|
Spoilers for the week of October 8th; *updated 10/5*
|
|
Topic Started: Sep 27 2012, 12:04 AM (56,210 Views)
|
|
LuvingLumi
|
Oct 2 2012, 03:11 PM
Post #501
|
Come on Ron, We are counting on YOU !!
- Posts:
- 22,005
- Group:
- Veteran
- Member
- #5,892
- Joined:
- December 1, 2009
- Mood
- Sad
- Favorite Current Daytime Soap Opera
- Days of Our Lives
- Favorite Soap Opera of All Time
- Days of Our Lives
- Favorite Current Primetime Soap Opera
- Revenge, Sons of Ararchy, Scandal
- Favorite Primetime Soap Opera of All Time
- The Sopranos
- Twitter ID
- https://twitter.com/luvinglumi
- YouTube ID
- http://www.youtube.com/user/luvinglumi?feature=results_main
|
- lysie
- Oct 2 2012, 03:09 PM
- six
- Oct 2 2012, 03:07 PM
- lysie
- Oct 2 2012, 02:55 PM
- six
- Oct 2 2012, 12:23 PM
Quoting limited to 4 levels deep onehave paid. I suppose someone could argue that their payment wasn't proportional to the crime, but I don't think it's accurate that they never lose anything. Unlike Rafe, who's been lying and stealing kids and generally acting like a thug when it suits him and hasn't lost anything except Sami when she kicked him out after the cafe kiss. NIcoke :wub2: I wish she was a drug addict, because that would be perfect.
Didn't see this earlier. Using this argument, Rafe has paid too. Or the others haven't had a suitable payment for this audience member. So they're all even. I think we can all agree that this show sucks at payoffs but I don't find Rafe important enough to focus a payoff story on. I can't say the same for the other characters. Some big comeuppance story for Rafe would be about as dull as watching EJ make sandwiches and play chutes and ladders. I don't agree that it affects Sami in the way that I was talking about.
I'm going to take a guess and assume my response to esp13, quoted below, explains why I don't buy the argument that Rafe has paid. He's suffered exactly one negative consequence as the result of his misdeeds, and surprise surprise, it was written by MarDar. Every other bad thing that happened to Rafe took place through no fault of his own and places Rafe in the role of the protagonist. Rafe might suck, but if I have to suffer by watching him benefit from his crimes, I should at least get a scene or two of his actions coming back to bite him. - Quote:
-
Again, I think this is a difference in definition, instead of a bias against Rafe. Rafe was a clear victim in all those scenarios, except one - losing Sami and the kids - but in that case, he didn't actually lose them - he walked away after she cheated on him through no fault of his own. Safe lost Grace, but Grace didn't die because she needed some of her father's blood, or something. It was just a tragedy, no different than DJ's death. Just like EJ isn't paying by losing this child - he's not responsible for this in any way. Same with Arianna. She died and she happened to be related to Rafe, but I don't see how that was a payment.
Rafe also hadn't done anything to deserve R2 - that was no more of a payment/payoff than the times John and Roman got kidnapped by Stefano. Now that I think of it, maybe the prison was a payoff - I can't exactly remember why Rafe ended up there.
To me, people pay when they suffer as a result of something they did - so Tony's death - not payment for Stefano, because it was a freak accident. Lexie's death was payment because, with the rewrite, Stefano inadvertently set it in motion.
So basically, the kinds of losses I'm talking about are the ones that fans/characters would say "You had this coming" about. Not situations in which someone was an innocent victim of a crime after they happened to screw someone over in an unrelated incident.
He lost his job the last two times there have been issues like this. That fits the definition. but he lost the Salem PD job and got an FBI job, or what it the other way around? Or was it ISA? I lose track you know.
|
|
|
| |
|
mrstahall
|
Oct 2 2012, 03:12 PM
Post #502
|
- Posts:
- 1
- Group:
- Newbies
- Member
- #12,573
- Joined:
- October 2, 2012
|
did I read it correctly that Nic went after Jen with a knife and they both go down the stairs,why would Jen get arrested for murder of an unborn...sounds like she was defending herself?? :-/
|
|
|
| |
|
SocRMum1
|
Oct 2 2012, 03:15 PM
Post #503
|
Much prefers sweevil, snarky EJ over Father Figure Fucktard Eejiot.
- Posts:
- 10,398
- Group:
- Veteran
- Member
- #603
- Joined:
- December 6, 2007
- Favorite Current Daytime Soap Opera
- Days of Our Lives
- Favorite Soap Opera of All Time
- Days of Our Lives
- Favorite Current Primetime Soap Opera
- Revenge
- Favorite Primetime Soap Opera of All Time
- Knots Landing
|
- esp13
- Oct 2 2012, 03:08 PM
- lysie
- Oct 2 2012, 02:23 PM
- michelle
- Oct 2 2012, 01:27 PM
- lysie
- Oct 2 2012, 12:02 PM
Quoting limited to 4 levels deepone
BUT RAFE IS THE COP! HE'S SUPPOSED TO BE THE GOOD GUY! EJ and Stefano and Sami and Nicole are SUPPOSED TO BE THE BAD GUYS/GIRLS. Though I totally agree with your comment that Rafe is a nothing character with no personality and no relevance to Days. I wish TomSell got that memo.
