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
SOW: I've got Stephanie! *UPDATED*; May 26th issue; Article Summary
Topic Started: May 13 2009, 11:10 AM (3,499 Views)
PhoenixRising05
Member Avatar
GET EM STEPH!!

granolagirl
May 13 2009, 01:54 PM
Killing Steve and/or Kayla off-screen to make this story work... is like amputating your arm because you have a papercut. Creates more problems than it solves, like why Stephanie would be focusing on Philip and the feud and not spending time with her brother or the surviving parent. I think soap audiences are used to accepting that people who are out of town are off canvas. If they really needed them to be inaccessible, they could have sent them to Africa, since that's where Kayla was going to go before Steve came back.
Well, they could always have Stephanie go to visit Joe once in awhile. I mean, there are ways to explain the issues you mentioned. It's a little more tidier then what the show is throwing at us now IMO with the lack of closure and Steve and Kayla kind of just "out there." Obviously, the easiest thing is to just bring them back or at least do what I suggested and make it known that Steve and Kayla are at least monitoring the situation and have Bo kind of watch over Stephanie. That would at least make it more tolerable.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
granolagirl
Member Avatar
"I don't know why I don't have a story, either!"

I guess I disagree that it's tidy. It seems to create a lot of new loose ends, but maybe that's a YMMV thing. And if they can come up with ways to explain those, why not just make the effort to explain where Steve and Kayla are? I don't know, give the baby a mysterious soap disease that needs a specialist in another city. It would even strengthen Stephanie as an adult character if she made a choice not to add to their problems with her own. Or say they're driving to Argentina in an RV, or *something*. It's not that hard to suspend disbelief about characters not being around, as long as there's some explanation.

I'd love to hear Stephen Nichols' reaction to his character getting killed offscreen, though. LOL.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ellie


What this whole discussion about S&K tells me is that the viewers care so much more about these characters than the show does. (And that's not a bash - substitute 'Brady' for 'Stephanie' and I'd say the exact same thing about J&M). I honestly think 'TPTB' have not even given a thought to the idea of how or whether to explain S&K's absence. Sadly, I think the show just does not care at all. Not only did they throw these actors out like the garbage, but they're throwing the characters away as well.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
granolagirl
Member Avatar
"I don't know why I don't have a story, either!"

You're right, and sadly it's hard to even act surprised about that now. It feels like bizarro soap world, where there is no reward for watching longer than a few months.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
pagraves
Member Avatar


What gets me about the S & K thing is that supposedly Dena didn't know how to write for them. Well, Dena? Here's a situation where their part writes itself.

Bring 'em back, even if it's a short term, recurring thing. I think the actors would do it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
SocRMum1
Member Avatar
Much prefers sweevil, snarky EJ over Father Figure Fucktard Eejiot.

Ellie
May 14 2009, 02:01 AM
What this whole discussion about S&K tells me is that the viewers care so much more about these characters than the show does. (And that's not a bash - substitute 'Brady' for 'Stephanie' and I'd say the exact same thing about J&M). I honestly think 'TPTB' have not even given a thought to the idea of how or whether to explain S&K's absence. Sadly, I think the show just does not care at all. Not only did they throw these actors out like the garbage, but they're throwing the characters away as well.
I agree. And to support your point isn't it interesting that this thread which essentially has nothing to do with S&K has become all about them.

I think it's a clear sign that we'd rather talk about who's not on the show rather than who is. :unsure:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
daysfan
Member Avatar


SocRMum1
May 14 2009, 09:53 AM
Ellie
May 14 2009, 02:01 AM
What this whole discussion about S&K tells me is that the viewers care so much more about these characters than the show does. (And that's not a bash - substitute 'Brady' for 'Stephanie' and I'd say the exact same thing about J&M). I honestly think 'TPTB' have not even given a thought to the idea of how or whether to explain S&K's absence. Sadly, I think the show just does not care at all. Not only did they throw these actors out like the garbage, but they're throwing the characters away as well.
I agree. And to support your point isn't it interesting that this thread which essentially has nothing to do with S&K has become all about them.

I think it's a clear sign that we'd rather talk about who's not on the show rather than who is. :unsure:
Oh, don't get me wrong, I'm LOVING the show and haven't minded Steve and Kayla's absence(its been practically unnoticable) until now....just because of Stephanie's kidnapping, thats why it frsuterates me that they are not here in some capacity.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dr. Chip


Some of you have suggested that Steve & Kayla should be brought back on a recurring basis, for an episode here and there. I seriously doubt either Stephen or Mary Beth are interested in doing that.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ives
Member Avatar


pagraves
May 14 2009, 09:46 AM
What gets me about the S & K thing is that supposedly Dena didn't know how to write for them. Well, Dena? Here's a situation where their part writes itself.

Bring 'em back, even if it's a short term, recurring thing. I think the actors would do it.
First, love love the banner.

