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
Weekly Discussion: 1/18 - 1/22
Topic Started: Jan 16 2010, 08:29 PM (7,245 Views)
esp13
Member Avatar


jane1978
Jan 22 2010, 05:05 PM
This is all true, but people needs to realize the show isnīt written for expert fans on MB who not only watch daily but sometime rewatch and disect selected parts and spend hours anylyzing every new bits of info. Maybe it was on SON but I remember some study which said ordinary viewers watch only 3 times per week. They arenīt obsessed with catching every scene and every episode like we are and the pacing is chosen so they still can understand whatīs going on. Thatīs why we see Anna almost daily even when she is not doing anything substantial. Thatīs why the flashbacks important for the plots are repeated so much. There is a whole book of rules and recommendations how to develop and pace the show so people can jump in and stay for the ride with as little effort as possible.
Well, some of us aren't thrilled with the fact that the show has chosen to write for the lowest common demoninator in the audience. I know, we don't matter. Since we read and post on message boards we are insignificant, overly critical, and not representative of the "general audience." So, we have no right to discuss the things that we feel would improve the show or things that are missing from storylines. And god forbid we criticize the poor Days powers that be who are nothing but outstanding professionals who know more about everything in the world than little ol' us. We get it, or at least I get it, loud and clear.

But, even though I don't matter in the least, I will still stay that writing for the lowest common demoninator (i.e. the disinterested viewer who tunes in now and then but doesn't really pay attention to anything) is crap. Going to McDonalds is easier than cooking a healthy meal, but it doesn't make it good. Easier is not better. And those of us who do actually watch and pay attention would like better. It doesn't make us stupid, crazy, or unworthy of the privilege of watching Days.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jane1978


esp13
Jan 22 2010, 05:28 PM
jane1978
Jan 22 2010, 05:05 PM
This is all true, but people needs to realize the show isnīt written for expert fans on MB who not only watch daily but sometime rewatch and disect selected parts and spend hours anylyzing every new bits of info. Maybe it was on SON but I remember some study which said ordinary viewers watch only 3 times per week. They arenīt obsessed with catching every scene and every episode like we are and the pacing is chosen so they still can understand whatīs going on. Thatīs why we see Anna almost daily even when she is not doing anything substantial. Thatīs why the flashbacks important for the plots are repeated so much. There is a whole book of rules and recommendations how to develop and pace the show so people can jump in and stay for the ride with as little effort as possible.
Well, some of us aren't thrilled with the fact that the show has chosen to write for the lowest common demoninator in the audience. I know, we don't matter. Since we read and post on message boards we are insignificant, overly critical, and not representative of the "general audience." So, we have no right to discuss the things that we feel would improve the show or things that are missing from storylines. And god forbid we criticize the poor Days powers that be who are nothing but outstanding professionals who know more about everything in the world than little ol' us. We get it, or at least I get it, loud and clear.

But, even though I don't matter in the least, I will still stay that writing for the lowest common demoninator (i.e. the disinterested viewer who tunes in now and then but doesn't really pay attention to anything) is crap. Going to McDonalds is easier than cooking a healthy meal, but it doesn't make it good. Easier is not better. And those of us who do actually watch and pay attention would like better. It doesn't make us stupid, crazy, or unworthy of the privilege of watching Days.
Well, like it or not DAYS is a show on a commerial TV. And is produced to make profit thus lure as many viewers as possible. Thatīs what the writers and producers are paid for. If they have model which seems to work on general audience they will not experiment with it just to satisfy few hardcore people on boards. Ed Scott did that and while people here praised his wonderfull lightings, camera movement and insightfull dialogs people expecting strong story drive and clear direction tuned out.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
esp13
Member Avatar


jane1978
Jan 22 2010, 05:53 PM
Well, like it or not DAYS is a show on a commerial TV. And is produced to make profit thus lure as many viewers as possible. Thatīs what the writers and producers are paid for. If they have model which seems to work on general audience they will not experiment with it just to satisfy few hardcore people on boards. Ed Scott did that and while people here praised his wonderfull lightings, camera movement and insightfull dialogs people expecting strong story drive and clear direction tuned out.

Yes, I know Days is on commercial television. The ads that I FF through on my DVR remind me of this daily.