Motivations be damned. It annoys me that I end up defending things I don't even like. These stories suck but they're not as simple and black and white as the responses here try to make them.
This x infinity. Not all crimes are created equal and even the same crimes aren't equal if the motivations aren't. Emma changing the paternity test on Andrew to mess with Shane and Kim is NOT the equivalent to Daniel changing the paternity test to keep EJ from finding out he was the father of Nicole's baby. Emma's motivation was to hurt Kim (and Shane). Daniel's purpose (whether agreed with or not) was to protect Nicole and her child. The good guys can do bad things without becoming bad guys. It's always been that way. Steve and Kayla went to great lengths to keep Benjy from his father -- including hiding him from the law and kidnapping him from Stefano. I don't think that makes them villains. I understand that when the motivations are not established properly, it can definitely affect the perspective. But even badly established motivations still matter. The difference between Steve and Kayla going to extremes to keep Benjy from Stefano and what Daniel/Rafe have done with EJ's child is that there is no reason to believe EJ is a threat to this child. EJ has other young children with whom he's actively involved. He's been shown to be a loving parent as consistently as any other parent on the show. So it kills the theory of the 'good guys' being able to do this without being 'bad guys' - because there is no true risk for the child. (Other than EJ fighting for custody against Nicole - and it's anyone's guess which of those two would be the better choice as custodial parent).
In other words, I agree with the first part of your last sentence. :laugh:
|
|
|
| |
|
SoapGal1
|
Oct 2 2012, 03:17 PM
Post #504
|
- Posts:
- 7,284
- Group:
- Veteran
- Member
- #659
- Joined:
- December 20, 2007
- Mood
- None
|
- esp13
- Oct 2 2012, 03:08 PM
- lysie
- Oct 2 2012, 02:23 PM
- michelle
- Oct 2 2012, 01:27 PM
- lysie
- Oct 2 2012, 12:02 PM
Quoting limited to 4 levels deepone
BUT RAFE IS THE COP! HE'S SUPPOSED TO BE THE GOOD GUY! EJ and Stefano and Sami and Nicole are SUPPOSED TO BE THE BAD GUYS/GIRLS. Though I totally agree with your comment that Rafe is a nothing character with no personality and no relevance to Days. I wish TomSell got that memo.
Motivations be damned. It annoys me that I end up defending things I don't even like. These stories suck but they're not as simple and black and white as the responses here try to make them.
This x infinity. Not all crimes are created equal and even the same crimes aren't equal if the motivations aren't. Emma changing the paternity test on Andrew to mess with Shane and Kim is NOT the equivalent to Daniel changing the paternity test to keep EJ from finding out he was the father of Nicole's baby. Emma's motivation was to hurt Kim (and Shane). Daniel's purpose (whether agreed with or not) was to protect Nicole and her child. The good guys can do bad things without becoming bad guys. It's always been that way. Steve and Kayla went to great lengths to keep Benjy from his father -- including hiding him from the law and kidnapping him from Stefano. I don't think that makes them villains. I understand that when the motivations are not established properly, it can definitely affect the perspective. But even badly established motivations still matter. That would be true IF Nicole's motivations would've played out as fear of EJ. And Rafe & Daniel were shown to be equally scared of EJ. Instead it played off as her being pissed that he slept with EJ and EJ played the love sick puppy first to her & then to Sami. The only thing they should've feared from him is that we would fall in love with them.
Prior to that she had no problem raising a child as a "Dimera".
Hell, she stole one to give EJ a child.
Every characters motivations are screwed up if you ask me.
|
|
|
| |
|
Harmony233
|
Oct 2 2012, 03:20 PM
Post #505
|
- Posts:
- 1,317
- Group:
- Elite Member
- Member
- #2,892
- Joined:
- September 15, 2008
- Favorite Current Daytime Soap Opera
- DAys of Our Lives
- Favorite Soap Opera of All Time
- Another World
- Favorite Current Primetime Soap Opera
- One Tree Hill
- Favorite Primetime Soap Opera of All Time
- Beverly Hills 90210
|
- gailwinters
- Oct 2 2012, 02:07 PM
- LuvingLumi
- Oct 2 2012, 01:48 PM
- tomsawyer
- Oct 2 2012, 12:50 PM
- SocRMum1
- Oct 2 2012, 10:46 AM
I really expected Rafe to fess up to Sami so they could tie Safe up in a nice, pretty bow and be done with Rafe having any kind of potential stink on him (at least in Tomlin's view). The fact they still have him lying almost leads me to think he might suffer just the tiniest consequence for it. But then I blink and realize that's just crazy talk.
