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:Promo for wk of May 25th; Philip risks everything to rescue the love of his life.
Topic Started: May 22 2009, 04:31 PM (2,829 Views)
Mason


esp13
May 27 2009, 03:43 PM
I've seen not a single hint that Philip misses Belle at all since she left.
Well of course you haven't. That would require the writers to actually acknowledge that Belle and Shawn even exist, LoL.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
SpriteEyes
Member Avatar


Mason
May 25 2009, 06:04 PM
I wasn't a Phelle fan by any stretch of the imagination, but everyone and their blind dog knows that, if Belle came back into the picture and told Philip that she wanted to be with him, he'd forget about Stephanie in a New York minute. She's the Caroline to his Victor. I don't buy this insta-love with Philip and Stephanie, and I don't think too many other people do either.
I'm not buying that Stephanie is the love of his life, either. The writers needed to show me this, instead of just telling it to me.

I can barely believe that she's the crush of his life.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
pagraves
Member Avatar


If I was waiting for the writers to convince me that ANY of the characters who say they're in love are actually in love...oh, wait. I AM still waiting. Never mind.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
madelinehawaii


Paxton
May 27 2009, 03:47 PM
esp13
May 27 2009, 03:43 PM
That doesn't mean he never loved Belle, just that he's not still in love with her.

As for whether Philip would want Belle if she returned, my guess is that largely depends on what the writer wants him to feel.
I agree with you wholeheartedly. These are fictional characters who move on or don't move on with the stroke of a pen. To say a character would "never" or "always" do something, or would drop so-and-so if so-and-so came back/knew the truth/was interested/whatever, just seems pointless to me. We don't know and we can't know until the writers put it down on paper. Anything else is sheer fanwank, which may be fun but doesn't prove anything.
which is exactly the reason why I don't give a damn about what the characters on this show do or think anymore...they don't have personalities except at the whim of the writers who change them on a dime or forget what the wrote yesterday. And that's not a matter of reality, that's laziness

eta: I'm not trying to argumentative but I'm curious cause I really don't understand why anyone is interested in watching characters put in situations that are supposed to be dramatic or anything else when the writers simply change to rules of how a character is going to react to fit the scene?
Edited by madelinehawaii, May 28 2009, 12:03 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
pagraves
Member Avatar


I understand what madelineinhawaii is saying about the pointlessness of watching characters who don't have some consistency. Generally, I concur. That said, I also think it's unrealistic--and unfair--to say that because for a few years of his young life, Philip had an almost obsessive love for Belle, (and for even fewer years, first love with Chloe) he can't move on and have a bigger, better love with someone else. Belle chose someone else, someone she feels she was meant to be with. So did Chloe, though that didn't last, and now she's clearly all about Daniel.

Philip is still young enough to find someone else to be the true love of his life. I'm not going to argue that Stephanie is that person--the show hasn't proved that at all. I'm just saying it's perfectly plausible that she, or anyone else, could be. Philip isn't tied down to his past.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
madelinehawaii


I should point out that I wasn't trying to give my opinion on Philip one way or the other. I didn't watch him until he and Chloe's relationship was pretty much over and from what I've seen, he's been used by various writers since to play the interloper until this last year when they didn't seem to know what to do with him. I'm not sure they do even now. Most of what I've seen has been lackluster.

my issue was the generalized idea (so it seemed to me) that just because there are writers, discussing a character's personality is pointless and/or fanwanking.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Paxton
Member Avatar
Dreaming of a Melanie-free Days

madelinehawaii
May 29 2009, 06:12 PM
my issue was the generalized idea (so it seemed to me) that just because there are writers, discussing a character's personality is pointless and/or fanwanking.
My point about that was that even if a character says, "So and so is the love of my life," that doesn't mean that will ALWAYS be true. It might be, it might not. I don't consider it to be impermissible of a writer to allow characters to develop and change, and in Philip's case in particular, I see no reason why he has to be tied down to anyone he met before the age of 30 as being the "love of his life." Or, similarly, that even if Belle, for example, was the unrequited love of his life for ten years, that doesn't mean he wouldn't find someone else he loved as much. He could have loved Belle, and Chloe, and Stephanie, and still meet someone five years from now who he loves as much as or more than them. The thing I consider pointless is to say that a character's feelings for any given person are going to be set in stone and will never change. They may be, they may not be--but just because Philip is telling Stephanie she's the love of his life now doesn't mean it can't be true simply because he told someone else that before--or simply because another fanbase prefers him with someone else.

