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
New Ed Scott Interview!; Did he save "Days of Our Lives?"
Topic Started: Jun 23 2009, 03:15 PM (3,953 Views)
esp13
Member Avatar


That's all well and good but it's still all conjecture. I'm not saying you are wrong, you may very well be right. But, it's still based on speculation and conclusions of "this happened, so this must be the reason." There is way too much I don't know for me to be that confident in making those types of conclusions. Many people have their own agendas and aren't afraid to use underhanded means of achieving them or, at a minimum, using someone else's difficult time as a means to an end.

So, while I understand why you draw the conclusions you do, I simply can't be nearly as sure of what really happened. As I've said repeatedly, I'm not saying Ed Scott is innocent of any wrongdoing because I don't know that either. To me, it's just an open question and, as such, I won't condemn him as guilty.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
PhoenixRising05
Member Avatar
GET EM STEPH!!

^Fair enough, esp13.

I didn't mean to beat a dead horse. I guess we will agree to disagree because while I'm an advocate for the whole "innocent until proven guilty" ideal, I think there is plenty of evidence out there and it's not really all based on speculation. I guess it's hard for me to understand your position when you base it on what you base it on. I understand where your coming from and I could understand if you chose to believe that there was more to the story and if you felt it wasn't as ugly as it seemed. Those reasons I can buy but I guess the whole idea that there isn't enough out there to support the claim that he did something shady is something that I, personally, just can't wrap my mind around. Maybe I put more stock in internet sites and in posters with sources and such then you do and perhaps that is where we differ.

There I go beating a head horse again LOL. Sorry. I'm done now, unless you bring up another interesting point or something.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
esp13
Member Avatar


PhoenixRising05
Jun 25 2009, 12:13 PM
I guess it's hard for me to understand your position when you base it on what you base it on. I understand where your coming from and I could understand if you chose to believe that there was more to the story and if you felt it wasn't as ugly as it seemed. Those reasons I can buy but I guess the whole idea that there isn't enough out there to support the claim that he did something shady is something that I, personally, just can't wrap my mind around. Maybe I put more stock in internet sites and in posters with sources and such then you do and perhaps that is where we differ.

I definitely believe there is far more to the story and I think it is highly probable that whatever Ed may have done was not as bad as some would like us to believe. I guess that is really the point I'm trying to make. There is evidence to support the idea that he did something, but the problem, for me, is that there is a lack of any consistent and/or hard evidence of what exactly he did. To put it in criminal terms, I may believe Ed is probably guilty of something, but based on all the conjecture, different stories and whatnot, I'm not sure if it's jaywalking, littering, DUI, or burglary.

I visit a lot of internet sites and know that there are good people with good sources. But, I also know that sources can be manipulated, that people can have agendas that innocent folks don't see. False or misleading information can be passed just as easily by well-intentioned people as good information can be. And those sources are only as good as their sources (or their sources, sources). That's just a lot of levels of hearsay to go through for me to draw affirmative conclusions about something that has never been proven one way or another.

And, call me crazy, but if I was embroiled in a backstage power struggle with an EP who I didn't like and who had corporate support behind him, I can't think of a better way of getting rid of him than to make allegations of violations of WGA agreements right after the strike finally ended and after Days had received a ton of bad publicity for firing their striking writers. Whether those allegations are ever proven true or not, it creates a lot of hot water for a show that doesn't need it and the easiest way to avoid that hot water was to fire the EP. I'm not saying that is what happened. But, I've seen nothing that would rule that possibility out.

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

^Thanks for that, esp. Now I can understand your position alot better and it even makes me think a little bit about what happened. Not enough to change my position but certainly it makes me think over the circumstances.

