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
Sara Bibel interview with Dena Higley
Topic Started: Apr 28 2010, 10:59 AM (6,420 Views)
ladyofthelake
Member Avatar
Professor-in-training

Paxton
Apr 29 2010, 03:35 PM
Taelyn
Apr 29 2010, 02:34 PM
Well am I supposed to give a number, or scientific specifics? Because I cant do that anymore than the Lumi's or the Ejami's can if they were asked to prove if their favorite had a 'Huge' fanbase. I really hate when people disect a statement, or word such as 'Many' or "Much", or "Alot", or Big, or Considerable.. If people have a problem with these words why cant they just ignore them rather then act like they expect someone to do research to clarify 'The Word'.. These are words that reflect an opinion of belief based on many factors.
Well, but some of us hate it when people express opinions about something that could be quantifiable without having any data to back that up. The fact of the matter is that nobody knows just what percentage of the entire viewing DOOL audience is a Carly fan, or a Safe fan, or a Brady fan. Since board posting can be manipulated with such factors as sock puppet posters, not to mention obsessive and vocal fanbase-agenda-driven posters who quite likely drive general-interest folks away from the boards, I doubt one can extrapolate much from the boards, whether that support appears to be large or small. Online polls can be spammed and are useless.

And frankly I think that if someone is going to make a fact-based claim, then it is not unreasonable to be asked to prove it.

If I were a power that be, I would completely ignore the boards and would rely on ratings and, to a lesser extent, survey responses to tell me how well my show is doing with the audience and which stories and combinations of characters appear to be working. However, the primary focus should be an insistence on quality writing and acting, of which there appears to be very little at the moment. If the show is good people may (though not definitely) watch; sometimes shows just die, even if they're well-written, well-acted and well-produced. There is no guarantee so they should just focus on putting out a product of which they can be proud. It's hard for me to believe that anyone currently is proud of the product they're putting out there.
Thank you, Paxton. I just now saw the responses, and well, hell's bells, that's exactly how I feel. I could claim that I had a large fanbase! :D
It just gets old, this whole "Mine is bigger than yours" bullshit.
And, I like dissecting. it was my favorite part of biology. ;)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ladyofthelake
Member Avatar
Professor-in-training

Taelyn
Apr 29 2010, 04:07 PM
Paxton
Apr 29 2010, 03:35 PM
Taelyn
Apr 29 2010, 02:34 PM
Well am I supposed to give a number, or scientific specifics? Because I cant do that anymore than the Lumi's or the Ejami's can if they were asked to prove if their favorite had a 'Huge' fanbase. I really hate when people disect a statement, or word such as 'Many' or "Much", or "Alot", or Big, or Considerable.. If people have a problem with these words why cant they just ignore them rather then act like they expect someone to do research to clarify 'The Word'.. These are words that reflect an opinion of belief based on many factors.
Well, but some of us hate it when people express opinions about something that could be quantifiable without having any data to back that up. The fact of the matter is that nobody knows just what percentage of the entire viewing DOOL audience is a Carly fan, or a Safe fan, or a Brady fan. Since board posting can be manipulated with such factors as sock puppet posters, not to mention obsessive and vocal fanbase-agenda-driven posters who quite likely drive general-interest folks away from the boards, I doubt one can extrapolate much from the boards, whether that support appears to be large or small. Online polls can be spammed and are useless.

And frankly I think that if someone is going to make a fact-based claim, then it is not unreasonable to be asked to prove it.

If I were a power that be, I would completely ignore the boards and would rely on ratings and, to a lesser extent, survey responses to tell me how well my show is doing with the audience and which stories and combinations of characters appear to be working. However, the primary focus should be an insistence on quality writing and acting, of which there appears to be very little at the moment. If the show is good people may (though not definitely) watch; sometimes shows just die, even if they're well-written, well-acted and well-produced. There is no guarantee so they should just focus on putting out a product of which they can be proud. It's hard for me to believe that anyone currently is proud of the product they're putting out there.

Well firstly .. I never made a "Fact based claim" I made a statement.

And the word "HUGE" is objective.

I think I have a huge home, I live on 3 acres. Some people have 300 acres but some people have no acres.
Some people think their husband has a huge dick.. obviously thats a matter of a opinion.
I might think I have a huge appetite.. But it may not seem that huge to others.
I may be a huge fan of some singer, where I may not come close to being as much a fan as my neighbor.

Huge is an objective word.. Its not fact based,
What is Huge to you? what is small to you? in regards to fanbases, and can you be factual in your response?