You asked why anyone would invest in characters whose personalities change on a dime, or words to that effect. My answer to that would be, I'm not that emotionally invested in the first place, but to the extent that I am, I don't think every time a character does something I wouldn't write him or her as doing if I were in charge means it's "out of character." People go to the "bad writing" card every time their favorite does something he or she doesn't like, whereas when it's someone they hate they don't pass out the bad writing excuse when they do nasty things (not saying you in particular do that). In real life, people do things that are arguably out of character: Sunday School teachers have affairs, mousy people commit murder, upstanding citizens embezzle money. How many times have we heard "he was such a quiet person, I never thought he'd kill/rape/steal/whatever?" I mean, just because someone doesn't act the same way at 40 as he did at 25 is in and of itself meaningless to me. Sometimes people change. Evangelicals become atheists, sluts reform, it can be as simple as losing interest in a prior activity and picking up something else. People change, so if I like a fictional character before and after he's written differently, I'm ok with that.
Edited by Paxton, May 29 2009, 06:30 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
madelinehawaii


Paxton
May 29 2009, 06:20 PM
madelinehawaii
May 29 2009, 06:12 PM
my issue was the generalized idea (so it seemed to me) that just because there are writers, discussing a character's personality is pointless and/or fanwanking.
My point about that was that even if a character says, "So and so is the love of my life," that doesn't mean that will ALWAYS be true. It might be, it might not. I don't consider it to be impermissible of a writer to allow characters to develop and change, and in Philip's case in particular, I see no reason why he has to be tied down to anyone he met before the age of 30 as being the "love of his life." Or, similarly, that even if Belle, for example, was the unrequited love of his life for ten years, that doesn't mean he wouldn't find someone else he loved as much. He could have loved Belle, and Chloe, and Stephanie, and still meet someone five years from now who he loves as much as or more than them. The thing I consider pointless is to say that a character's feelings for any given person are going to be set in stone and will never change. They may be, they may not be--but just because Philip is telling Stephanie she's the love of his life now doesn't mean it can't be true simply because he told someone else that before--or simply because another fanbase prefers him with someone else.

You asked why anyone would invest in characters whose personalities change on a dime, or words to that effect. My answer to that would be, I'm not that emotionally invested in the first place, but to the extent that I am, I don't think every time a character does something I wouldn't write him or her as doing if I were in charge means it's "out of character." People go to the "bad writing" card every time their favorite does something he or she doesn't like, whereas when it's someone they hate they don't pass out the bad writing excuse when they do nasty things (not saying you in particular do that). In real life, people do things that are arguably out of character: Sunday School teachers have affairs, mousy people commit murder, upstanding citizens embezzle money. How many times have we heard "he was such a quiet person, I never thought he'd kill/rape/steal/whatever?" I mean, just because someone doesn't act the same way at 40 as he did at 25 is in and of itself meaningless to me. Sometimes people change. Evangelicals become atheists, sluts reform, it can be as simple as losing interest in a prior activity and picking up something else. People change, so if I like a fictional character before and after he's written differently, I'm ok with that.
Maybe it's just me, but being or not being emotionally invested in a character doesn't change the fact that I expect him/her to be written with a personality, nor do I think a personality means that they ALWAYS behave in a certain manner or that they couldn't be capable of any particular act. That's the interesting part of giving them a personality...because then, when they are put in a particular situation, they may very well be capable of anything or reach the same point as someone else whom they despise, etc, but for different reasons or because of something that pushed their particular buttons. The way things are now, the same problems come up and instead of creating varied situations and solutions because the characters are all different, we get the same problems and same reactions to those problems over and over again. It's a bore.

re: the bad writing card...there are always people who don't agree about their favorites and rationalize but as many times as bad writing is used as an excuse and probably shouldn't be, there are just as many times when it applies.







Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Paxton
Member Avatar
Dreaming of a Melanie-free Days

madelinehawaii
May 29 2009, 08:24 PM
The way things are now, the same problems come up and instead of creating varied situations and solutions because the characters are all different, we get the same problems and same reactions to those problems over and over again. It's a bore.


Can you give some examples of what you're talking about?

I have been responding in this thread primarily with Philip in mind, because he is the subject of the promo--him and Stephanie. I maintain that it's perfectly plausible that Philip has moved on with his life and does not love Belle or Chloe or Morgan and that, while I personally do not want him with Stephanie, he is currently saying he is in love with her. The fanwanking part to me is insisting that because he once told someone else he loved her, that has to stand permanently. And i don't see how it's bad writing to say he has a new love. The dialogue may be shitty, the situations may be contrived, the story may be boring--but the general point I was making was that I have a pet peeve about people saying, "If so and so came back or wanted "x" then "y" relationship would be over." Until the writers lay out that scenario, we don't know what the character would do. To say that so and so would definitely or never do something is utterly and completely unconvincing to me.
Edited by Paxton, May 29 2009, 08:39 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
madelinehawaii


Paxton
May 29 2009, 08:38 PM
madelinehawaii
May 29 2009, 08:24 PM
The way things are now, the same problems come up and instead of creating varied situations and solutions because the characters are all different, we get the same problems and same reactions to those problems over and over again. It's a bore.