Can you imagine how interesting this would have been if Stephanie and Philip got together during the Pocket storyline? Stephanie in love with the guy whose baby her parents were thinking of adopting. Then he learns who Pocket really is - where would her loyalties lie? I know a lot of people who were thinking about the potential back then. Philip was kind of in limbo and Jeremy was clearly going out of the picture.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
pagraves
Member Avatar


I'm not as sure about that, Dr. Chip. Neither of them is working on another show at this time, and a paycheck is a paycheck. They might not do it forever, but for a few weeks while doing auditions for other things? Why not?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
granolagirl
Member Avatar
"I don't know why I don't have a story, either!"

I thought I heard that their contract was through May. They could have been recalled at any time, if the show wanted to use them.
Edited by granolagirl, May 14 2009, 03:50 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ellie


The first post has been updated with additional information from the SOD article.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
esp13
Member Avatar


Thanks Ellie. Nice to know EJ "feels bad" about kidnapping Stephanie. I still wonder if he ever "felt bad" about torturing her father.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
LiZa
Member Avatar


esp13
May 14 2009, 05:25 PM
Thanks Ellie. Nice to know EJ "feels bad" about kidnapping Stephanie. I still wonder if he ever "felt bad" about torturing her father.
Exactly!! I've been telling my friends why get rid of Steve/Kayla. Especially when Steph was going to continue the relationship with Philip, which they are not happy with? This would have been the perfect opportunity for a story line for Steve to save his daughter and remember his missing years.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
IMissAremid
Member Avatar
After all... tomorrow is another day!

Quote:
 
- After the events detailed in the SOW article, EJ feels guilty about taking Stephanie, and he confides in Nicole. James Scott tells SOD that "first of all, she's going to find out anyway," and that EJ is not proud of what he's done. Scott explains that when EJ ordered the shooting of Philip, EJ was doing that on the assumption that Philip was responsible for Tony's death. But here, EJ has ordered Stephanie kidnapped, and she's an innocent party, so this "sits differently on his conscience".


Thanks for posting, Ellie! Even if this doesn't make what EJ is doing to Stephanie any better, I'm glad the show added a scene where this happens so the show doesn't make the mistake of taking the character back to mustache-twirling villainy like they did initially under Hogan. This may also set up whatever it is that results in him being arrested, per those other spoilers.

Quote:
 
I still wonder if he ever "felt bad" about torturing her father.


I do too as an EJ and Steve fan. It's a shame we never got a storyline to resolve exactly how and what went on during Steve's absence from Salem and what they were doing in those days. At least in the case of what EJ did against John he had atoned somewhat when he revealed him being kept in Stefano's lair.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
mbdimera
Member Avatar


Thanks for the update Ellie. :)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
PhoenixRising05
Member Avatar
GET EM STEPH!!

pagraves
May 14 2009, 09:46 AM
What gets me about the S & K thing is that supposedly Dena didn't know how to write for them. Well, Dena? Here's a situation where their part writes itself.

Bring 'em back, even if it's a short term, recurring thing. I think the actors would do it.
I think Higley wanted to write for them.

She is the one that wanted to bring them back in 2003 and had a plan to do so. When she began writing during the strike, she gave them the Ava story, their first frontburner story to belong to them since their return story. It was when Ed Scott interfered and the show went through that mess of a summer that everything changed and then we had the cast changed. I blame Corday more then her because I feel she "got" Steve and Kayla and wanted to write for them.

I, too, am glad that they have EJ confiding in Nicole and feeling guilty. It's the little things like that which Days has been doing so well and I really do think that is the reason the show is doing so well. The current characters on the canvas are characters they want to write for and that can make all the difference. It seems like when writers want to write for the characters, they do right by them and pay special attention to details. It's when they no longer want to or are forced to that they start dropping the ball all over the place.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
pagraves
Member Avatar


Sorry, Tim, but I don't consider the Ava storyline a frontburner story for Steve and Kayla. I wouldn't have had a problem with the concept of Ava (though I hated almost every bit of the execution), but to me, that storyline was a prime example of Dena showing no desire whatsoever to write for Steve and Kayla. She managed to turn what should have been their story into a story that was All. About. Ava. Steve and Kayla were props.
Edited by pagraves, May 14 2009, 08:18 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
granolagirl
Member Avatar
"I don't know why I don't have a story, either!"

I'm surprised to see the dropping of that story chalked up to Ed Scott. It always seemed like a Corday move to me. It wouldn't make sense that Ed Scott was supposedly fighting for SN and MBE with one hand and cutting them off with the other.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
esp13
Member Avatar


I will never believe that Dena wanted to write for Steve and Kayla. The Ava story was never about them, it was about Ava. Just because they were in the story doesn't mean she got them or wanted to write for them because everything about that storyline screamed the opposite. And if Dena wanted to write for them so badly, then why did they disappear as soon as Ed Scott left?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · DAYS: News, Spoilers & Discussion · Next Topic »
Add Reply