Normally I'd agree with you because I have a hard time believing GT would allow Rafe to suffer some consequences for his lie. But the only reason I can see for the blink-and-you-missed-it EJ blackmail scheme was to ramp up the consequences in this upcoming Safe storyline. We know that Sami was choosing Rafe over EJ anyway, so it seems the reason for the blackmail story was to create an Ejami rift. If Ejami were still on good terms, Rafe would've had a better excuse for not telling Sami the truth about paternity since he could've been worried she'd tell EJ. But, GT chose to write the short blackmail story to facilitate an Ejami fallout and put Sami completely behind Rafe against EJ. GT also chose to have EJ point out Sami that Rafe doesn't trust her and to that he's not the man she thinks he is. And GT also chose to write Safe as promising to be honest from this point forward. This tells me that GT is trying to ramp up the consequences for Rafe/Safe when Sami finds out he continued to lie to her. Who knows if GT will actually follow-through, but he did set-up the story so the reveal for Rafe/Safe could have some meaningful fallout.
Oh he'll suffer his consequence when Sami likely breaks up with him for his lying to her. She will cry, screech and be all boo hoo. Then we'll have to live through 6 months of simulatenous flashbacks of Safe kissing and boinking while she cries and clutches a blanket and he stares out the window wondering what might have been.
Well, thank you so much. I think I broke out in hives when I read your post, because I can see it playing out exactly like that! LOL Even better, she'll probably be back with Lucas and/or EJ, but crying for Rafe. at this point i'd rather EJ/Lucas hook up than either get back with sami lol
|
|
|
| |
|
SoapGal1
|
Oct 2 2012, 03:21 PM
Post #506
|
- Posts:
- 7,284
- Group:
- Veteran
- Member
- #659
- Joined:
- December 20, 2007
- Mood
- None
|
- LuvingLumi
- Oct 2 2012, 03:11 PM
- lysie
- Oct 2 2012, 03:09 PM
- six
- Oct 2 2012, 03:07 PM
- lysie
- Oct 2 2012, 02:55 PM
Quoting limited to 4 levels deeponehave
I'm going to take a guess and assume my response to esp13, quoted below, explains why I don't buy the argument that Rafe has paid. He's suffered exactly one negative consequence as the result of his misdeeds, and surprise surprise, it was written by MarDar. Every other bad thing that happened to Rafe took place through no fault of his own and places Rafe in the role of the protagonist. Rafe might suck, but if I have to suffer by watching him benefit from his crimes, I should at least get a scene or two of his actions coming back to bite him. - Quote:
-
Again, I think this is a difference in definition, instead of a bias against Rafe. Rafe was a clear victim in all those scenarios, except one - losing Sami and the kids - but in that case, he didn't actually lose them - he walked away after she cheated on him through no fault of his own. Safe lost Grace, but Grace didn't die because she needed some of her father's blood, or something. It was just a tragedy, no different than DJ's death. Just like EJ isn't paying by losing this child - he's not responsible for this in any way. Same with Arianna. She died and she happened to be related to Rafe, but I don't see how that was a payment.
Rafe also hadn't done anything to deserve R2 - that was no more of a payment/payoff than the times John and Roman got kidnapped by Stefano. Now that I think of it, maybe the prison was a payoff - I can't exactly remember why Rafe ended up there.
To me, people pay when they suffer as a result of something they did - so Tony's death - not payment for Stefano, because it was a freak accident. Lexie's death was payment because, with the rewrite, Stefano inadvertently set it in motion.
So basically, the kinds of losses I'm talking about are the ones that fans/characters would say "You had this coming" about. Not situations in which someone was an innocent victim of a crime after they happened to screw someone over in an unrelated incident.
He lost his job the last two times there have been issues like this. That fits the definition.
but he lost the Salem PD job and got an FBI job, or what it the other way around? Or was it ISA? I lose track you know. Followed by him getting a promotion while Bo gets the shaft.
But I digress...
|
|
|
| |
|
lysie
|
Oct 2 2012, 03:22 PM
Post #507
|
- Posts:
- 64,306
- Group:
- Admin
- Member
- #4,604
- Joined:
- May 20, 2009
|
- SocRMum1
- Oct 2 2012, 03:15 PM
- esp13
- Oct 2 2012, 03:08 PM
- lysie
- Oct 2 2012, 02:23 PM
- michelle
- Oct 2 2012, 01:27 PM
Quoting limited to 4 levels deeponeGOOD GUY!
EJ and Stefano and Sami and Nicole are SUPPOSED TO BE THE BAD GUYS/GIRLS.
Though I totally agree with your comment that Rafe is a nothing character with no personality and no relevance to Days. I wish TomSell got that memo.
Motivations be damned. It annoys me that I end up defending things I don't even like. These stories suck but they're not as simple and black and white as the responses here try to make them.
