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
Tuesday, December 25th Daily Discussion
Topic Started: Dec 24 2012, 01:59 PM (11,582 Views)
magicsteacher
Member Avatar


LuvingLumi
Dec 26 2012, 09:14 AM
magicsteacher
Dec 26 2012, 09:02 AM
DanishDoolFan
Dec 26 2012, 07:17 AM
That was a lovely Sydney and Nicole moment :)
It would have been a better moment for me if the little girl who plays Sydney would have shown some emotion, any emotion. She acted like she was scared to death and that seems to be the norm no matter who she is in scenes with.
that little girl is terrible....the delivery was so bad....Sydney needs to be recast, lol.
I agree and I don't get why they haven't recast her already. She has been awful since day one on the show. It makes it worse with the kids who play Johnny being so animated.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
AFaithL


magicsteacher
Dec 26 2012, 10:05 AM
LuvingLumi
Dec 26 2012, 09:14 AM
magicsteacher
Dec 26 2012, 09:02 AM
DanishDoolFan
Dec 26 2012, 07:17 AM
That was a lovely Sydney and Nicole moment :)
It would have been a better moment for me if the little girl who plays Sydney would have shown some emotion, any emotion. She acted like she was scared to death and that seems to be the norm no matter who she is in scenes with.
that little girl is terrible....the delivery was so bad....Sydney needs to be recast, lol.
I agree and I don't get why they haven't recast her already. She has been awful since day one on the show. It makes it worse with the kids who play Johnny being so animated.
Seriously. They can surely find another little girl with an ability to act.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Daysdegrassi
Member Avatar


I actually don't find the kids who play Johnny to be that good at acting. They arw fine, just overrated IMO.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
SocRMum1
Member Avatar
Much prefers sweevil, snarky EJ over Father Figure Fucktard Eejiot.

Anyone recall the last time we saw Allie and Johnny in the same scene? I'm beginning to wonder if they are intentionally keeping them apart so as not to highlight the dramatic height difference between 'the twins'. At this point Sydney seems to be about the same height as Johnny.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Helpless Romantic


SocRMum1
Dec 26 2012, 11:45 AM
Anyone recall the last time we saw Allie and Johnny in the same scene? I'm beginning to wonder if they are intentionally keeping them apart so as not to highlight the dramatic height difference between 'the twins'. At this point Sydney seems to be about the same height as Johnny.
It fits seeing as to Sami only her Dimera kids matter anyway and any new viewers wouldn't even know that Allie and Johnny are twins. They act like Syd and Johnny are. :toetap:
Edited by Helpless Romantic, Dec 26 2012, 11:48 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
lysie
Member Avatar


SocRMum1
Dec 26 2012, 11:45 AM
Anyone recall the last time we saw Allie and Johnny in the same scene? I'm beginning to wonder if they are intentionally keeping them apart so as not to highlight the dramatic height difference between 'the twins'. At this point Sydney seems to be about the same height as Johnny.
Sydney's officially taller, lol.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
mer4santo
Member Avatar


DrewHamilton
Dec 25 2012, 06:01 PM
Now onto Nicole's message from Sydney. I don't mind Nicole having moments where she sees Sydney in passing and reflects on the past times. What I don't want to see is Nicole still obsessed over the little girl. That's how today felt. And the whole "Mommy Nicole" was weird. The fact that EJ would even be okay with that bothers me. I know Sami wouldn't be okay with it. That's like Philip calling Vivian "Mommy Vivian." It never happened. Should never happen. I don't mind Nicole and Sydney having this connection for the rest of their lives, but today was a little overkill.
I whole heartedly agree.

It seems very strange that anyone, especially EJ after the latest baby steal, would put the kid in touch with her. I know the show hasn't been logical in forever, but this seems pathological, (which I suppose EJ is) but come on TomSell, use the opportunity to fix some of this shite. The woman is suffering loss but she is also obsessed and fostering the mommy aspect seems like a bone to the Sydole fans. No one would let one of those children near her. No one. I will always be a fan of the idea that Sydney is drawn to Nicole more as a confidant than to her mother because if there is a long term for the show, that would be awesome.


Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
six
Member Avatar


lysie
Dec 25 2012, 01:02 PM
I found Carmen San Diego.

Maggie won't let Victor have a cookie. I'm glad those two could give me and six more material.
;)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
camera shy


Daysdegrassi
Dec 26 2012, 11:32 AM
I actually don't find the kids who play Johnny to be that good at acting. They arw fine, just overrated IMO.
I think he's doing a pretty good job when you consider he's a child doing an adult's job with the cameras all around him and interacting with the other actors and remembering his lines. Now compare him to Sydney......
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
concerned
Member Avatar


Watch out Abe.... KayEJ were hot.

(or at least had the tiniest spark about them that looked enticing which is more than I can say for a lot of the other relationships on the canvas at the moment)
Edited by concerned, Dec 26 2012, 02:13 PM.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
esp13
Member Avatar


mer4santo
Dec 26 2012, 12:28 PM
DrewHamilton
Dec 25 2012, 06:01 PM
Now onto Nicole's message from Sydney. I don't mind Nicole having moments where she sees Sydney in passing and reflects on the past times. What I don't want to see is Nicole still obsessed over the little girl. That's how today felt. And the whole "Mommy Nicole" was weird. The fact that EJ would even be okay with that bothers me. I know Sami wouldn't be okay with it. That's like Philip calling Vivian "Mommy Vivian." It never happened. Should never happen. I don't mind Nicole and Sydney having this connection for the rest of their lives, but today was a little overkill.
I whole heartedly agree.

It seems very strange that anyone, especially EJ after the latest baby steal, would put the kid in touch with her. I know the show hasn't been logical in forever, but this seems pathological, (which I suppose EJ is) but come on TomSell, use the opportunity to fix some of this shite. The woman is suffering loss but she is also obsessed and fostering the mommy aspect seems like a bone to the Sydole fans. No one would let one of those children near her. No one. I will always be a fan of the idea that Sydney is drawn to Nicole more as a confidant than to her mother because if there is a long term for the show, that would be awesome.


I would agree except for one thing. Nicole was a step-mother to and spent considerable time with the kids well after all the Sydney stuff was revealed. So, the idea that nobody would let her near the kids rings false to me. She was near them all the time and nothing she has done since then would support the idea that she's any kind of danger to them. Yes, she lied about the paternity of the baby but EJ knew it was a lie. And even after he knew it was a lie, he kept begging Nicole to take him back. So, it's not like the lie itself caused EJ to go off the rails with Nicole.

So, on that side of things, I don't think it's all that ridiculous. However, I do agree that the whole thing feels like bone-throwing. I don't mind Nicole contemplating her loss and feeling that loss at Christmas, but the "Mommy Nicole" stuff was a little much. I would have rather seen a random run-in at the town square where Sydney ran to Nicole to say hi and EJ let them have that little moment. I think that would have seemed less heavy-handed.

And I completely agree that I don't want to see Nicole obsessed with Sydney again. So, if that was what this was foreshadowing then I'm not a happy camper. But, I'm holding out hope that it was just TomSell's heavy-handed attempt at Christmas mush.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
SocRMum1
Member Avatar
Much prefers sweevil, snarky EJ over Father Figure Fucktard Eejiot.

esp13
Dec 26 2012, 02:24 PM
mer4santo
Dec 26 2012, 12:28 PM
DrewHamilton
Dec 25 2012, 06:01 PM
Now onto Nicole's message from Sydney. I don't mind Nicole having moments where she sees Sydney in passing and reflects on the past times. What I don't want to see is Nicole still obsessed over the little girl. That's how today felt. And the whole "Mommy Nicole" was weird. The fact that EJ would even be okay with that bothers me. I know Sami wouldn't be okay with it. That's like Philip calling Vivian "Mommy Vivian." It never happened. Should never happen. I don't mind Nicole and Sydney having this connection for the rest of their lives, but today was a little overkill.
I whole heartedly agree.