I mean really .........................
And to be blunt I began my original post with clarifying my different "OPINION" And I dont care if people hate when people express an OPINION this is a discussion board, They are free to agree or not .
But dont mistake an opinion for claiming a fact.

Quote:
 
And frankly I think that if someone is going to make a fact-based claim, then it is not unreasonable to be asked to prove it.


I agree about this for example when people claim that GG, CC, LH, and the whole Hernandez clan have brought nothing to Days. This was made as a statement of fact and not expressed as an opinion.
Perhaps you could ask her for the data supporting her claim.
I simply chose to disagree, but if you and others want facts then maybe you could suggest the poster provide it.
"Statement (logic), declarative sentence that is either true or false".

huge  –adjective,hug·er, hug·est.
1.extraordinarily large in bulk, quantity, or extent: a huge ship; a huge portion of ice cream.
2.of unbounded extent, scope, or character; limitless: the huge genius of Mozart.

Carry on while I contemplate the hugeness of my own dick. :D
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
IMissAremid
Member Avatar
After all... tomorrow is another day!

alstonboy4315
Apr 29 2010, 06:57 PM
I know that Erika Slezak, wherever she is, is reading this foolishness and rolling her eyes in absolute disgust!! This woman has no problem taking credit for this show's upswing now, but will she be as eager to explain herself in the future when it turns back to crap again??? I doubt it!!!
What was her quote again?

Something about Dena liking to tell events but not stories with a beginning, middle and end?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Taelyn


IMissAremid
Apr 29 2010, 10:28 PM
alstonboy4315
Apr 29 2010, 06:57 PM
I know that Erika Slezak, wherever she is, is reading this foolishness and rolling her eyes in absolute disgust!! This woman has no problem taking credit for this show's upswing now, but will she be as eager to explain herself in the future when it turns back to crap again??? I doubt it!!!
What was her quote again?

Something about Dena liking to tell events but not stories with a beginning, middle and end?
This I agree with, they come across as having no outline or foundation or direction .. they start and we rarely know how.. then they stop and rarely have a closing effect.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Taelyn


ladyofthelake
Apr 29 2010, 08:56 PM
Taelyn
Apr 29 2010, 04:07 PM
Paxton
Apr 29 2010, 03:35 PM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deepcould be quantifiable without having any data to back that up. The fact of the matter is that nobody knows just what percentage of the entire viewing DOOL audience is a Carly fan, or a Safe fan, or a Brady fan. Since board posting can be manipulated with such factors as sock puppet posters, not to mention obsessive and vocal fanbase-agenda-driven posters who quite likely drive general-interest folks away from the boards, I doubt one can extrapolate much from the boards, whether that support appears to be large or small. Online polls can be spammed and are useless.

And frankly I think that if someone is going to make a fact-based claim, then it is not unreasonable to be asked to prove it.

If I were a power that be, I would completely ignore the boards and would rely on ratings and, to a lesser extent, survey responses to tell me how well my show is doing with the audience and which stories and combinations of characters appear to be working. However, the primary focus should be an insistence on quality writing and acting, of which there appears to be very little at the moment. If the show is good people may (though not definitely) watch; sometimes shows just die, even if they're well-written, well-acted and well-produced. There is no guarantee so they should just focus on putting out a product of which they can be proud. It's hard for me to believe that anyone currently is proud of the product they're putting out there.

Well firstly .. I never made a "Fact based claim" I made a statement.

And the word "HUGE" is objective.

I think I have a huge home, I live on 3 acres. Some people have 300 acres but some people have no acres.
Some people think their husband has a huge dick.. obviously thats a matter of a opinion.
I might think I have a huge appetite.. But it may not seem that huge to others.
I may be a huge fan of some singer, where I may not come close to being as much a fan as my neighbor.

Huge is an objective word.. Its not fact based,
What is Huge to you? what is small to you? in regards to fanbases, and can you be factual in your response?

I mean really .........................
And to be blunt I began my original post with clarifying my different "OPINION" And I dont care if people hate when people express an OPINION this is a discussion board, They are free to agree or not .
But dont mistake an opinion for claiming a fact.

Quote:
 
And frankly I think that if someone is going to make a fact-based claim, then it is not unreasonable to be asked to prove it.