This x infinity. Not all crimes are created equal and even the same crimes aren't equal if the motivations aren't. Emma changing the paternity test on Andrew to mess with Shane and Kim is NOT the equivalent to Daniel changing the paternity test to keep EJ from finding out he was the father of Nicole's baby. Emma's motivation was to hurt Kim (and Shane). Daniel's purpose (whether agreed with or not) was to protect Nicole and her child. The good guys can do bad things without becoming bad guys. It's always been that way. Steve and Kayla went to great lengths to keep Benjy from his father -- including hiding him from the law and kidnapping him from Stefano. I don't think that makes them villains. I understand that when the motivations are not established properly, it can definitely affect the perspective. But even badly established motivations still matter.
The difference between Steve and Kayla going to extremes to keep Benjy from Stefano and what Daniel/Rafe have done with EJ's child is that there is no reason to believe EJ is a threat to this child. EJ has other young children with whom he's actively involved. He's been shown to be a loving parent as consistently as any other parent on the show. So it kills the theory of the 'good guys' being able to do this without being 'bad guys' - because there is no true risk for the child. (Other than EJ fighting for custody against Nicole - and it's anyone's guess which of those two would be the better choice as custodial parent). In other words, I agree with the first part of your last sentence. :laugh: I think we have thirty years worth of reasons that EJ and his family are threats to their own spawn.
|
|
|
| |
|
Harmony233
|
Oct 2 2012, 03:23 PM
Post #508
|
- Posts:
- 1,317
- Group:
- Elite Member
- Member
- #2,892
- Joined:
- September 15, 2008
- Favorite Current Daytime Soap Opera
- DAys of Our Lives
- Favorite Soap Opera of All Time
- Another World
- Favorite Current Primetime Soap Opera
- One Tree Hill
- Favorite Primetime Soap Opera of All Time
- Beverly Hills 90210
|
- annie21
- Oct 2 2012, 02:45 PM
Haven't posted in a while because this show is so bad it's painful to be around. Just wanted to say that, like some others, I'm starting to think maybe the writers aren't going to go with Dannifer. Sure, there will probably be more junk scenes like this week, but I think they'll eventually have Jennifer and Brady spending more time together. Unfortunately, I think the writers will also have Abigail and Brady drawn to each other and we'll have Brady at the center of a mother-daughter triangle. I'm not advocating this, mind you. But I could see these writers going there.
Perhaps by February, we'll see Jennifer finding out about her daughter's true feelings and she'll decide to step aside to clear the way for Brady and Abigail -- and leave Salem.
MR's contract was technically up for renewal last month, and we've heard nothing about any decision to renew/extend. I get the strong sense she would like to leave. But perhaps she agreed to stick around for a few months at Meng's/Corday's request.
The writers have taken the destruction of Jennifer's character -- that they started in 2010 and that MarDar exacerbated -- to new lows. TPTB would have to be pretty obtuse not to see that. So they either are incredibly obtuse or they don't care -- or some combination of the two. Too sad.
well technically brady/abby are supposed to be the same age but will is supposed to be older than EJ lol
|
|
|
| |
|
camera shy
|
Oct 2 2012, 03:24 PM
Post #509
|
- Posts:
- 6,543
- Group:
- Elite Member
- Member
- #12,193
- Joined:
- July 11, 2012
|
I don't think EJ is a good father. He stood by and let an ex-convict live under the same roof with his kids, he kidnapped Sydney and gave her over to Anna who she had never met before, he let Johnny think his mother didn't love him, he kicked Sami out of their lives and I'm sure if I took a few minutes I could think of more unfatherly things he had done. I don't know why people always want to say he's a good father because we've seen him read a bed time story to them a few times and kiss and hug them.
|
|
|
| |
|
Harmony233
|
Oct 2 2012, 03:24 PM
Post #510
|
- Posts:
- 1,317
- Group:
- Elite Member
- Member
- #2,892
- Joined:
- September 15, 2008
- Favorite Current Daytime Soap Opera
- DAys of Our Lives
- Favorite Soap Opera of All Time
- Another World
- Favorite Current Primetime Soap Opera
- One Tree Hill
- Favorite Primetime Soap Opera of All Time
- Beverly Hills 90210
|
- elizhope
- Oct 2 2012, 02:49 PM
- Quote:
-
The ladies fight and Nic winds up tumbling down one of the deadly stairways of Salem just as Billie and Brady arrive. Jenn feels bad as the cops arrive and Nicole is taken to the hospital. She gives birth to a stillborn. Daniel arrives and Nicole puts the blame squarely on Jenn. Brady backs that up and the Horton is arrested for murder.
