|
Social Media Posts, Week of May 26
|
|
Topic Started: May 26 2014, 03:46 AM (48,867 Views)
|
|
Yoryla
|
Jun 1 2014, 03:35 PM
Post #461
|
- Posts:
- 4,222
- Group:
- Elite Member
- Member
- #13,816
- Joined:
- August 16, 2013
- Favorite Current Daytime Soap Opera
- Emmerdale
- Favorite Current Primetime Soap Opera
- Homeland
|
- esp13
- Jun 1 2014, 09:23 AM
- Yoryla
- Jun 1 2014, 07:30 AM
- somuchwhatever
- May 31 2014, 08:21 PM
- iheartwilson
- May 30 2014, 11:10 AM
Quoting limited to 4 levels deep Why does Ari "need" to stay with Will and Sonny?WilSon is a supercouple. They don't need to be split up 10 times to be a super couple. They have angst and I like what's been shown. They have had third parties try and break them up... the biggest one being Adrienne. Triangles are overdone and they're boring. They aren't treated equal, but I think it's with the love scenes. Okay, I said something instead of just using the thumbs down button. Opposing view stated. ;)
No. WilSon is an extremely popular couple with a huge fanbase (and one that I also happen to like). That said, they are NOT a supercouple. Supercouples are written with a very specific formula that WilSon does not have. If WilSon were a supercouple, they would have been wrenched apart about 4 times by now, they would not have been married yet (and maybe not even have slept together yet), and they'd be angsting after each other so hard that no one would be able to stand seeing them onscreen without yelling at the TV for them to kiss already, dammit. People would be writing/emailing/tweeting/hiring airplanes with banners begging TPTB for them to be together, and in the meantime, we would watch them day after day (and potentially year after year) in relationships of one kind or another with interlopers whose purpose would be to keep Sonny and Will apart. And mainly, the people keeping them apart would actually be each other for some noble and selfless reason. Anyway, the moral of the story is that popular, even hugely popular, does not equal supercouple.
But on a larger scale, there are no supercouples anymore. And in that context Wilson imo is the nearest thing of a supercouple these days we can have. They're stable, they clearly love each other, are committed and they're a unit of sorts.
Except that "stable, committed to each other and a unit of sorts"'is everything a super couple is not. A true and traditional super couple is anything but stable. And, for a good portion of the time, they aren't even necessarily committed to each other or a unit of any kind. A super couple is certainly deeply in love, but the ability to acknowledge that is usually limited to brief intervals of happiness in between the eons of unrelenting angst. The stability comes only after at least two years of a roller coaster ride and then generally only lasts for a brief period after the wedding before the long lost spouse, child, or enemy shows up to blow things up again. True stability and happiness are the death knell of a super couple (generally signaling that one half is about to die and/or the couple is about to leave) not a hallmark. As others have said WilSon is a very popular couple, but nothing about their story has fit the traditional super couple model. If you doubt this, go watch the first two years of Bo and Hope, Shane and Kim, Steve and Kayla, or Jack and Jennifer and compare for yourself. Yeah but you missed the point. Firstly I don't consider supercouple some people who always stay apart and have angst and are fighting, imo a real couple doesn't need that. I not only do not agree with the definition made by Matt, looking back at the couples like John and Marlena, Bo and Hope and Jack and Jennifer they were all still together most of the time when I watched, I didn't get to know them as great couples or supercouples because they were constantly apart or with other people, I knew them as units because that's what they were. And in today's world there are none such units anymore. The models have changed. Wilson being a stable couple in today's world is much much more valuable than these come and go relationships that have no real lasting power and can switch on a dime. I mean, which couple is there even on screen now that can be said will probably or likely stay together? Besides Wilson, no one.
