having a character on x number of years makes the audience comfortable with him/her as a lead, nor do I think it makes the actor or actress ready for that role.
Ellie, perhaps what we disagree because I'm looking at this differently.

I think characters can fluctuate between lead and supporting depending on the story. For instance, say J&M lead a story for 6 months and then they are a part of a Bope story in the 6 months after that. They are lead but also go supporting when needed. What I'm saying is that some fans just refuse to let other characters lead even a story. I don't think the same characters have to always lead story. Let someone else have a chance once in awhile. It's refreshing to do that. If Bo and Hope lead story for 6 months, let them be supporting for awhile after that. Don't bombard us with the same characters consistently being lead nonstop. That is the issue with Days and why when characters like Abe and Lexie do lead a story, fans aren't ok with it. If Abe and Lexie were allowed to lead a story once in awhile, fans would be more receptive. Abe and Lexie were only allowed to lead one story and that was the baby switch but even in that story Lexie led and Abe was supporting.

I guess what I'm saying is balance it out. Characters like Sami, Nicole, Abe, EJ, Lexie, Kate, etc can lead a STORY. Can they lead a show? Probably not, at least not all of them. Yes, characters like Bo, Hope, John, and Marlena can lead a show, mostly because they are widely accepted by fans. However, to have them always lead and always get the big story is doing a disservice to the other characters and their fans and doing a major disservice to the show because other characters need to be allowed to grow and the only way they can is if they lead a story once in awhile. That way they grow and fans can get used to seeing the more.

I just wanted to clarify my position. We probably will still agree to disagree though LOL.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ellie


^^ Thanks for clarifying. I do agree with you on much of that. However, I still think that Higley is making a mistake in making Nicole (who again, I like) into an infallible character who is the star of the entire show, while the lead characters are all being dumbed down and relegated to supporting roles. I don't see this as a 'fanbase' issue at all (and as we have discussed here many times, I don't agree that whatsoever that fanbases are bad for the show or that members of fanbases are "selfish".) Each viewer has characters they gravitate towards. Some characters are more popular than others, but even so, when virtually every viewer sees his or her favorite character turn into a different person, and when these characters are hardly on, I think it affects the ratings and the show as a whole. Higley is doing just that. Almost every character, except Nicole, has changed during Higley's current run. Characters who were once on most of the time are now in the background. Instead of rotating people in and out gradually as you suggest, Higley has turned the entire show upside down.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
PhoenixRising05
Member Avatar
GET EM STEPH!!

Ellie
Sep 16 2008, 11:50 PM
^^ Thanks for clarifying. I do agree with you on much of that. However, I still think that Higley is making a mistake in making Nicole (who again, I like) into an infallible character who is the star of the entire show, while the lead characters are all being dumbed down and relegated to supporting roles. I don't see this as a 'fanbase' issue at all (and as we have discussed here many times, I don't agree that whatsoever that fanbases are bad for the show or that members of fanbases are "selfish".) Each viewer has characters they gravitate towards. Some characters are more popular than others, but even so, when virtually every viewer sees his or her favorite character turn into a different person, and when these characters are hardly on, I think it affects the ratings and the show as a whole. Higley is doing just that. Almost every character, except Nicole, has changed during Higley's current run. Characters who were once on most of the time are now in the background. Instead of rotating people in and out gradually as you suggest, Higley has turned the entire show upside down.
Ellie, I'm not saying every fan in a fanbase is "selfish." Some are. I was just generalizing.

I'm afraid I feel like we are watching a different show, particularly right now. Many have said how improved the show has gotten of late. I think the only characters who have changed over Higley's run AT TIMES are Marlena and Sami and right now they are both very much in character IMO. I don't think anyone else has been changed at all. I also think the show is incredibly balanced, especially right now. Just look at the episode counts for this year and the ones for this month are looking to be good. Yes, May and June were a little skewed toward Sami, Lucas, EJ, etc but every other month this year has been very balanced and led by the vets.

As for Higley not doing what I suggested gradually, I won't pin that on her because Corday is probably too afraid to do that the way SOME fans are. It's a shame because if the show did that, they would be alot more better off.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ladyofthelake
Member Avatar
Professor-in-training

PhoenixRising05
Sep 16 2008, 10:17 PM
I don't care if the character just returned. She was only gone for two damn years, if that. She was with the show for 8 years. More importantly she was recently with the show so she is familiar to most of the audience still watching the show. The actress can act circles around many in the cast. She has chemistry with everyone and has no core ties, meaning you can put her almost anywhere and not have to worry about incest or shit like that.