This is very reminiscent of the 1998 Billie/Georgia/Bo/Hope storyline Its also a rip off of the guiding light story including jenn going to jail lets see if she goes on trial like recva did
|
|
|
| |
|
SoapGal1
|
Oct 2 2012, 03:25 PM
Post #511
|
- Posts:
- 7,284
- Group:
- Veteran
- Member
- #659
- Joined:
- December 20, 2007
- Mood
- None
|
- lysie
- Oct 2 2012, 03:22 PM
- SocRMum1
- Oct 2 2012, 03:15 PM
- esp13
- Oct 2 2012, 03:08 PM
- lysie
- Oct 2 2012, 02:23 PM
Quoting limited to 4 levels deeponeGOOD GUY!
EJ and Stefano and Sami and Nicole are SUPPOSED
This x infinity. Not all crimes are created equal and even the same crimes aren't equal if the motivations aren't. Emma changing the paternity test on Andrew to mess with Shane and Kim is NOT the equivalent to Daniel changing the paternity test to keep EJ from finding out he was the father of Nicole's baby. Emma's motivation was to hurt Kim (and Shane). Daniel's purpose (whether agreed with or not) was to protect Nicole and her child. The good guys can do bad things without becoming bad guys. It's always been that way. Steve and Kayla went to great lengths to keep Benjy from his father -- including hiding him from the law and kidnapping him from Stefano. I don't think that makes them villains. I understand that when the motivations are not established properly, it can definitely affect the perspective. But even badly established motivations still matter.
The difference between Steve and Kayla going to extremes to keep Benjy from Stefano and what Daniel/Rafe have done with EJ's child is that there is no reason to believe EJ is a threat to this child. EJ has other young children with whom he's actively involved. He's been shown to be a loving parent as consistently as any other parent on the show. So it kills the theory of the 'good guys' being able to do this without being 'bad guys' - because there is no true risk for the child. (Other than EJ fighting for custody against Nicole - and it's anyone's guess which of those two would be the better choice as custodial parent). In other words, I agree with the first part of your last sentence. :laugh:
I think we have thirty years worth of reasons that EJ and his family are threats to their own spawn. Stefano's kids, sure.
So far none of EJ's kids have been trapped in a tunnel, fallen down the stairs of doom and impaled by a pallet, been shot, marooned on an island, or otherwise presumed dead.
Johnny did lose an eye thru no fault of EJ's....unless it was genetics.
|
|
|
| |
|
six
|
Oct 2 2012, 03:29 PM
Post #512
|
- Posts:
- 13,427
- Group:
- Veteran
- Member
- #1,842
- Joined:
- February 12, 2008
|
- lysie
- Oct 2 2012, 03:09 PM
- six
- Oct 2 2012, 03:07 PM
- lysie
- Oct 2 2012, 02:55 PM
- six
- Oct 2 2012, 12:23 PM
Quoting limited to 4 levels deep onehave paid. I suppose someone could argue that their payment wasn't proportional to the crime, but I don't think it's accurate that they never lose anything. Unlike Rafe, who's been lying and stealing kids and generally acting like a thug when it suits him and hasn't lost anything except Sami when she kicked him out after the cafe kiss. NIcoke :wub2: I wish she was a drug addict, because that would be perfect.
Didn't see this earlier. Using this argument, Rafe has paid too. Or the others haven't had a suitable payment for this audience member. So they're all even. I think we can all agree that this show sucks at payoffs but I don't find Rafe important enough to focus a payoff story on. I can't say the same for the other characters. Some big comeuppance story for Rafe would be about as dull as watching EJ make sandwiches and play chutes and ladders. I don't agree that it affects Sami in the way that I was talking about.
I'm going to take a guess and assume my response to esp13, quoted below, explains why I don't buy the argument that Rafe has paid. He's suffered exactly one negative consequence as the result of his misdeeds, and surprise surprise, it was written by MarDar. Every other bad thing that happened to Rafe took place through no fault of his own and places Rafe in the role of the protagonist. Rafe might suck, but if I have to suffer by watching him benefit from his crimes, I should at least get a scene or two of his actions coming back to bite him. - Quote:
-
Again, I think this is a difference in definition, instead of a bias against Rafe. Rafe was a clear victim in all those scenarios, except one - losing Sami and the kids - but in that case, he didn't actually lose them - he walked away after she cheated on him through no fault of his own. Safe lost Grace, but Grace didn't die because she needed some of her father's blood, or something. It was just a tragedy, no different than DJ's death. Just like EJ isn't paying by losing this child - he's not responsible for this in any way. Same with Arianna. She died and she happened to be related to Rafe, but I don't see how that was a payment.
Rafe also hadn't done anything to deserve R2 - that was no more of a payment/payoff than the times John and Roman got kidnapped by Stefano. Now that I think of it, maybe the prison was a payoff - I can't exactly remember why Rafe ended up there.
To me, people pay when they suffer as a result of something they did - so Tony's death - not payment for Stefano, because it was a freak accident. Lexie's death was payment because, with the rewrite, Stefano inadvertently set it in motion.