I agree about this for example when people claim that GG, CC, LH, and the whole Hernandez clan have brought nothing to Days. This was made as a statement of fact and not expressed as an opinion.
Perhaps you could ask her for the data supporting her claim.
I simply chose to disagree, but if you and others want facts then maybe you could suggest the poster provide it.
"Statement (logic), declarative sentence that is either true or false".

huge  –adjective,hug·er, hug·est.
1.extraordinarily large in bulk, quantity, or extent: a huge ship; a huge portion of ice cream.
2.of unbounded extent, scope, or character; limitless: the huge genius of Mozart.

Carry on while I contemplate the hugeness of my own dick. :D
Oh for gods sake !! :drunk:

Thanks for the english lesson I know where to come next time I need a definition. And they are so much fun.
Please do spell checks, and grammer too.. Ofcourse personally Im not usually the type to ask people to clarify, or define the words they use expressing an opinion, Id much rather argue about what stories I like or dont like.. but to each their own.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kenny
Member Avatar


IMissAremid
Apr 29 2010, 10:28 PM
What was her quote again?

Something about Dena liking to tell events but not stories with a beginning, middle and end?
"Dena doesn't care about the rich history of the show, which is evident in what she writes. She wants to write stories that she thinks are interesting but nobody else does."
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
AlisonLou


We'll Dena's stories aren't working according to the latest ratings. Days lost even more viewers whilst almost everyone else gained viewers. Days lost the most in viewers for this week. Wonder what Dena thinks of her stories now? The Hope story hasn't brought in viewers. I don't think people like Night Hope.
Who would want to watch Hope with Dr Baker. I know some people here like the scenes. But how did they expect to attract viewers with those two sharing scenes? Dena's stories are crap! The ratings are proof!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
DOOLFan85


AlisonLou
Apr 30 2010, 02:12 AM
The Hope story hasn't brought in viewers. I don't think people like Night Hope.
Who would want to watch Hope with Dr Baker. I know some people here like the scenes. But how did they expect to attract viewers with those two sharing scenes?
Well I'm going to have to disagree. You truly can't speak for all Days fans on who likes the current Hope storyline, you may not be too fond of it but I've seen many who do besides some on this board, I being one of them. The thing is the audience doesn't want it to go on for too long, and that's what I am kind of scared of since Dena says she loves writing long stories (at least that was one truth she was not telling a lie on). Look at the Sydney drama that's been going on for almost 2 years and also EJ haven't yet got busted on the second kidnapping. That's why I appreciate ABC soaps because they do the 13-week story model, they don't have their audience waiting for long on many reveals and if they do go past 13 weeks they'll make up for it in sweeps. Some more contributing factors to days slipping ratings: Peter is not on - which lead the Bope/Barley stuff to be backburned temporarily, romance is lacking, balance with characters screentime, and the teen scene needing a boost. With all being said you can't put major fault on a story that's had 2 weeks versus one that has dragged on for two years.
Edited by DOOLFan85, Apr 30 2010, 03:28 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Liz<3Days
Member Avatar


I dont blame the DT/NT Hope SL on the ratings. It's just a bunch of DAYS stories are sucking. The Hope SL just started and I dont consider it the main draw here.

I lay the ratings sorely at the feet of recycled stories with no one but 50 people wanting to watch....EJ and Sami are the black hole of suckitude!

I also think that people have tired of how stupid the villains are (Vivian) and no couples with depth (Brianna, Nathan/Steph/Melanie/Phil.)

Hmm, wonder what was on last year...oh yes, THE EJOLE WEDDING!!! You also had a kick ass DiMera v Kiriakis SL with Phil getting shot! Now that's how to write some soapy drama!

If they want people to tune OUT, they're doing a great job of it!
Edited by Liz<3Days, Apr 30 2010, 07:28 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
esp13
Member Avatar


Halloween Family
Apr 29 2010, 05:51 PM
To me supercouple means a couple that people know without even watching the show, there was buzz about them on ET, covers of soap mags that were at the grocery store, etc.. Really, IMO that would be Bo & Hope for sure, Jarlena and mainly because of Marlena, Doug & Julie made the cover of TIME, the rest not so much. I never watched General Hospital but I know how famous (infamous) Luke & Laura was. However, that's just my limited knowledge.
I guess everybody probably has different opinions, but I think you'd have to throw at least Kim and Shane and Steve and Kayla onto that list. As somebody pointed out, Kim and Shane won SOD's Best Supercouple award a couple of times. So, the were definitely featured in the soap mags and things like that. Steve and Kayla's wedding put Days at #1 in the ratings (for the last time) and in the late '80's, Stephen Nichols had a Q rating (measures how recognizable certain stars are) that was second only to Bill Cosby (Mary Beth Evans was also in the top 10).