It's not like they are taking Melanie and making her a lead. Nicole is ready and if the actress can handle it and the character is worthy, it doesn't matter. The story potential is there and that is what matters. This is a daytime drama. It's an ensemble. Lead characters can lead a story but so can supporting characters. No character should be relegated permanently to lead or supporting. A character can lead at one time and support the next. That is the way it should be and the way it was accepted for a long time until the last decade. Now, primarily with Days, only certain characters are permitted by many fans to lead. Well, let's turn this around, how would J&M fans like it if J&M were relegated to supporting in the 80's and never allowed to lead a story? How about the Bo and Hope fans? Or the Steve and Kayla fans? How do you think the Mickey/Maggie, Doug/Julie, etc fans felt when their couples were shoved off the frontburner in favor of the current supercouples? How do you think fans of Abe/Lexie and other "supporting" couples or characters feel knowing their faves will never be able to lead story for long since fanbases will likely force Corday's hand? How fair is that? Simple. It's not. Some characters are more important then others for sure and some will drive more story then others but putting a permanent label on characters is not only unfair IMO but a major slap in the face to the actors who play these "supporting" characters and do their best in every scene.

This is a daytime drama. And ENSEMBLE. It's not the damn supercouple hour or whatever pleases this fanbase or that. It's this kind of fan selfishness that is just as much a part of why the show is a mess as Higley, Corday, and what have you. Just once I would like to see each fanbase put aside their differences and make their case for what is best for the whole show. By that I mean present ideas for other character and couples and not just who you like. It's time many start recognizing that what one person or group wants is not the same for everyone.

Oh, Tim, I can bow to you again! :D :hail: :hail:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ladyofthelake
Member Avatar
Professor-in-training

Ellie
Sep 16 2008, 10:54 PM
PhoenixRising05
Sep 16 2008, 10:48 PM
Ellie
Sep 16 2008, 10:34 PM
PhoenixRising05
Sep 16 2008, 10:17 PM
It's not like they are taking Melanie and making her a lead.
But according to your argument, why would it be a problem if they did?
Because she just started. Nicole didn't. Lexie didn't. Kate didn't. I could go on but I won't. Characters who have been on for 5 years or more I think can be pushed as a lead in a story. I think after 5 years you can figure a character is ready for it and that the audience is comfortable with it.
Ok thanks - we'll have to agree to completely disagree (on both your posts, lol). I do not think having a character on x number of years makes the audience comfortable with him/her as a lead, nor do I think it makes the actor or actress ready for that role.
But, it's not like Ari/Nicole is getting a TON of negative backlash, at least on the boards. (And I know that's not a good measurement, but it's one we use). It's not like Chan, a couple that had quite a few people and columnists protesting against them. Nicole's stories and Ari's acting, in general, seem to be getting some good reviews. It doesn't seem like TPTB's are forcing her on us, despite "public" backlash.
I can't speak for the letters coming in, but frankly, it's refreshing to see someone different get the spotlight for once. And Nicole's got SO much garbage that can be fodder for a ton of terrific stories, in the right hands.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cjknick
Member Avatar


I don't know if anyone mentioned it on this thread or not but it is being suggested on many other boards that perhaps it is just another one of Nicole's dream sequences...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Sindacco
Member Avatar


PhoenixRising05
Sep 16 2008, 10:17 PM
Well, let's turn this around, how would J&M fans like it if J&M were relegated to supporting in the 80's and never allowed to lead a story? How about the Bo and Hope fans? Or the Steve and Kayla fans? How do you think the Mickey/Maggie, Doug/Julie, etc fans felt when their couples were shoved off the frontburner in favor of the current supercouples? How do you think fans of Abe/Lexie and other "supporting" couples or characters feel knowing their faves will never be able to lead story for long since fanbases will likely force Corday's hand? How fair is that? Simple. It's not. Some characters are more important then others for sure and some will drive more story then others but putting a permanent label on characters is not only unfair IMO but a major slap in the face to the actors who play these "supporting" characters and do their best in every scene.