I'm not asking the show to "experiment" with some kind of kooky, crazy idea. I'm not talking about bringing vampires to Salem or adding 3-D elements or turning everyone blue and moving Salem to some other planet. I'm talking about simply adding depth to storylines. That's not exactly some out of this world idea. And why is there some kind of choice between good technical things and good writing and storyline direction? Is there a soap manual out there that says you can only have one or the other? Is there some kind of menu, but you only get to pick one item from each category? Under "writing" does it say "character driven storylines with layers and depth" OR "consistent story and plot direction?" Why on earth is it so impossible to have both? I really, really, really don't get it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
mer4santo
Member Avatar


jane1978
Jan 22 2010, 05:53 PM
esp13
Jan 22 2010, 05:28 PM
jane1978
Jan 22 2010, 05:05 PM
This is all true, but people needs to realize the show isnīt written for expert fans on MB who not only watch daily but sometime rewatch and disect selected parts and spend hours anylyzing every new bits of info. Maybe it was on SON but I remember some study which said ordinary viewers watch only 3 times per week. They arenīt obsessed with catching every scene and every episode like we are and the pacing is chosen so they still can understand whatīs going on. Thatīs why we see Anna almost daily even when she is not doing anything substantial. Thatīs why the flashbacks important for the plots are repeated so much. There is a whole book of rules and recommendations how to develop and pace the show so people can jump in and stay for the ride with as little effort as possible.
Well, some of us aren't thrilled with the fact that the show has chosen to write for the lowest common demoninator in the audience. I know, we don't matter. Since we read and post on message boards we are insignificant, overly critical, and not representative of the "general audience." So, we have no right to discuss the things that we feel would improve the show or things that are missing from storylines. And god forbid we criticize the poor Days powers that be who are nothing but outstanding professionals who know more about everything in the world than little ol' us. We get it, or at least I get it, loud and clear.

But, even though I don't matter in the least, I will still stay that writing for the lowest common demoninator (i.e. the disinterested viewer who tunes in now and then but doesn't really pay attention to anything) is crap. Going to McDonalds is easier than cooking a healthy meal, but it doesn't make it good. Easier is not better. And those of us who do actually watch and pay attention would like better. It doesn't make us stupid, crazy, or unworthy of the privilege of watching Days.
Well, like it or not DAYS is a show on a commerial TV. And is produced to make profit thus lure as many viewers as possible. Thatīs what the writers and producers are paid for. If they have model which seems to work on general audience they will not experiment with it just to satisfy few hardcore people on boards. Ed Scott did that and while people here praised his wonderfull lightings, camera movement and insightfull dialogs people expecting strong story drive and clear direction tuned out.

Well to be fair to Ed, he was working with Dena's shitty fodder. There was no clear direction or follow through story. Had those pieces been intact I'm sure that Ed's Emmy winning talent wouldn't have gone to waste. :drunk:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jane1978


esp13
Jan 22 2010, 06:07 PM
jane1978
Jan 22 2010, 05:53 PM
Well, like it or not DAYS is a show on a commerial TV. And is produced to make profit thus lure as many viewers as possible. Thatīs what the writers and producers are paid for. If they have model which seems to work on general audience they will not experiment with it just to satisfy few hardcore people on boards. Ed Scott did that and while people here praised his wonderfull lightings, camera movement and insightfull dialogs people expecting strong story drive and clear direction tuned out.

Yes, I know Days is on commercial television. The ads that I FF through on my DVR remind me of this daily.

I'm not asking the show to "experiment" with some kind of kooky, crazy idea. I'm not talking about bringing vampires to Salem or adding 3-D elements or turning everyone blue and moving Salem to some other planet. I'm talking about simply adding depth to storylines. That's not exactly some out of this world idea. And why is there some kind of choice between good technical things and good writing and storyline direction? Is there a soap manual out there that says you can only have one or the other? Is there some kind of menu, but you only get to pick one item from each category? Under "writing" does it say "character driven storylines with layers and depth" OR "consistent story and plot direction?" Why on earth is it so impossible to have both? I really, really, really don't get it.
Because the Ed Scott/Hogan Sheffer days were just that. It was Corday caving to the critique and online demands. Donīt take me wrong Iīm very happy he got rid of JER and later Wyman as well because both had been clearly burned out and way past their prime. But he hired/let Scott hire a team completely alien to DAYS and its style and their attempt to turn the show into something more critically acclaimed and with deeper meanings was clearly refused by the general audience.