It seems very strange that anyone, especially EJ after the latest baby steal, would put the kid in touch with her. I know the show hasn't been logical in forever, but this seems pathological, (which I suppose EJ is) but come on TomSell, use the opportunity to fix some of this shite. The woman is suffering loss but she is also obsessed and fostering the mommy aspect seems like a bone to the Sydole fans. No one would let one of those children near her. No one. I will always be a fan of the idea that Sydney is drawn to Nicole more as a confidant than to her mother because if there is a long term for the show, that would be awesome.


I would agree except for one thing. Nicole was a step-mother to and spent considerable time with the kids well after all the Sydney stuff was revealed. So, the idea that nobody would let her near the kids rings false to me. She was near them all the time and nothing she has done since then would support the idea that she's any kind of danger to them. Yes, she lied about the paternity of the baby but EJ knew it was a lie. And even after he knew it was a lie, he kept begging Nicole to take him back. So, it's not like the lie itself caused EJ to go off the rails with Nicole.

So, on that side of things, I don't think it's all that ridiculous. However, I do agree that the whole thing feels like bone-throwing. I don't mind Nicole contemplating her loss and feeling that loss at Christmas, but the "Mommy Nicole" stuff was a little much. I would have rather seen a random run-in at the town square where Sydney ran to Nicole to say hi and EJ let them have that little moment. I think that would have seemed less heavy-handed.

And I completely agree that I don't want to see Nicole obsessed with Sydney again. So, if that was what this was foreshadowing then I'm not a happy camper. But, I'm holding out hope that it was just TomSell's heavy-handed attempt at Christmas mush.
I think the thing that has happened that should give everyone pause about Nicole having any sort of contact with Sydney (or really any kids at the moment) is the psychotic break she just suffered a month or so ago. The woman was walking around carrying a dead baby in her womb and jumped on the opportunity to use that to her advantage to try to get her romantic rival out of the way. When that didn't work out, she threatened suicide in a public place. As much as I can sympathize with much of what Nicole has suffered (and that's largely due to AZ's portrayal more than the writing) it doesn't change the fact that she should be in some sort of intensive therapy to help her come to terms with her lost children and the other losses in her life. Allowing her access to a child she was previously obsessed with to the point that after having switched another infant to put in her place so she could claim her she later kidnapped her and planned to leave the country with her seems reckless. I agree that she and EJ managed to mend things after that and Nicole went on to have a relationship with EJ's kids - but given the very, very recent loss of this latest baby it would seem incredibly risky to allow Nicole's obsessive tendencies anywhere near Sydney again.

I actually came in to the thread to mention I finally watched the video scene this morning and holy cow - I see what everyone meant about the little girl playing Sydney and her delivery. That was absolutely painful. And then the scene where she is sitting next to Sami in HTS on the bench and Sami is talking about what a great Christmas the kids have had - the child looked absolutely miserable. Ouch!
Edited by SocRMum1, Dec 27 2012, 10:05 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
esp13
Member Avatar


SocRMum1
Dec 27 2012, 10:03 AM
esp13
Dec 26 2012, 02:24 PM
mer4santo
Dec 26 2012, 12:28 PM
DrewHamilton
Dec 25 2012, 06:01 PM
Now onto Nicole's message from Sydney. I don't mind Nicole having moments where she sees Sydney in passing and reflects on the past times. What I don't want to see is Nicole still obsessed over the little girl. That's how today felt. And the whole "Mommy Nicole" was weird. The fact that EJ would even be okay with that bothers me. I know Sami wouldn't be okay with it. That's like Philip calling Vivian "Mommy Vivian." It never happened. Should never happen. I don't mind Nicole and Sydney having this connection for the rest of their lives, but today was a little overkill.
I whole heartedly agree.