Can you give some examples of what you're talking about?
Philip has been obsessed in the past and went through a terrible time in Iraq only to come back and become obsessed with his ex-wife again, who left town with someone else. In there somewhere he lost the daughter he raised for the first six months of her life believing she was his. After the war and losing his leg and his daughter, I could see him desperate to hang onto whatever made him feel safe, or ties to his past with Belle and his less than above board tactics made sense with his upbringing. Now he believes he's in love with Stephanie. Why her? Because she was somehow related to Belle? (I think she is...I've sort of lost track lol) Maybe I've missed things Philip has done or said but I just don't see why he's interested other than she's pretty and available and just a little bit of a challenge given her family's history but none of this is being expressed that I can see. I just don't sense any feeling when I watch them or get the impression their relationship goes deeper than physical attraction.

And these are characters who both have rich family history and all sorts of things that could have brought them together in spite of how their parents, etc would view the situation but none of that was used...it's just feels like a conventional love story that could have happened to any two people without all the baggage these two characters ought to have.

Quote:
 
I have been responding in this thread primarily with Philip in mind, because he is the subject of the promo--him and Stephanie. I maintain that it's perfectly plausible that Philip has moved on with his life and does not love Belle or Chloe or Morgan and that, while I personally do not want him with Stephanie, he is currently saying he is in love with her. The fanwanking part to me is insisting that because he once told someone else he loved her, that has to stand permanently. And i don't see how it's bad writing to say he has a new love. The dialogue may be shitty, the situations may be contrived, the story may be boring--but the general point I was making was that I have a pet peeve about people saying, "If so and so came back or wanted "x" then "y" relationship would be over." Until the writers lay out that scenario, we don't know what the character would do. To say that so and so would definitely or never do something is utterly and completely unconvincing to me.


it's not bad writing to say he has a new love...it's bad writing to say it and not show any evidence of it based anything other than the words themselves. If the dialogue is shitty, the situations contrived and story boring, the writers aren't likely to sell the story. It can't just be as simple as this is the way the writers want it if they aren't going to do what it takes to convince their viewers and yes, I think it would be possible to make it believable...I agree that up to now, Philip hasn't had a mature relationship, ie, with someone who is his equal, but the writers aren't convincing me that Stephanie is the woman to keep him from falling back into relationships that were more familiar to him and more destructive.




Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
pagraves
Member Avatar


I actually felt that way about Philip's "love" for Belle--it arose whole cloth just to add a complication to the Shawn/Belle relationship. I didn't find it necessarily out of character for Philip--he was the rich kid used to getting what he wanted, and he wanted Belle--but for most of the time they were involved, the relationship was manipulative and one-sided. She never really loved him as anything more than someone who salved her wounds after Shawn disappeared and her mother "died." She had to be manipulated into staying with him after he lost his leg, and then because she thought he was Claire's father. It was never a strong, believable relationship.

The closest I came to actually buying them as a couple was when they had the brief affair right before Belle and Shawn married, and that had to be manipulated by the writers by completely rewriting the actual history of the end of their marriage.

I don't disagree that the writers have not adequately explained why Stephanie and Philip are together. But that's true of almost every relationship currently on the show, so it's hardly specific to Stephanie and Philip. I think I can even explain why that's so, based on my own recent experience with a book I was working on. I had the plot worked out and was writing to the outline. Laying all the clues in the suspense plot, giving the characters chances to interact romantically, but by the time I got to page 200 (about 2/3 of the way through the book), I realized my hero and heroine were nowhere near in love. So I had to go back and figure out what had gone wrong.

I found a scene quite early in the book where I had the hero and heroine eating dinner alone unexpectedly. All they did during that dinner was discuss the mystery they were trying to solve. Not once had I given them a chance to relate and bond during that rare opportunity they had to be alone. So I rewrote the scene, weaving in some personal material with the plot elements. And immediately, without touching any other part of the book, the romance came to life.

I had been writing the relationship as if they were already falling in love--without writing that crucial early scene that showed why they would even consider each other as potential romantic partners. And that's exactly what the Days writers seem to be doing with all the relationships.

I know I've heard lots of complaints about instalove. That's because the writers just throw the characters into relationships without giving them any build-up at all, as individuals or as a couple. I'm not saying that you couldn't have characters heading straight to the elevator for some nookie moments after meeting---it happens. But there should be a HUGE step-back after that, not an eager continuation of the relationship as if that one sexual encounter is the basis for a lifetime of love. (I'm looking at you, Lucas and Chloe). The EJ/Nicole relationship was a lot more realistic where that was concerned. Sex in the elevator didn't lead immediately to wedded bliss. There were complications, and that was as it should be. (Until the baby mess, which just screwed everything up, IMO).

Stephanie and Philip went from casual friends to dating far too quickly. Stephanie's character has no reason for being outside Philip, either--no job worth noting, only a sporadically shown friendship with Chelsea that's now off the table. No relating with her parents (grrr). Nothing to make her unique, interesting or worth knowing. That's the biggest problem with the Philip/Stephanie relationship. Philip's dating a cardboard cutout of Miss Teen America.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Enjoy forums? Start your own community for free.
« Previous Topic · DAYS: News, Spoilers & Discussion · Next Topic »
Add Reply