Tomlin is way less ambitious and all he wants is to produce cheap entertaining show which respects the traditonal ways of DAYS dense plot heavy storytelling and it seems thatīs the recepy general audience is happy to swallow.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
esp13
Member Avatar


jane1978
Jan 22 2010, 06:26 PM
esp13
Jan 22 2010, 06:07 PM
jane1978
Jan 22 2010, 05:53 PM
Well, like it or not DAYS is a show on a commerial TV. And is produced to make profit thus lure as many viewers as possible. Thatīs what the writers and producers are paid for. If they have model which seems to work on general audience they will not experiment with it just to satisfy few hardcore people on boards. Ed Scott did that and while people here praised his wonderfull lightings, camera movement and insightfull dialogs people expecting strong story drive and clear direction tuned out.

Yes, I know Days is on commercial television. The ads that I FF through on my DVR remind me of this daily.

I'm not asking the show to "experiment" with some kind of kooky, crazy idea. I'm not talking about bringing vampires to Salem or adding 3-D elements or turning everyone blue and moving Salem to some other planet. I'm talking about simply adding depth to storylines. That's not exactly some out of this world idea. And why is there some kind of choice between good technical things and good writing and storyline direction? Is there a soap manual out there that says you can only have one or the other? Is there some kind of menu, but you only get to pick one item from each category? Under "writing" does it say "character driven storylines with layers and depth" OR "consistent story and plot direction?" Why on earth is it so impossible to have both? I really, really, really don't get it.
Because the Ed Scott/Hogan Sheffer days were just that. It was Corday caving to the critique and online demands. Donīt take me wrong Iīm very happy he got rid of JER and later Wyman as well because both had been clearly burned out and way past their prime. But he hired/let Scott hire a team completely alien to DAYS and its style and their attempt to turn the show into something more critically acclaimed and with deeper meanings was clearly refused by the general audience.

Tomlin is way less ambitious and all he wants is to produce cheap entertaining show which respects the traditonal ways of DAYS dense plot heavy storytelling and it seems thatīs the recepy general audience is happy to swallow.

That's not quite how things worked. Hogan came in a year before Scott did and had to deal with a lot of backstage interference and a crappy producer in Wyman. When Ed Scott came in he had only a few months with Hogan before the writer's strike and, by most accounts, the show was really improving in those few months (and the ratings reflected that). Then Hogan was fired and Dena was hired and things went to shit yet again.

Nothing about that time period proves that good writing and good producing are an impossible combination. It certainly doesn't prove that Days audience doesn't want anything but plot-driven dreck. And, beyond that, there is absolutely no evidence that better writing would somehow turn Days' audience away.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Eric83
Member Avatar
"Relax nobody's having sex.... at least not yet"

Today's episode sucked.

Arianna passing out was so cheesy and fake. :lol:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Halloween Family
Member Avatar


jane1978
Jan 22 2010, 06:26 PM
But he hired/let Scott hire a team completely alien to DAYS and its style and their attempt to turn the show into something more critically acclaimed and with deeper meanings was clearly refused by the general audience.

Like what? I was watching during Scott's time, I don't remember anything with deeper meanings.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Q Steph
Member Avatar
Put your hands up for Obama

Melanie is a useless character and the actress does nothing for me. She shouldn't be the darling of the show. Ugh.

Reunite Chloe and Phillip! Days used to rock in 2000. Sigh.

Crystal Chappell has great hair.

Every time I see Lindsay Hartley, I expect her to whine about Fate.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Eric83
Member Avatar
"Relax nobody's having sex.... at least not yet"

It was nice to see Chloe/Philip interaction.

Josh Taylor is so useless, what the hell is wrong with his voice, his face, his hairline? He really creeps me out these days, and his voice really irritates me. He sounds like a freakin' alien.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jane1978


Halloween Family
Jan 22 2010, 06:40 PM
jane1978
Jan 22 2010, 06:26 PM
But he hired/let Scott hire a team completely alien to DAYS and its style and their attempt to turn the show into something more critically acclaimed and with deeper meanings was clearly refused by the general audience.