It seems very strange that anyone, especially EJ after the latest baby steal, would put the kid in touch with her. I know the show hasn't been logical in forever, but this seems pathological, (which I suppose EJ is) but come on TomSell, use the opportunity to fix some of this shite. The woman is suffering loss but she is also obsessed and fostering the mommy aspect seems like a bone to the Sydole fans. No one would let one of those children near her. No one. I will always be a fan of the idea that Sydney is drawn to Nicole more as a confidant than to her mother because if there is a long term for the show, that would be awesome.


I would agree except for one thing. Nicole was a step-mother to and spent considerable time with the kids well after all the Sydney stuff was revealed. So, the idea that nobody would let her near the kids rings false to me. She was near them all the time and nothing she has done since then would support the idea that she's any kind of danger to them. Yes, she lied about the paternity of the baby but EJ knew it was a lie. And even after he knew it was a lie, he kept begging Nicole to take him back. So, it's not like the lie itself caused EJ to go off the rails with Nicole.

So, on that side of things, I don't think it's all that ridiculous. However, I do agree that the whole thing feels like bone-throwing. I don't mind Nicole contemplating her loss and feeling that loss at Christmas, but the "Mommy Nicole" stuff was a little much. I would have rather seen a random run-in at the town square where Sydney ran to Nicole to say hi and EJ let them have that little moment. I think that would have seemed less heavy-handed.

And I completely agree that I don't want to see Nicole obsessed with Sydney again. So, if that was what this was foreshadowing then I'm not a happy camper. But, I'm holding out hope that it was just TomSell's heavy-handed attempt at Christmas mush.
I think the thing that has happened that should give everyone pause about Nicole having any sort of contact with Sydney (or really any kids at the moment) is the psychotic break she just suffered a month or so ago. The woman was walking around carrying a dead baby in her womb and jump on the opportunity to use that to her advantage to try to get her romantic rival out of the way. When that didn't work out, she threatened suicide in a public place. As much as I can sympathize with much of what Nicole has suffered (and that's largely due to AZ's portrayal more than the writing) it doesn't change the fact that she should be in some sort of intensive therapy to help her come to terms with her lost children and the other losses in her life. Allowing her access to a child she was previously obsessed with to the point that after having switched another infant to put in her place so she could claim her she later kidnapped her and planned to leave the country with her. I agree that she and EJ managed to mend things after that and Nicole went on to have a relationship with EJ's kids - but given the very, very recent loss of this latest baby it would seem incredibly risky to allow Nicole's obsessive tendencies to focus on Sydney again.

I actually came in to the thread to mention I finally watched the video scene this morning and holy cow - I see what everyone meant about the little girl playing Sydney and her delivery. That was absolutely painful. And then the scene where she is sitting next to Sami in HTS on the bench and Sami is talking about what a great Christmas the kids have had - the child looked absolutely miserable. Ouch!
That's a fair point, but I guess I would also point out that, thus far, nobody is letting Nicole anywhere near the kids. Chad took presents to them, but Nicole wasn't there. And EJ had a human moment and let Sydney send Nicole a message. She wasn't invited over or offered visitation. I guess I just don't think that the "Christmas miracle" moment for Nicole all that inconsistent with what has gone on in the past. Plus, while in real life nobody would let Nicole near the kids, we've long established that Salem bears little resemblance to real life.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
SocRMum1
Member Avatar
Much prefers sweevil, snarky EJ over Father Figure Fucktard Eejiot.

esp13
Dec 27 2012, 10:09 AM
SocRMum1
Dec 27 2012, 10:03 AM
esp13
Dec 26 2012, 02:24 PM
mer4santo
Dec 26 2012, 12:28 PM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deep
I would agree except for one thing. Nicole was a step-mother to and spent considerable time with the kids well after all the Sydney stuff was revealed. So, the idea that nobody would let her near the kids rings false to me. She was near them all the time and nothing she has done since then would support the idea that she's any kind of danger to them. Yes, she lied about the paternity of the baby but EJ knew it was a lie. And even after he knew it was a lie, he kept begging Nicole to take him back. So, it's not like the lie itself caused EJ to go off the rails with Nicole.