I love this kind of discussion where we go back and forth and lay out our cases and see both sides. It's thought provoking and interesting. I don't think there is enough discussion like this and it's a shame because there used to be alot of it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
esp13
Member Avatar


I've enjoyed the discussion as well. I'm really not trying to change your mind about what you believe happened, but I guess I feel like once in a while it's important to note that we don't necessarily know for sure what the whole story might be. And, in my mind, as long as that is the case, Ed Scott deserves at least a little bit of the benefit of the doubt.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
koos


Amazing the rose-colored glasses in which '07-'08 Days is being viewed. I can count maybe three or four episodes that were actually classic, and the rest was the same old drivel.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mason


koos
Jun 25 2009, 05:17 PM
Amazing the rose-colored glasses in which '07-'08 Days is being viewed. I can count maybe three or four episodes that were actually classic, and the rest was the same old drivel.
Well, I loved it (specifically May 2007-February 2008) the first time around, and seeing the crap the show is currently churning out just makes me appreciate it all the more.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
koos


Mason
Jun 25 2009, 05:20 PM
Well, I loved it (specifically May 2007-February 2008) the first time around, and seeing the crap the show is currently churning out just makes me appreciate it all the more.
Oh, no doubt it was better then than it is now. It just wasn't the ultra-realistic, family-based '70s/'80s fantasia it was supposed to be. I remember when it was first announced that Sheffer would be the new HW, and that Days would be "unrecognizable" (in a good way). When Scott was hired, the same was said. I know that was totally unreasonable to expect, but hey.... I didn't expect Touch the Sky/sorority serial rapist/dull, retconning vendetta story, either. Too much of it was still repetitive and silly. FtR, I was able to watch until the JER-ish constant flashbacks, fakeouts, fantasies, and increasingly repeated conversations returned with Gary Tomlin.

January (I think)/February '08 had some really solid episodes. Probably the best since whenever.
Edited by koos, Jun 26 2009, 03:54 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
EjsGaGirl
Member Avatar


Just my opinion,,while I did not agree with all the decisions made last year(boinking in a elevator eww)I DID watch everyday..now I do not..sorry I am not interested in all these new fake ass,characters we have on this show now..that bore RAfe is going to figure out the baby switch...how fuckin exciting!!!!NOT!My daughter,who is 17 by the way.,was looking at the cast photo and she kept asking,,"Who is this,,and this and this??She knows noone now.I miss Ed Scott,,and I think Gary Tomlin will drive this show into the ground..with all his Passion and SB buddies..they WERE nominated under HIS direction..I highly doubt we will get that from Tomlin..jmo
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Can403


Kenny, Thank you for posting this article. I miss Ed Scott too.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kyrai


esp13
Jun 25 2009, 11:43 AM
That's all well and good but it's still all conjecture. I'm not saying you are wrong, you may very well be right. But, it's still based on speculation and conclusions of "this happened, so this must be the reason." There is way too much I don't know for me to be that confident in making those types of conclusions. Many people have their own agendas and aren't afraid to use underhanded means of achieving them or, at a minimum, using someone else's difficult time as a means to an end.

So, while I understand why you draw the conclusions you do, I simply can't be nearly as sure of what really happened. As I've said repeatedly, I'm not saying Ed Scott is innocent of any wrongdoing because I don't know that either. To me, it's just an open question and, as such, I won't condemn him as guilty.
Same here.

If I remember correctly there was 'proof' of the 'diva' rewriting scripts, and nothing was done to her because of WGA pressure. Seems like Corday took the opportunity to get rid of Scott. Regardless, I miss Ed. The show was great late 2007/early 2008 and had great character development. It's sad Corday sided with event driven plot writer and meaningless characters.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Can403


Kyrai
Jun 27 2009, 09:34 AM
Same here.

If I remember correctly there was 'proof' of the 'diva' rewriting scripts, and nothing was done to her because of WGA pressure. Seems like Corday took the opportunity to get rid of Scott. Regardless, I miss Ed. The show was great late 2007/early 2008 and had great character development. It's sad Corday sided with event driven plot writer and meaningless characters.



I totally agree.
Edited by Can403, Jun 27 2009, 02:59 PM.
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
« Previous Topic · DAYS: News, Spoilers & Discussion · Next Topic »
Add Reply