I guess maybe it depends on whether you are looking at popularity at a particular point in time or over the long haul. Shane and Kim and Steve and Kayla were only onscreen for a relatively short and defined period. I'd argue they were as popular during their heyday as any other supercouple was during theirs. But, there is no quantitative measurement, nor any definitive definition for who is a supercouple or not.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

esp13
Apr 30 2010, 10:15 AM
Halloween Family
Apr 29 2010, 05:51 PM
To me supercouple means a couple that people know without even watching the show, there was buzz about them on ET, covers of soap mags that were at the grocery store, etc.. Really, IMO that would be Bo & Hope for sure, Jarlena and mainly because of Marlena, Doug & Julie made the cover of TIME, the rest not so much. I never watched General Hospital but I know how famous (infamous) Luke & Laura was. However, that's just my limited knowledge.
I guess everybody probably has different opinions, but I think you'd have to throw at least Kim and Shane and Steve and Kayla onto that list. As somebody pointed out, Kim and Shane won SOD's Best Supercouple award a couple of times. So, the were definitely featured in the soap mags and things like that. Steve and Kayla's wedding put Days at #1 in the ratings (for the last time) and in the late '80's, Stephen Nichols had a Q rating (measures how recognizable certain stars are) that was second only to Bill Cosby (Mary Beth Evans was also in the top 10).

I guess maybe it depends on whether you are looking at popularity at a particular point in time or over the long haul. Shane and Kim and Steve and Kayla were only onscreen for a relatively short and defined period. I'd argue they were as popular during their heyday as any other supercouple was during theirs. But, there is no quantitative measurement, nor any definitive definition for who is a supercouple or not.
Well I'd say Steve and Kayla were the most popular couple in Days history at their highest fame as their wedding is the highest rated episode in the show's history. That speaks for itself, no?
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Liz<3Days
Member Avatar


^Steve and Kayla were the couple that made me tune into DAYS and that was because I saw them featured on Entertainment Tonight. I consider them a supercouple!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
SoapGal1
Member Avatar


Liz<3Days
Apr 30 2010, 10:23 AM
^Steve and Kayla were the couple that made me tune into DAYS and that was because I saw them featured on Entertainment Tonight. I consider them a supercouple!
They were my favorite couple!! :wub: I started watching because of Bo & Hope, but I FLOVED Steve & Kayla........still do!! :wub:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Halloween Family
Member Avatar


esp13
Apr 30 2010, 10:15 AM
Halloween Family
Apr 29 2010, 05:51 PM
To me supercouple means a couple that people know without even watching the show, there was buzz about them on ET, covers of soap mags that were at the grocery store, etc.. Really, IMO that would be Bo & Hope for sure, Jarlena and mainly because of Marlena, Doug & Julie made the cover of TIME, the rest not so much. I never watched General Hospital but I know how famous (infamous) Luke & Laura was. However, that's just my limited knowledge.
I guess everybody probably has different opinions, but I think you'd have to throw at least Kim and Shane and Steve and Kayla onto that list. As somebody pointed out, Kim and Shane won SOD's Best Supercouple award a couple of times. So, the were definitely featured in the soap mags and things like that. Steve and Kayla's wedding put Days at #1 in the ratings (for the last time) and in the late '80's, Stephen Nichols had a Q rating (measures how recognizable certain stars are) that was second only to Bill Cosby (Mary Beth Evans was also in the top 10).

I guess maybe it depends on whether you are looking at popularity at a particular point in time or over the long haul. Shane and Kim and Steve and Kayla were only onscreen for a relatively short and defined period. I'd argue they were as popular during their heyday as any other supercouple was during theirs. But, there is no quantitative measurement, nor any definitive definition for who is a supercouple or not.
I remember Payla and Shane/Kim from watching the show, but i don't remember seeing them elsewhere. Obviosly, people say they did so that's why I'm not disagreeing.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
IMissAremid
Member Avatar
After all... tomorrow is another day!

Why did they kill off Steve when they did? Did Steven Nichols want to leave the show?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
esp13
Member Avatar


IMissAremid
Apr 30 2010, 01:07 PM
Why did they kill off Steve when they did? Did Steven Nichols want to leave the show?
Yes, Stephen Nichols decided to leave Days and since Mary Beth was staying, they decided to kill Steve off (or at least make everybody think he was dead, since they did show the coffin switch onscreen).
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
« Previous Topic · DAYS: News, Spoilers & Discussion · Next Topic »
Add Reply