So, on that side of things, I don't think it's all that ridiculous. However, I do agree that the whole thing feels like bone-throwing. I don't mind Nicole contemplating her loss and feeling that loss at Christmas, but the "Mommy Nicole" stuff was a little much. I would have rather seen a random run-in at the town square where Sydney ran to Nicole to say hi and EJ let them have that little moment. I think that would have seemed less heavy-handed.

And I completely agree that I don't want to see Nicole obsessed with Sydney again. So, if that was what this was foreshadowing then I'm not a happy camper. But, I'm holding out hope that it was just TomSell's heavy-handed attempt at Christmas mush.
I think the thing that has happened that should give everyone pause about Nicole having any sort of contact with Sydney (or really any kids at the moment) is the psychotic break she just suffered a month or so ago. The woman was walking around carrying a dead baby in her womb and jump on the opportunity to use that to her advantage to try to get her romantic rival out of the way. When that didn't work out, she threatened suicide in a public place. As much as I can sympathize with much of what Nicole has suffered (and that's largely due to AZ's portrayal more than the writing) it doesn't change the fact that she should be in some sort of intensive therapy to help her come to terms with her lost children and the other losses in her life. Allowing her access to a child she was previously obsessed with to the point that after having switched another infant to put in her place so she could claim her she later kidnapped her and planned to leave the country with her. I agree that she and EJ managed to mend things after that and Nicole went on to have a relationship with EJ's kids - but given the very, very recent loss of this latest baby it would seem incredibly risky to allow Nicole's obsessive tendencies to focus on Sydney again.

I actually came in to the thread to mention I finally watched the video scene this morning and holy cow - I see what everyone meant about the little girl playing Sydney and her delivery. That was absolutely painful. And then the scene where she is sitting next to Sami in HTS on the bench and Sami is talking about what a great Christmas the kids have had - the child looked absolutely miserable. Ouch!
That's a fair point, but I guess I would also point out that, thus far, nobody is letting Nicole anywhere near the kids. Chad took presents to them, but Nicole wasn't there. And EJ had a human moment and let Sydney send Nicole a message. She wasn't invited over or offered visitation. I guess I just don't think that the "Christmas miracle" moment for Nicole all that inconsistent with what has gone on in the past. Plus, while in real life nobody would let Nicole near the kids, we've long established that Salem bears little resemblance to real life.
That's true - a video is a far cry from actually taking Sydney to Nicole to thank her in person. So there is that. But I think given all that's gone down with Nicole lately I'd sure be giving her the side eye for a while anytime she gets around any kids - particularly Sydney. :blink:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
dixiercat


Having Hope halfway across the world was actually a nice change. Sometimes, people do travel to see other family for Christmas. It was also nice for the show to acknowledge Shawn D, Belle and Claire. Though there seemed to be something missing from Hope and Ciara's scenes and I'm not talking about Bo...Claire and Ciara are supposed to be around the same age...they missed a perfect opportunity to bring back Claire for a single episode without showing either of her parents. Claire and Ciara should've been having a sleepover or something. Giggling about Christmas and typical little girl things.

And Hope was still virtually at the Horton Ornament Ceremony... it's not like they just didn't have Hope and Ciara onscreen at all. They acknowledged where they were and showed the audience where they were as well. They also managed to have Bo there and not there all at the same time "Oh he must've gotten up for a glass of water."



Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
LuLu2102


I only tuned in for this episode because I've been watching Christmas at the Hortons since 1983 and I'm a sucker for it. It's a testament to what this show used to be that just the sight of former characters' ornaments can elicit an emotional reaction from me. They were well-developed over the years by the writers and the actors that they seemed like real people that we knew. I miss feeling that way about the characters.