Exactly but they think all of that was okey because it happened in the precious 80s.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ellie


ladyofthelake
Sep 17 2008, 06:12 AM
Ellie
Sep 16 2008, 10:54 PM
PhoenixRising05
Sep 16 2008, 10:48 PM
Ellie
Sep 16 2008, 10:34 PM
PhoenixRising05
Sep 16 2008, 10:17 PM
It's not like they are taking Melanie and making her a lead.
But according to your argument, why would it be a problem if they did?
Because she just started. Nicole didn't. Lexie didn't. Kate didn't. I could go on but I won't. Characters who have been on for 5 years or more I think can be pushed as a lead in a story. I think after 5 years you can figure a character is ready for it and that the audience is comfortable with it.
Ok thanks - we'll have to agree to completely disagree (on both your posts, lol). I do not think having a character on x number of years makes the audience comfortable with him/her as a lead, nor do I think it makes the actor or actress ready for that role.
But, it's not like Ari/Nicole is getting a TON of negative backlash, at least on the boards. (And I know that's not a good measurement, but it's one we use). It's not like Chan, a couple that had quite a few people and columnists protesting against them. Nicole's stories and Ari's acting, in general, seem to be getting some good reviews. It doesn't seem like TPTB's are forcing her on us, despite "public" backlash.
I can't speak for the letters coming in, but frankly, it's refreshing to see someone different get the spotlight for once. And Nicole's got SO much garbage that can be fodder for a ton of terrific stories, in the right hands.
I think my answer to this post and to Tim's post that he and I are watching different shows would be the same, which is that yes, Nicole has gotten a positive reception, but in terms of my watching a 'different show' than Tim, the show I'm watching is unfortunately doing poorly in the ratings and seems to be in danger of cancellation. Why is that? I'm suggesting that one reason (and perhaps I didn't explain myself clearly) is not that Nicole has increased screen time, but that she seems to be the lead of the entire show lately, while the other (former) leads are playing characters which are unrecognizable, and that most of them are background characters at this point. Filling the show with characters like Nicole (and actresses like Ari) would definitely be a positive in my book. But instead, Higley has created only one such character, seemingly at the expense of the other characters.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jane1978


PhoenixRising05
Sep 16 2008, 10:17 PM
I don't care if the character just returned. She was only gone for two damn years, if that. She was with the show for 8 years. More importantly she was recently with the show so she is familiar to most of the audience still watching the show. The actress can act circles around many in the cast. She has chemistry with everyone and has no core ties, meaning you can put her almost anywhere and not have to worry about incest or shit like that.

It's not like they are taking Melanie and making her a lead. Nicole is ready and if the actress can handle it and the character is worthy, it doesn't matter. The story potential is there and that is what matters. This is a daytime drama. It's an ensemble. Lead characters can lead a story but so can supporting characters. No character should be relegated permanently to lead or supporting. A character can lead at one time and support the next. That is the way it should be and the way it was accepted for a long time until the last decade. Now, primarily with Days, only certain characters are permitted by many fans to lead. Well, let's turn this around, how would J&M fans like it if J&M were relegated to supporting in the 80's and never allowed to lead a story? How about the Bo and Hope fans? Or the Steve and Kayla fans? How do you think the Mickey/Maggie, Doug/Julie, etc fans felt when their couples were shoved off the frontburner in favor of the current supercouples? How do you think fans of Abe/Lexie and other "supporting" couples or characters feel knowing their faves will never be able to lead story for long since fanbases will likely force Corday's hand? How fair is that? Simple. It's not. Some characters are more important then others for sure and some will drive more story then others but putting a permanent label on characters is not only unfair IMO but a major slap in the face to the actors who play these "supporting" characters and do their best in every scene.

This is a daytime drama. And ENSEMBLE. It's not the damn supercouple hour or whatever pleases this fanbase or that. It's this kind of fan selfishness that is just as much a part of why the show is a mess as Higley, Corday, and what have you. Just once I would like to see each fanbase put aside their differences and make their case for what is best for the whole show. By that I mean present ideas for other character and couples and not just who you like. It's time many start recognizing that what one person or group wants is not the same for everyone.

Great post! Characters are evolving in time and with the different writers. When writer gets a character he can make him perfectly enjoyable, loved by everyone and put in the lead, while a different writer can take the same character and in a few months turn him into a hated, annoying bore. Higley gets Nicol so Iīm not complaining when she is giving her more space. Ari certainly deserves that.

As for the Sami/Nicol debate, Ali is half gone from the show right now, her taping schedule is limited and she will be gone completely soon for her maternity leave. The show will have to adress it anyway so no wonder they are focusing more on Ejole than Ejami. And letīs face it. Sami was everyone fan favorite when she was bad and scheming black sheap of Bradyīs, but her transition into the lead and heroine really didnīt work well and both her and the writers are struggling with the new Sami. I think a lot of people will not mind at all if she takes a pause for a few months.



Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
PhoenixRising05
Member Avatar
GET EM STEPH!!

jane1978
Sep 17 2008, 01:12 PM
PhoenixRising05
Sep 16 2008, 10:17 PM
I don't care if the character just returned. She was only gone for two damn years, if that. She was with the show for 8 years. More importantly she was recently with the show so she is familiar to most of the audience still watching the show. The actress can act circles around many in the cast. She has chemistry with everyone and has no core ties, meaning you can put her almost anywhere and not have to worry about incest or shit like that.

It's not like they are taking Melanie and making her a lead. Nicole is ready and if the actress can handle it and the character is worthy, it doesn't matter. The story potential is there and that is what matters. This is a daytime drama. It's an ensemble. Lead characters can lead a story but so can supporting characters. No character should be relegated permanently to lead or supporting. A character can lead at one time and support the next. That is the way it should be and the way it was accepted for a long time until the last decade. Now, primarily with Days, only certain characters are permitted by many fans to lead. Well, let's turn this around, how would J&M fans like it if J&M were relegated to supporting in the 80's and never allowed to lead a story? How about the Bo and Hope fans? Or the Steve and Kayla fans? How do you think the Mickey/Maggie, Doug/Julie, etc fans felt when their couples were shoved off the frontburner in favor of the current supercouples? How do you think fans of Abe/Lexie and other "supporting" couples or characters feel knowing their faves will never be able to lead story for long since fanbases will likely force Corday's hand? How fair is that? Simple. It's not. Some characters are more important then others for sure and some will drive more story then others but putting a permanent label on characters is not only unfair IMO but a major slap in the face to the actors who play these "supporting" characters and do their best in every scene.

This is a daytime drama. And ENSEMBLE. It's not the damn supercouple hour or whatever pleases this fanbase or that. It's this kind of fan selfishness that is just as much a part of why the show is a mess as Higley, Corday, and what have you. Just once I would like to see each fanbase put aside their differences and make their case for what is best for the whole show. By that I mean present ideas for other character and couples and not just who you like. It's time many start recognizing that what one person or group wants is not the same for everyone.

Great post! Characters are evolving in time and with the different writers. When writer gets a character he can make him perfectly enjoyable, loved by everyone and put in the lead, while a different writer can take the same character and in a few months turn him into a hated, annoying bore. Higley gets Nicol so Iīm not complaining when she is giving her more space. Ari certainly deserves that.

As for the Sami/Nicol debate, Ali is half gone from the show right now, her taping schedule is limited and she will be gone completely soon for her maternity leave. The show will have to adress it anyway so no wonder they are focusing more on Ejole than Ejami. And letīs face it. Sami was everyone fan favorite when she was bad and scheming black sheap of Bradyīs, but her transition into the lead and heroine really didnīt work well and both her and the writers are struggling with the new Sami. I think a lot of people will not mind at all if she takes a pause for a few months.



Exactly. Brilliant post, jane :hail: .
Edited by PhoenixRising05, Sep 17 2008, 03:21 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ladyofthelake
Member Avatar
Professor-in-training

Ellie
Sep 17 2008, 10:01 AM
ladyofthelake
Sep 17 2008, 06:12 AM
Ellie
Sep 16 2008, 10:54 PM
PhoenixRising05
Sep 16 2008, 10:48 PM
Ellie
Sep 16 2008, 10:34 PM
PhoenixRising05
Sep 16 2008, 10:17 PM
It's not like they are taking Melanie and making her a lead.
But according to your argument, why would it be a problem if they did?
Because she just started. Nicole didn't. Lexie didn't. Kate didn't. I could go on but I won't. Characters who have been on for 5 years or more I think can be pushed as a lead in a story. I think after 5 years you can figure a character is ready for it and that the audience is comfortable with it.
Ok thanks - we'll have to agree to completely disagree (on both your posts, lol). I do not think having a character on x number of years makes the audience comfortable with him/her as a lead, nor do I think it makes the actor or actress ready for that role.
But, it's not like Ari/Nicole is getting a TON of negative backlash, at least on the boards. (And I know that's not a good measurement, but it's one we use). It's not like Chan, a couple that had quite a few people and columnists protesting against them. Nicole's stories and Ari's acting, in general, seem to be getting some good reviews. It doesn't seem like TPTB's are forcing her on us, despite "public" backlash.
I can't speak for the letters coming in, but frankly, it's refreshing to see someone different get the spotlight for once. And Nicole's got SO much garbage that can be fodder for a ton of terrific stories, in the right hands.
I think my answer to this post and to Tim's post that he and I are watching different shows would be the same, which is that yes, Nicole has gotten a positive reception, but in terms of my watching a 'different show' than Tim, the show I'm watching is unfortunately doing poorly in the ratings and seems to be in danger of cancellation. Why is that? I'm suggesting that one reason (and perhaps I didn't explain myself clearly) is not that Nicole has increased screen time, but that she seems to be the lead of the entire show lately, while the other (former) leads are playing characters which are unrecognizable, and that most of them are background characters at this point. Filling the show with characters like Nicole (and actresses like Ari) would definitely be a positive in my book. But instead, Higley has created only one such character, seemingly at the expense of the other characters.
It was doing poorly in the ratings BEFORE Nicole ever came on the scene, so I don't quite see your point.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ellie