So basically, the kinds of losses I'm talking about are the ones that fans/characters would say "You had this coming" about. Not situations in which someone was an innocent victim of a crime after they happened to screw someone over in an unrelated incident.
He lost his job the last two times there have been issues like this. That fits the definition. IDK which second time you're talking about, but Rafe didn't actually lose his job the first time I'll bet you're talking about. The FBI reprimanded him and he was supposed to get fired, but Roman pulled some strings and the FBI offered Rafe a job in NY, which he was going to take until Sami talked him out of leaving Salem.
I'd agree on your second example, assuming he actually got fired as a result of something he did, but IDK the circumstances of what you're referencing.
Edited by six, Oct 2 2012, 03:58 PM.
|
|
|
| |
|
esp13
|
Oct 2 2012, 03:33 PM
Post #513
|
- Posts:
- 8,246
- Group:
- Veteran
- Member
- #676
- Joined:
- December 20, 2007
|
- SocRMum1
- Oct 2 2012, 03:15 PM
- esp13
- Oct 2 2012, 03:08 PM
- lysie
- Oct 2 2012, 02:23 PM
- michelle
- Oct 2 2012, 01:27 PM
Quoting limited to 4 levels deeponeGOOD GUY!
EJ and Stefano and Sami and Nicole are SUPPOSED TO BE THE BAD GUYS/GIRLS.
Though I totally agree with your comment that Rafe is a nothing character with no personality and no relevance to Days. I wish TomSell got that memo.
Motivations be damned. It annoys me that I end up defending things I don't even like. These stories suck but they're not as simple and black and white as the responses here try to make them.
This x infinity. Not all crimes are created equal and even the same crimes aren't equal if the motivations aren't. Emma changing the paternity test on Andrew to mess with Shane and Kim is NOT the equivalent to Daniel changing the paternity test to keep EJ from finding out he was the father of Nicole's baby. Emma's motivation was to hurt Kim (and Shane). Daniel's purpose (whether agreed with or not) was to protect Nicole and her child. The good guys can do bad things without becoming bad guys. It's always been that way. Steve and Kayla went to great lengths to keep Benjy from his father -- including hiding him from the law and kidnapping him from Stefano. I don't think that makes them villains. I understand that when the motivations are not established properly, it can definitely affect the perspective. But even badly established motivations still matter.
The difference between Steve and Kayla going to extremes to keep Benjy from Stefano and what Daniel/Rafe have done with EJ's child is that there is no reason to believe EJ is a threat to this child. EJ has other young children with whom he's actively involved. He's been shown to be a loving parent as consistently as any other parent on the show. So it kills the theory of the 'good guys' being able to do this without being 'bad guys' - because there is no true risk for the child. (Other than EJ fighting for custody against Nicole - and it's anyone's guess which of those two would be the better choice as custodial parent). In other words, I agree with the first part of your last sentence. :laugh: But by the same token, what reason was there to believe that Stefano was a threat to Benjy? Nothing that had been established as far as I know indicated that Stefano would ever deliberately hurt his own son. In fact, during that storyline, Stefano was shown to be a loving and caring father to Benjy. He knew sign language and everything. Steve and Kayla weren't trying to keep Benjy away because they were afraid of what Stefano might do to Benjy. They were afraid of what being raised by Stefano might mean for Benjy. They didn't think that he should be raised by the man who killed his mother. They were making value judgments and deciding, based on Stefano's history, that Benjy was better off away from his father. Interestingly enough, Stefano eventually even agreed.
Yes, at various times EJ has been shown to be a great father and Sami has sung his praises. Of course, there is also the time he forced Sami to tell her son she didn't love him, the time he kidnapped his own daughter and took her away from her family, the time he let a maniac live with his children and barely stepped in to keep Allie from being killed, etc. So, it's not all one-sided and there is enough out there to provide motivation for believing a child is better off not having EJ DiMera as a father.
|
|
|
| |
|
bomber
|
Oct 2 2012, 03:40 PM
Post #514
|
- Posts:
- 745
- Group:
- Member
- Member
- #11,900
- Joined:
- May 5, 2012
- Favorite Soap Opera of All Time
- Days of our Lives
|
So all the ports Bo is going to have a connection with the DiMeras?
How much do you want to bet that he returns for the last few shows with a boatful of missing and "dead" Salemites eg Steve, jack who have been imprisoned on a DiMera island?.
I'm betting that we are going to see Hope, Jen and Kayla running around with all the eligible Salem batchelors over the next year and then, at cancelation be reunited with their "soulmates".
God this show sucks :drunk:
|
|
|
| |
|
six
|
Oct 2 2012, 03:41 PM
Post #515
|
- Posts:
- 13,427
- Group:
- Veteran
- Member
- #1,842
- Joined:
- February 12, 2008
|
- esp13
- Oct 2 2012, 03:33 PM
- SocRMum1
- Oct 2 2012, 03:15 PM
- esp13
- Oct 2 2012, 03:08 PM
- lysie
- Oct 2 2012, 02:23 PM
Quoting limited to 4 levels deeponeGOOD GUY!