Quote:
 
I'm glad Jack's ornament went up, although the presence of Daniel's still makes me grind my teeth. Jen-Jen's touching both of them, one after the other, annoyed me too--a typically heavy-handed T&W touch no doubt illustrating how she's moving on from her first to her second "great love." :rolleyes: And what's with Jennifer continually smooching DeadJack's picture? Last year, she begrudged the living man even a single kiss under the mistletoe at Christmas, while making out with Daniel right in front of him at the tree trimming. TIIC may want viewers to forget how horribly she treated him--like an interloper and intruder--but that's so not going to happen. And "Thank you for taking such good care of me"? Where did that come from? According to Bitchifer's most bitter complaints last year, Jack was "never there for [her]." How nice that, in death, he finally lives up to her unrealistic expectations.


This bugged me to no end as well. Where do the writers get off having Jennifer treat Jack like an irritant, showing him little to no compassion, criticizing him at every opportunity will he was alive, but now that he's dead, act as if she was a loving, devoted wife who is somehow managing to drag herself out of her grief to embrace the miracle of a second chance at love with Daniel the Saint? It's such sloppy, lazy storytelling. These writers just swept in and started telling the stories they wanted to tell, without any regard to even the most recent history. I'd have more respect for them if they had Jennifer confessing to Daniel that her feelings for Jack never came back after he re-appeared, that she only got back together with him because Daniel had rejected her, and that she's sad that Jack's dead, but she isn't mourning him as a wife would her husband. I would hate it as a former Jack and Jennifer fan, that that's how their once-amazing story ended up, and it still wouldn't convince me to root for Jennifer and Daniel (or Jennifer and anybody), but at least it would have been consistent with the story over the last year.

Her "thank you for taking care of me" is, I think, the writers' heavy-handed way of implying that Jack is overseeing, and maybe even orchestrating, this latest go-around with Daniel. Implying that, just as Jack wanted Jennifer to be with Frankie after one of his previous deaths, he'd again want her to be "taken care of", by Daniel this time.

Quote:
 
Also, I didn't think it was necessary to bring EVERY character on today's episode (plus John) together at St. Luke's Catholic Church. As far as I'm concerned none of the Hortons (besides maybe Hope) have ever converted to Catholicism. So I'm not sure why they went to midnight mass. I don't think it's ever been stated whether the Kiriakis family are Catholic or not, but I know the Hortons aren't.


Seriously, the writers can't be that unfamiliar with various religions that they think all Christians are Catholics, could they? I can't believe that the actors wouldn't say something, like, "Hey, half of the characters at this Mass aren't Catholic", but I wouldn't be surprised if they learned a long time ago that character continuity is not high on the priority list of anyone in charge over there. I get that they wanted to have their montage of everyone singing hymns on Christmas, but they could have done that with two different groups on two different sets. Of course, it was probably budget constraints that make another set impractical. But they easily could have explained everyone going to Mass as a show of support for Father Eric. A family friend was presiding over a Christian service for the first time since returning home, and I would totally buy the Protestant Hortons celebrating Christmas at St. Luke's just for that reason. It could have been explained in one line of dialogue, but the writers obviously don't think the viewers will notice, and they don't care even if we do.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
BeeBee
Member Avatar


LuLu2102
Dec 27 2012, 04:33 PM
I only tuned in for this episode because I've been watching Christmas at the Hortons since 1983 and I'm a sucker for it. It's a testament to what this show used to be that just the sight of former characters' ornaments can elicit an emotional reaction from me. They were well-developed over the years by the writers and the actors that they seemed like real people that we knew. I miss feeling that way about the characters.

Quote:
 
I'm glad Jack's ornament went up, although the presence of Daniel's still makes me grind my teeth. Jen-Jen's touching both of them, one after the other, annoyed me too--a typically heavy-handed T&W touch no doubt illustrating how she's moving on from her first to her second "great love." :rolleyes: And what's with Jennifer continually smooching DeadJack's picture? Last year, she begrudged the living man even a single kiss under the mistletoe at Christmas, while making out with Daniel right in front of him at the tree trimming. TIIC may want viewers to forget how horribly she treated him--like an interloper and intruder--but that's so not going to happen. And "Thank you for taking such good care of me"? Where did that come from? According to Bitchifer's most bitter complaints last year, Jack was "never there for [her]." How nice that, in death, he finally lives up to her unrealistic expectations.