Like what? I was watching during Scott's time, I don't remember anything with deeper meanings.
The whole EJ/Sami/Lucas triangle was written as some heavy drama. Nick sleaping with Billie. The vendetta storyline took itself so serious. The Santeen storyline and especially the flashbacks. Even some parts of the Shelle vs. Phillip initial conflict. The feel of the show was completely different. The dialogs were less plotdriven and went deeper and there was no push to make every line either pun or cliffhanger. The show completely abandoned its usual story model and there were a lot shows which were exlusively about characters feelings with no strong conflict pushing the story forward.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Halloween Family
Member Avatar


jane1978
Jan 22 2010, 07:14 PM
Halloween Family
Jan 22 2010, 06:40 PM
jane1978
Jan 22 2010, 06:26 PM
But he hired/let Scott hire a team completely alien to DAYS and its style and their attempt to turn the show into something more critically acclaimed and with deeper meanings was clearly refused by the general audience.

Like what? I was watching during Scott's time, I don't remember anything with deeper meanings.
The whole EJ/Sami/Lucas triangle was written as some heavy drama. Nick sleaping with Billie. The vendetta storyline took itself so serious. The Santeen storyline and especially the flashbacks. Even some parts of the Shelle vs. Phillip initial conflict. The feel of the show was completely different. The dialogs were less plotdriven and went deeper and there was no push to make every line either pun or cliffhanger. The show completely abandoned its usual story model and there were a lot shows which were exlusively about characters feelings with no strong conflict pushing the story forward.
Wasn't that Hogan's time? I wasn't on the boards back then but finding out later the time period I liked best was Hogan's reign, the dialogue was fresh and witty, chances were taken with longtime vets and there were refrences to noteworthy plays. However, there were things that were just plain bad, almost if slapped together.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
esp13
Member Avatar


jane1978
Jan 22 2010, 07:14 PM
Halloween Family
Jan 22 2010, 06:40 PM
jane1978
Jan 22 2010, 06:26 PM
But he hired/let Scott hire a team completely alien to DAYS and its style and their attempt to turn the show into something more critically acclaimed and with deeper meanings was clearly refused by the general audience.

Like what? I was watching during Scott's time, I don't remember anything with deeper meanings.
The whole EJ/Sami/Lucas triangle was written as some heavy drama. Nick sleaping with Billie. The vendetta storyline took itself so serious. The Santeen storyline and especially the flashbacks. Even some parts of the Shelle vs. Phillip initial conflict. The feel of the show was completely different. The dialogs were less plotdriven and went deeper and there was no push to make every line either pun or cliffhanger. The show completely abandoned its usual story model and there were a lot shows which were exlusively about characters feelings with no strong conflict pushing the story forward.
None of that was during Scott's time with the show. That was Hogan and primarily during the time that (according to Tom Casiello and others) Hogan was repeatedly getting the rug pulled out from under him with his storylines. That caused the backburning of Bo, Hope, John and Marlena and storylines that were planned to last 6 weeks were ordered to be dragged out for 3 months leading to a whole lot of repetition without forward progress in the plot. Ed Scott didn't come in until like September of 2007. The fall and early winter of 2007 (Hogan's writing and Scott's production) were the only time the two worked together and things were really clicking for a little while (and, again, the ratings were on the rise again).
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Red Mist
Member Avatar


Thank god Carly killed that ugly wedding dress with her miracle coffee.

I got a chuckle out of those scenes.

When Ej was pulling off Troy it looked like a giant picking up a Lilliputian. I got a chuckle out of that too.

As for the rest...Meh. I just killed an hour with Dools that is all.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jane1978


esp13
Jan 22 2010, 07:58 PM
jane1978
Jan 22 2010, 07:14 PM
Halloween Family
Jan 22 2010, 06:40 PM
jane1978
Jan 22 2010, 06:26 PM
But he hired/let Scott hire a team completely alien to DAYS and its style and their attempt to turn the show into something more critically acclaimed and with deeper meanings was clearly refused by the general audience.