EJ and Stefano and Sami and Nicole are SUPPOSED
This x infinity. Not all crimes are created equal and even the same crimes aren't equal if the motivations aren't. Emma changing the paternity test on Andrew to mess with Shane and Kim is NOT the equivalent to Daniel changing the paternity test to keep EJ from finding out he was the father of Nicole's baby. Emma's motivation was to hurt Kim (and Shane). Daniel's purpose (whether agreed with or not) was to protect Nicole and her child. The good guys can do bad things without becoming bad guys. It's always been that way. Steve and Kayla went to great lengths to keep Benjy from his father -- including hiding him from the law and kidnapping him from Stefano. I don't think that makes them villains. I understand that when the motivations are not established properly, it can definitely affect the perspective. But even badly established motivations still matter.
The difference between Steve and Kayla going to extremes to keep Benjy from Stefano and what Daniel/Rafe have done with EJ's child is that there is no reason to believe EJ is a threat to this child. EJ has other young children with whom he's actively involved. He's been shown to be a loving parent as consistently as any other parent on the show. So it kills the theory of the 'good guys' being able to do this without being 'bad guys' - because there is no true risk for the child. (Other than EJ fighting for custody against Nicole - and it's anyone's guess which of those two would be the better choice as custodial parent). In other words, I agree with the first part of your last sentence. :laugh:
But by the same token, what reason was there to believe that Stefano was a threat to Benjy? Nothing that had been established as far as I know indicated that Stefano would ever deliberately hurt his own son. In fact, during that storyline, Stefano was shown to be a loving and caring father to Benjy. He knew sign language and everything. Steve and Kayla weren't trying to keep Benjy away because they were afraid of what Stefano might do to Benjy. They were afraid of what being raised by Stefano might mean for Benjy. They didn't think that he should be raised by the man who killed his mother. They were making value judgments and deciding, based on Stefano's history, that Benjy was better off away from his father. Interestingly enough, Stefano eventually even agreed. Yes, at various times EJ has been shown to be a great father and Sami has sung his praises. Of course, there is also the time he forced Sami to tell her son she didn't love him, the time he kidnapped his own daughter and took her away from her family, the time he let a maniac live with his children and barely stepped in to keep Allie from being killed, etc. So, it's not all one-sided and there is enough out there to provide motivation for believing a child is better off not having EJ DiMera as a father. TBH, I don't think Stayla was in the right, even if the show did, but hadn't Stefano attempted to kill Tony in the years before Benjy came to town? I know he did go after Tony, but I'm not sure on the timeline.
|
|
|
| |
|
six
|
Oct 2 2012, 03:45 PM
Post #516
|
- Posts:
- 13,427
- Group:
- Veteran
- Member
- #1,842
- Joined:
- February 12, 2008
|
- camera shy
- Oct 2 2012, 03:24 PM
I don't think EJ is a good father. He stood by and let an ex-convict live under the same roof with his kids, he kidnapped Sydney and gave her over to Anna who she had never met before, he let Johnny think his mother didn't love him, he kicked Sami out of their lives and I'm sure if I took a few minutes I could think of more unfatherly things he had done. I don't know why people always want to say he's a good father because we've seen him read a bed time story to them a few times and kiss and hug them. Nitpick: Anna and Sydney lived together in the mansion and Anna was quite fond of her. That fact helped Nicole figure out who took Sydney.
Also, lol at the idea that kids in Salem shouldn't be around convicts. They'd have to raise themselves.
|
|
|
| |
|
camera shy
|
Oct 2 2012, 03:51 PM
Post #517
|
- Posts:
- 6,543
- Group:
- Elite Member
- Member
- #12,193
- Joined:
- July 11, 2012
|
- six
- Oct 2 2012, 03:45 PM
- camera shy
- Oct 2 2012, 03:24 PM
I don't think EJ is a good father. He stood by and let an ex-convict live under the same roof with his kids, he kidnapped Sydney and gave her over to Anna who she had never met before, he let Johnny think his mother didn't love him, he kicked Sami out of their lives and I'm sure if I took a few minutes I could think of more unfatherly things he had done. I don't know why people always want to say he's a good father because we've seen him read a bed time story to them a few times and kiss and hug them.