This bugged me to no end as well. Where do the writers get off having Jennifer treat Jack like an irritant, showing him little to no compassion, criticizing him at every opportunity will he was alive, but now that he's dead, act as if she was a loving, devoted wife who is somehow managing to drag herself out of her grief to embrace the miracle of a second chance at love with Daniel the Saint? It's such sloppy, lazy storytelling. These writers just swept in and started telling the stories they wanted to tell, without any regard to even the most recent history. I'd have more respect for them if they had Jennifer confessing to Daniel that her feelings for Jack never came back after he re-appeared, that she only got back together with him because Daniel had rejected her, and that she's sad that Jack's dead, but she isn't mourning him as a wife would her husband. I would hate it as a former Jack and Jennifer fan, that that's how their once-amazing story ended up, and it still wouldn't convince me to root for Jennifer and Daniel (or Jennifer and anybody), but at least it would have been consistent with the story over the last year.

Her "thank you for taking care of me" is, I think, the writers' heavy-handed way of implying that Jack is overseeing, and maybe even orchestrating, this latest go-around with Daniel. Implying that, just as Jack wanted Jennifer to be with Frankie after one of his previous deaths, he'd again want her to be "taken care of", by Daniel this time.

Quote:
 
Also, I didn't think it was necessary to bring EVERY character on today's episode (plus John) together at St. Luke's Catholic Church. As far as I'm concerned none of the Hortons (besides maybe Hope) have ever converted to Catholicism. So I'm not sure why they went to midnight mass. I don't think it's ever been stated whether the Kiriakis family are Catholic or not, but I know the Hortons aren't.


Seriously, the writers can't be that unfamiliar with various religions that they think all Christians are Catholics, could they? I can't believe that the actors wouldn't say something, like, "Hey, half of the characters at this Mass aren't Catholic", but I wouldn't be surprised if they learned a long time ago that character continuity is not high on the priority list of anyone in charge over there. I get that they wanted to have their montage of everyone singing hymns on Christmas, but they could have done that with two different groups on two different sets. Of course, it was probably budget constraints that make another set impractical. But they easily could have explained everyone going to Mass as a show of support for Father Eric. A family friend was presiding over a Christian service for the first time since returning home, and I would totally buy the Protestant Hortons celebrating Christmas at St. Luke's just for that reason. It could have been explained in one line of dialogue, but the writers obviously don't think the viewers will notice, and they don't care even if we do.
I am catholic.We often have non catholic visitors at mass.They attend with family members or friends who are catholic.Occasionally visitors just come to mass on their own.We welcome anyone who comes to the mass for any reason.I just assumed the Victor,Daniel,and the Hortons and would know it was Eric's first mass and would attend the mass for that reason.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
lysie
Member Avatar


I cannot imagine Victor Kiriakis or Daniel Jonas giving one tiny little bitty rip that it's Eric Brady's first mass. Honestly, I can't imagine any of the Hortons (other than the ones married to Bradys) caring either. Alice might have.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jason47
Member Avatar


lysie
Dec 25 2012, 01:24 PM
Look. Joey is a person! Weird that they didn't say who he was.
The two scenes at the Pub were cut, ones with Marlena/John/Roman (and Joey too), so maybe they had mentioned Joey by name in one of those two scenes. Both of John's scenes (with dialogue) were cut, so we only saw him arriving at church.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jason47
Member Avatar


Miss Rhi
Dec 25 2012, 01:43 PM
Why didn't Allie have an ornament?
Another cut.

Plus Doug's phone call with Hope was cut too.

And, from the 26th, the flashback from 1987 Christmas was cut as well :(
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest 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