|
|
|
| |
|
Yoryla
|
Jun 1 2014, 03:38 PM
Post #462
|
- Posts:
- 4,222
- Group:
- Elite Member
- Member
- #13,816
- Joined:
- August 16, 2013
- Favorite Current Daytime Soap Opera
- Emmerdale
- Favorite Current Primetime Soap Opera
- Homeland
|
- esp13
- Jun 1 2014, 09:23 AM
- Yoryla
- Jun 1 2014, 07:30 AM
- somuchwhatever
- May 31 2014, 08:21 PM
- iheartwilson
- May 30 2014, 11:10 AM
Quoting limited to 4 levels deep Why does Ari "need" to stay with Will and Sonny?WilSon is a supercouple. They don't need to be split up 10 times to be a super couple. They have angst and I like what's been shown. They have had third parties try and break them up... the biggest one being Adrienne. Triangles are overdone and they're boring. They aren't treated equal, but I think it's with the love scenes. Okay, I said something instead of just using the thumbs down button. Opposing view stated. ;)
No. WilSon is an extremely popular couple with a huge fanbase (and one that I also happen to like). That said, they are NOT a supercouple. Supercouples are written with a very specific formula that WilSon does not have. If WilSon were a supercouple, they would have been wrenched apart about 4 times by now, they would not have been married yet (and maybe not even have slept together yet), and they'd be angsting after each other so hard that no one would be able to stand seeing them onscreen without yelling at the TV for them to kiss already, dammit. People would be writing/emailing/tweeting/hiring airplanes with banners begging TPTB for them to be together, and in the meantime, we would watch them day after day (and potentially year after year) in relationships of one kind or another with interlopers whose purpose would be to keep Sonny and Will apart. And mainly, the people keeping them apart would actually be each other for some noble and selfless reason. Anyway, the moral of the story is that popular, even hugely popular, does not equal supercouple.
But on a larger scale, there are no supercouples anymore. And in that context Wilson imo is the nearest thing of a supercouple these days we can have. They're stable, they clearly love each other, are committed and they're a unit of sorts.
Except that "stable, committed to each other and a unit of sorts"'is everything a super couple is not. A true and traditional super couple is anything but stable. And, for a good portion of the time, they aren't even necessarily committed to each other or a unit of any kind. A super couple is certainly deeply in love, but the ability to acknowledge that is usually limited to brief intervals of happiness in between the eons of unrelenting angst. The stability comes only after at least two years of a roller coaster ride and then generally only lasts for a brief period after the wedding before the long lost spouse, child, or enemy shows up to blow things up again. True stability and happiness are the death knell of a super couple (generally signaling that one half is about to die and/or the couple is about to leave) not a hallmark. As others have said WilSon is a very popular couple, but nothing about their story has fit the traditional super couple model. If you doubt this, go watch the first two years of Bo and Hope, Shane and Kim, Steve and Kayla, or Jack and Jennifer and compare for yourself. And btw, I'm not going to evaluate couples based on some "model" I can do that perfectly fine myself. And I don't need to be told to go watch anything when I remember how it was. Secondly even if there was a "model" in place sometime in the 80's or 90's, why should that be taken into any sort of an account today? I mean, surely people don't expect for soap storytelling to not change, since everything else in the world has and has evolved? Nothing is being told the same way as it was in the 90's, and that's just how it is, really.
|
|
|
| |
|
Kaha
|
Jun 1 2014, 03:42 PM
Post #463
|
- Posts:
- 4,406
- Group:
- Elite Member
- Member
- #14,268
- Joined:
- November 3, 2013
- Favorite Current Daytime Soap Opera
- Days of Our Lives
|
- lysie
- Jun 1 2014, 01:14 PM
- sillibella
- Jun 1 2014, 01:07 PM
I'm sorry, absolutely no disrespect to anybody but the fact that to supposedly be a "supercouple" you have to follow all these rules and guidelines is just amusing me. "You don't get to join this group because you haven't suffered enough." It's just has me thinking that there are some clinging to old traditions and that's perfectly fine, obviously, but I certainly don't care about a favorite couple of mine being held to an old set of rules. Supercouple or not it's all just somebody else's opinion no matter if the label gets used or not.