ladyofthelake
Sep 17 2008, 09:04 PM
Ellie
Sep 17 2008, 10:01 AM
I think my answer to this post and to Tim's post that he and I are watching different shows would be the same, which is that yes, Nicole has gotten a positive reception, but in terms of my watching a 'different show' than Tim, the show I'm watching is unfortunately doing poorly in the ratings and seems to be in danger of cancellation. Why is that? I'm suggesting that one reason (and perhaps I didn't explain myself clearly) is not that Nicole has increased screen time, but that she seems to be the lead of the entire show lately, while the other (former) leads are playing characters which are unrecognizable, and that most of them are background characters at this point. Filling the show with characters like Nicole (and actresses like Ari) would definitely be a positive in my book. But instead, Higley has created only one such character, seemingly at the expense of the other characters.
It was doing poorly in the ratings BEFORE Nicole ever came on the scene, so I don't quite see your point.
I did not say that Nicole was the reason for the low ratings, but I did say that one reason for the low ratings is that Higley is prioritzing characters such as Nicole incorrectly, and Higley is writing other characters out of character and moving them into the background. There are other reasons the ratings are low, and those were in effect before Higley began doing this with Nicole.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ilovemydays


Ellie
Sep 17 2008, 09:17 PM
ladyofthelake
Sep 17 2008, 09:04 PM
Ellie
Sep 17 2008, 10:01 AM
I think my answer to this post and to Tim's post that he and I are watching different shows would be the same, which is that yes, Nicole has gotten a positive reception, but in terms of my watching a 'different show' than Tim, the show I'm watching is unfortunately doing poorly in the ratings and seems to be in danger of cancellation. Why is that? I'm suggesting that one reason (and perhaps I didn't explain myself clearly) is not that Nicole has increased screen time, but that she seems to be the lead of the entire show lately, while the other (former) leads are playing characters which are unrecognizable, and that most of them are background characters at this point. Filling the show with characters like Nicole (and actresses like Ari) would definitely be a positive in my book. But instead, Higley has created only one such character, seemingly at the expense of the other characters.
It was doing poorly in the ratings BEFORE Nicole ever came on the scene, so I don't quite see your point.
I did not say that Nicole was the reason for the low ratings, but I did say that one reason for the low ratings is that Higley is prioritzing characters such as Nicole incorrectly, and Higley is writing other characters out of character and moving them into the background. There are other reasons the ratings are low, and those were in effect before Higley began doing this with Nicole.




I don't think Nicole is on too much. Its just that Ari makes even Nicole's small filler scenes memorable.



Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
PhoenixRising05
Member Avatar
GET EM STEPH!!

Ari is tied for #18 on the total episode count list as of 8/31/08.

Here is her month by month ranking:

April: 11 apperances/tied for 10th
May: 11 appearances/tied for 11th.
June: 15 appearances/7th on list.
July: 12 appearances/tied for 5th.
August: 10 appearances/tied for 6th.

I don't see how Dena is pushing Nicole at all. Nicole is involved in the Trent story and the Sami/EJ story. That is it. How is that prioritizing her above anyone else? I also don't understand what characters have been shifted to the background other then Ali Sweeney and Bryan Dattilo. Drake, Peter, and Kristian have been on a ton. Dee was on every day in January and February and alot in March. April-July was hit or miss but August and September she has been on alot. Stephen and Mary Beth were on alot from January-April and even quite a bit in May. They hit a dry spell in June and July but had a very good August and are in another dry spell so I think Steve and Kayla are really the ones shifted to the background other then Sami and Lucas and Sami actually is still on alot. It's just that her airtime comes in bunches so it feels like less. I really don't see the issue. The episode counts for the year and for each month show that most of the right people are frontburner. Whether you like the story or not is another issue but the right characters are being featured and Nicole is being used appropriately as well. The counts back that up.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ellie