Like what? I was watching during Scott's time, I don't remember anything with deeper meanings.
The whole EJ/Sami/Lucas triangle was written as some heavy drama. Nick sleaping with Billie. The vendetta storyline took itself so serious. The Santeen storyline and especially the flashbacks. Even some parts of the Shelle vs. Phillip initial conflict. The feel of the show was completely different. The dialogs were less plotdriven and went deeper and there was no push to make every line either pun or cliffhanger. The show completely abandoned its usual story model and there were a lot shows which were exlusively about characters feelings with no strong conflict pushing the story forward.
None of that was during Scott's time with the show. That was Hogan and primarily during the time that (according to Tom Casiello and others) Hogan was repeatedly getting the rug pulled out from under him with his storylines. That caused the backburning of Bo, Hope, John and Marlena and storylines that were planned to last 6 weeks were ordered to be dragged out for 3 months leading to a whole lot of repetition without forward progress in the plot. Ed Scott didn't come in until like September of 2007. The fall and early winter of 2007 (Hogan's writing and Scott's production) were the only time the two worked together and things were really clicking for a little while (and, again, the ratings were on the rise again).
Yes, technically some of it is Hogan/Wyman, and some Scott/Higley. I quess you can always say either Wyman or Higley stopped them from getting their complete vision on screen right. But Hogan was just forced to backburner certain characters, the rest was still his. I agree at the end of the year his stuff got better and more compatible with the traditional DAYS storytelling, but itīs not clear if Corday wasnīt already pushing him because the ratings had got so bad before. He certainly did some completely plotdriven stuff during fall, from Andreīs rein of terror to the sorority rapist/corpse in the waterheater story.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
madelinehawaii


jane1978
Jan 22 2010, 05:05 PM
six
Jan 22 2010, 04:36 PM
jane1978
Jan 22 2010, 04:30 PM
DrewHamilton
Jan 22 2010, 04:10 PM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deep
But what you are saying simply isnīt true. Sami and Rafe have hardly the same conversation day by day when things recently completely changed (and Sami wasnīt even on today). Anna and EJ had maybe second longer conversation today, usually he just drops to check on Sydney and goes away again. And just yesterday people here complained they want to know more about EJīs motivations. THATīS EXACTLY WHAT HIS TALK WITH ANNA WAS TODAY, yet people still complain. I donīt know if it was you or someone else here, but how can people one day ask for more long and character driven scenes and next day want completely pointless and plotdriven fakeout so it makes the story less boring. Thatīs crazy.

The story is anything but stale. It moves every week. I quess people here are annoyed by it because they donīt like Rafe and Sami and want something else for EJ, but there is no difference in the pacing between this story and the babyswich.
The baby switch dragged too, with Nicole having the same conversations with herself, Stefano, EJ and Brady every day. People wanting something different than you want isn't crazy, any more than you still finding this story riveting is crazy. Everyone is different. There's nothing wrong with the writers mixing things up. Suspenseful scenes like that are a staple on soaps. They can hurt the story if overused, like anything can, but there's a reason soaps are known for them; because if done right, they work.
This is all true, but people needs to realize the show isnīt written for expert fans on MB who not only watch daily but sometime rewatch and disect selected parts and spend hours anylyzing every new bits of info. Maybe it was on SON but I remember some study which said ordinary viewers watch only 3 times per week. They arenīt obsessed with catching every scene and every episode like we are and the pacing is chosen so they still can understand whatīs going on. Thatīs why we see Anna almost daily even when she is not doing anything substantial. Thatīs why the flashbacks important for the plots are repeated so much. There is a whole book of rules and recommendations how to develop and pace the show so people can jump in and stay for the ride with as little effort as possible.

DAYS pacing clearly works. Itīs a new millennium update of classic JERīs plotdriven storytelling with emphasis on relatively short primetime-like scenes with a lot of snippy and funny dialogs and way less melodrama. Anyone who tunes in immediatelly understands whatīs the "A" story and what the conflict is about. People move from place to place in span of the episode so it doesnīt look like people are stuck in time. For ex. so many people says OLTL is a wonderfull show yet the ratings terrible and IMO itīs because there is too much characters and too much stories and itīs impossible for a new viewer (like me and I tried 3 times because people here are always so excited with it) to understand whatīs going on and on what characters he/she should primarily focus.
I'm with esp13 on this one. And I'd like someone to explain to me why the same people who watch soaps and according to you need this kind of ridiculous repetitiveness can watch primetime shows with a number of more involved, intelligent plots without the constant reminders not to mention lots more time between episodes. The general audience didn't need this kind of storytelling 20 years ago on soaps. What, are viewers suddenly dumber now?











Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
lysie


This is not meant as a slam to Alison Sweeney in any way, shape, or form. In the Turbo Tax commercial, did it sound like she didn't have a voice to anyone else? I haven't seen anyone else mention it, but she didn't sound like herself to me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
DrewHamilton
Member Avatar


PhoenixRising05
Jan 22 2010, 04:55 PM
DrewHamilton
Jan 22 2010, 04:49 PM
PhoenixRising05
Jan 22 2010, 04:45 PM
DrewHamilton
Jan 22 2010, 04:39 PM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deep
No offense intended, Drew but how can you make a comment about things being the same if you admit you don't pay complete attention during the scenes? I'm not in no way suggesting you should have to sit down and focus on the screen every minute in order to comment. That would be unfair of me but when dealing in specifics pertaining to a scene (and this is what is the focus of the discussion), one does need to know what exactly was happening in those scenes or else it's just throwing something out there with nothing to back it up from your perspective. For all you know, something impactful could've happened. That is all I'm saying. Again, no offense intended.
But when the majority of the board is in agreement with me, and say nothing about something "impacting" happening, I realize that I missed nothing. :)

EJ, Sami and Rafe bore me right now. There's nothing about their scenes that makes me want to watch. It's the same old bullshit. EJ is decieving the two of them. Sami's made to look like the idiot that she's really not. Rafe has the DUH expression on his face all the time, even though he's supposedly in control of the Salem brain lately, which is an insult to Sami Brady, who was once the smartest character on the show. What about what I just mentioned makes me want to watch? That's all that ever happens. I'll start out the episode, they'll be on and the above happens in the first act that they're featured, and then their scenes become background until I overhear something of importance then I'll turn around to see what it's about. But that hasn't happened a lot this week. :P
So what if the majority of the board agrees? That has nothing to do with your view on things. That is what I'm interested in at the moment. You made a suggestion of how you feel the show should improve the current story and it was a good suggestion but it was based on an opinion that came off like you were just piggybacking on what everyone else was saying. You admitting you weren't paying total attention (and I understand your reasons why) lends credence to that for me. Usually, your points are always backed up by specifics and that is one reason I like discussing things with you so I find it surprising you would comment on something like this while also admitting you weren't paying full attention to it. That's all.

Again, I mean no offense. I'm just rather surprised.
Call it piggybacking if you want. Kenny threw out a good idea and I elaborated more on it. I don't see why that has to be called upon? :shrug:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
DrewHamilton
Member Avatar


PhoenixRising05
Jan 22 2010, 04:57 PM
DrewHamilton
Jan 22 2010, 04:50 PM
And I don't need to pay attention to every scene to know what's going on. I read recaps. I read prevuze. So with all of that other reference, I still realize that nothing's happened without really paying much attention to their scenes.
No, you don't. However, this is a bit more specific. We're talking story movement, dialogue, things like that.

That Anna/EJ scene today served a purpose as Jane said. It moved the story in regards to the fact that EJ has no intentions of returning Sydney. We are starting to see how far reaching this plan is. That was a pretty significant scene.
Well what you and I find as "significant" are just two different things. What's significant to you is meaningless shit to me. :)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kenny
Member Avatar


I have come to the conclusion that some people will always wear rose colored glasses when it comes to Days of Our Lives and others will simply be more critical. There's no point in arguing points in circles.

For me, as a viewer, Days sucks. For others (like Tim) who tend to look at the show from a producer's business-oriented point of view, even when it sucks there's a good reason for it so all is forgiven, LoL. In the end, it's all a matter of opinion, so whatever. Que sera sera.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
2 users reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Fully Featured & Customizable Free Forums
Learn More · Sign-up for Free
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · DAYS: News, Spoilers & Discussion · Next Topic »
Add Reply