Nitpick: Anna and Sydney lived together in the mansion and Anna was quite fond of her. That fact helped Nicole figure out who took Sydney. Also, lol at the idea that kids in Salem shouldn't be around convicts. They'd have to raise themselves. Nothing you pointed out changes the fact he's not a good father.
|
|
|
| |
|
six
|
Oct 2 2012, 03:56 PM
Post #518
|
- Posts:
- 13,427
- Group:
- Veteran
- Member
- #1,842
- Joined:
- February 12, 2008
|
- camera shy
- Oct 2 2012, 03:51 PM
- six
- Oct 2 2012, 03:45 PM
- camera shy
- Oct 2 2012, 03:24 PM
I don't think EJ is a good father. He stood by and let an ex-convict live under the same roof with his kids, he kidnapped Sydney and gave her over to Anna who she had never met before, he let Johnny think his mother didn't love him, he kicked Sami out of their lives and I'm sure if I took a few minutes I could think of more unfatherly things he had done. I don't know why people always want to say he's a good father because we've seen him read a bed time story to them a few times and kiss and hug them.
Nitpick: Anna and Sydney lived together in the mansion and Anna was quite fond of her. That fact helped Nicole figure out who took Sydney. Also, lol at the idea that kids in Salem shouldn't be around convicts. They'd have to raise themselves.
Nothing you pointed out changes the fact he's not a good father. Good thing I wasn't debating about whether or not he was a good father, then.
Edited by six, Oct 2 2012, 03:57 PM.
|
|
|
| |
|
SocRMum1
|
Oct 2 2012, 04:00 PM
Post #519
|
Much prefers sweevil, snarky EJ over Father Figure Fucktard Eejiot.
- Posts:
- 10,398
- Group:
- Veteran
- Member
- #603
- Joined:
- December 6, 2007
- Favorite Current Daytime Soap Opera
- Days of Our Lives
- Favorite Soap Opera of All Time
- Days of Our Lives
- Favorite Current Primetime Soap Opera
- Revenge
- Favorite Primetime Soap Opera of All Time
- Knots Landing
|
- lysie
- Oct 2 2012, 03:22 PM
- SocRMum1
- Oct 2 2012, 03:15 PM
- esp13
- Oct 2 2012, 03:08 PM
- lysie
- Oct 2 2012, 02:23 PM
Quoting limited to 4 levels deeponeGOOD GUY!
EJ and Stefano and Sami and Nicole are SUPPOSED
This x infinity. Not all crimes are created equal and even the same crimes aren't equal if the motivations aren't. Emma changing the paternity test on Andrew to mess with Shane and Kim is NOT the equivalent to Daniel changing the paternity test to keep EJ from finding out he was the father of Nicole's baby. Emma's motivation was to hurt Kim (and Shane). Daniel's purpose (whether agreed with or not) was to protect Nicole and her child. The good guys can do bad things without becoming bad guys. It's always been that way. Steve and Kayla went to great lengths to keep Benjy from his father -- including hiding him from the law and kidnapping him from Stefano. I don't think that makes them villains. I understand that when the motivations are not established properly, it can definitely affect the perspective. But even badly established motivations still matter.
The difference between Steve and Kayla going to extremes to keep Benjy from Stefano and what Daniel/Rafe have done with EJ's child is that there is no reason to believe EJ is a threat to this child. EJ has other young children with whom he's actively involved. He's been shown to be a loving parent as consistently as any other parent on the show. So it kills the theory of the 'good guys' being able to do this without being 'bad guys' - because there is no true risk for the child. (Other than EJ fighting for custody against Nicole - and it's anyone's guess which of those two would be the better choice as custodial parent). In other words, I agree with the first part of your last sentence. :laugh:
I think we have thirty years worth of reasons that EJ and his family are threats to their own spawn. You sound like one of the Bradys - judging him based on his fatha's past actions. EJ has been no saint - but he's not been a threat to his childrun. Even when he sydnapped Sydney, he made sure she was well cared for.
To clarify, though - I see you as more of a Marlena than a Sami. And if you compare me to Stefano three will be he'll to pay. :toetap:
|
|
|
| |
|
JamesScott_19
|
Oct 2 2012, 04:11 PM
Post #520
|
Don't get up. So how are you? What happened, eh? Let me guess, Stefano told you that you could fly,and you jumped off a building. HeHe It's funny right, no I'm sorry Bad EJ, I should'nt be that cruel!
- Posts:
- 8,602
- Group:
- Veteran
- Member
- #6,699
- Joined:
- April 24, 2010
- Favorite Current Daytime Soap Opera
- Days of our Lives
- Favorite Soap Opera of All Time
- The Bold and the Beautiful
|
- camera shy
- Oct 2 2012, 03:24 PM
I don't think EJ is a good father. He stood by and let an ex-convict live under the same roof with his kids, he kidnapped Sydney and gave her over to Anna who she had never met before, he let Johnny think his mother didn't love him, he kicked Sami out of their lives and I'm sure if I took a few minutes I could think of more unfatherly things he had done. I don't know why people always want to say he's a good father because we've seen him read a bed time story to them a few times and kiss and hug them. He is a great father to me, sure he used his kids as revenge and done some horrible things.
I am not looking for a role model, looking for a character that is screwed up but still have a good reason behind it.
At least he never tried to steal anyone's baby and pass it along as his *coughs Rafe.
|
|
|
| |
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
|