^^ Tim, I don't think we're going to reach common ground on this, because we're not coming from the same perspective. I am not basing my thoughts on numbers or episode statistics. When I say "background", I don't necessarily mean number of episodes. Let's take Bo and Hope. In my opinion, many viewers are invested in Bo and Hope as characters. Bo and Hope could carry a long-term lead story on the show. But the way they're written now, it's almost like weekly sitcom episodes. Bo gets sick. He gets better. They renew their vows. That's over. Bo has issues at work. Hope's promoted. This is exactly what I mean by 'background'. Their story is not central to the show. They have no long-term storyline, unlike let's say, Nicole. It's been posted here many times that Nicole seems to be the only character for whom Higley has a long-term vision.

As for the issue of the characters themselves, I agree completely with ges's excellent post earlier in the thread. Nicole is written as infallible. She's strong, intelligent and powerful, while many of the other characters (particularly the women imo) are often written as indecisive doormats.
Edited by Ellie, Sep 17 2008, 11:18 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
PhoenixRising05
Member Avatar
GET EM STEPH!!

Ellie
Sep 17 2008, 11:17 PM
^^ Tim, I don't think we're going to reach common ground on this, because we're not coming from the same perspective. I am not basing my thoughts on numbers or episode statistics. When I say "background", I don't necessarily mean number of episodes. Let's take Bo and Hope. In my opinion, many viewers are invested in Bo and Hope as characters. Bo and Hope could carry a long-term lead story on the show. But the way they're written now, it's almost like weekly sitcom episodes. Bo gets sick. He gets better. They renew their vows. That's over. Bo has issues at work. Hope's promoted. This is exactly what I mean by 'background'. Their story is not central to the show. They have no long-term storyline, unlike let's say, Nicole. It's been posted here many times that Nicole seems to be the only character for whom Higley has a long-term vision.

As for the issue of the characters themselves, I agree completely with ges's excellent post earlier in the thread. Nicole is written as infallible. She's strong, intelligent and powerful, while many of the other characters (particularly the women imo) are often written as indecisive doormats.
Sami and Marlena were the only indecisive doormats and that has since changed, conveniently when Higley's stuff is back onscreen. Makes me wonder if Ed Scott was the problem. Higley is accused of writing during the strike when Marlena was very much in character and when fans were pleased with the J&M story. Isn't it funny how things really went downhill around May, when so much of the show went into a incohesive, directionless pit? That was clearly when ED and Dena began the true in-fighting which led right to Ed changing things. I'm not defending Higley. I'm not saying she is perfect but it is telling when you look at how things were in winter and early spring and where things went in late spring/early summer. Things had direction, most it, and now they do again with Marlena and Sami regaining their characters in true form.

I also can't understand how Nicole has always been empowered. That isn't the case at all. Higley had her written as a tragic figure when she returned. One who doubted she could find love or happiness without scheming and covered up her own hurt by snarky comments. Then, the summer comes, and while some of her direction was maintained, she became spineless. She just sat around and did nothing until recently when she called the cops on Sami. Her whole summer she was a doormat.

As for Bo and Hope, their story was central to the show when Bo was sick. That was all the show was about through all of March and then they got embroiled in the Ava plot which was the nonstop focus for all of April. Then they were part of the Paul story which was all the focus in July and in early/late August (Olympic week interfered with that). They are clearly going to be a part of the Stefano plot, which looks to be playing a role in the shakeup at the PD so that is a central story. Steve and Kayla are still the only ones in the background and even that will likely change once the Trent murder stuff gets going and they work more on Steve and Kayla's involvement in the Dimera story, which was hinted at a few times thus far. I don't even think we have differing perspective. I think it's in expectation. You expect Bo, Hope, John, Marlena, Steve, and Kayla to drive the big stories all the time but I clearly think you have to variation, which has been my argument over the past few days. I have no problem at all with Nicole driving a frontburner story that is the main focus of the show or Philip doing that or even Abe or Lexie. I care about them and the show is what made me care about them. I have no issue with your view, Ellie, and if I'm reading it wrong, I apologize. I guess we disagree regardless but I think we both have differing expectations of the show and that is where the issue is.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums. Reliable service with over 8 years of experience.
Learn More · Sign-up Now
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · DAYS: News, Spoilers & Discussion · Next Topic »
Add Reply