It's a word. It's a word with a meaning. I have pillows on my bed. As much as my t-shirt may want to be a pillow, it's still a t-shirt because words have meanings. Again. It's not an insult. It's not a group to join. It's not a comparison of good and bad. More like a pillow vs cushion, no?
|
|
|
| |
|
Yoryla
|
Jun 1 2014, 03:47 PM
Post #464
|
- Posts:
- 4,222
- Group:
- Elite Member
- Member
- #13,816
- Joined:
- August 16, 2013
- Favorite Current Daytime Soap Opera
- Emmerdale
- Favorite Current Primetime Soap Opera
- Homeland
|
Re: the always being apart and longing for each other aspect on the "supercouples", it's utter bullshit. I did not grow up watching and seeing and getting to know some of those couples such as Bo & Hope, John & Marlena, Victor & Nikki, Luke & Laura, as being apart or constantly with other people. How the hell would I get a feeling that this is a supercouple if that were the case??? What the hell does it even matter if someone's a "super couple" if they're not together??? Sure they might have had their affairs and diversions but they would always return to each other, and when they did they were extremely happy. And Wilson has now been married for what, two months? That's hardly any time at all to say what will be the case for them. But the absolute fact is that from the current canvas there is no other pairing that I could see lasting in say two or three years together with obstacles than these two.
|
|
|
| |
|
Yoryla
|
Jun 1 2014, 03:50 PM
Post #465
|
- Posts:
- 4,222
- Group:
- Elite Member
- Member
- #13,816
- Joined:
- August 16, 2013
- Favorite Current Daytime Soap Opera
- Emmerdale
- Favorite Current Primetime Soap Opera
- Homeland
|
- Rosebud
- Jun 1 2014, 11:45 AM
- iheartwilson
- Jun 1 2014, 08:11 AM
- Matt
- May 31 2014, 11:45 PM
I don't think a lot of the younger viewers quite understand the concept of "supercouple" in relation to soap opera couples. It seems as if soaps have been so determined to jettison the whole supercouple concept that it's now just a generic term for a soap couple that you happen to really, really, really like. A true supercouple has to adhere to a very strong guideline of INTENSE fan devotion (and corresponding front burner status) while haven't nothing but one obstacle after another thrown in their way to keep them apart (i.e. misunderstandings, sacrificing their own happiness for the other, a scheming/crazy ex, a suddenly pregnancy with the wrong person, a sudden marriage to the wrong person, etc.). In truth, a TRUE supercouple typically spends more time apart and longing to be together (either openly or secretly) than they do together. Bless Will & Sonny's little hearts, but I have never once seen longing from them. lol And their road to romance & domestic bliss has been a fucking cakewalk in the park, imo.
How can two people be called a supercouple when they are always apart and not even a couple? Color me confused. PS. Thanks for calling me a younger viewer ;) Too bad is isn't true. :P
Read Matt's post again. Or tape it to your fridge. It is about the longing to be together and being torn apart. It doesn't mean they have to literally BE a couple. LOL. That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Two people who are not together are two people, not a couple. There is no such thing as a "couple" who have never been together.
|
|
|
| |
|
SoapGal1
|
Jun 1 2014, 03:53 PM
Post #466
|
- Posts:
- 7,284
- Group:
- Veteran
- Member
- #659
- Joined:
- December 20, 2007
- Mood
- None
|
- Kaha
- Jun 1 2014, 01:59 PM
- SoapGal1
- Jun 1 2014, 11:31 AM
I think supercouples are a thing of the past. They don't write like that for couples anymore.
I think Ericole was the closest in recent history & then they blew that all to bits.
I liked Ejami alot back in the day but they never got true supercouple writing, IMO.
I don't think Wilson is either. It's like tptb are too scared to really give them any obstacles. Plus, I think GW & To a lesser extent FS would really have to step their game in the acting dept.
If acting skills determined supercoupledom then many people would be out. Take for example, Drake Hogestyn who has zero acting range. I watched GW on other shows and his acting is good. I think he's been given bad direction but also he's getting used to the soap format and even then I have no problem with his acting. Granted, he looked stiff and somewhat nervous in the beginning but he stepped up. He would probably be good as an edgy and sarcastic guy with an attitude. I think Freddie is great and does good job with the crapy material he gets. Drake is terrible now, but back during his "supercouple" writing he was actually pretty good, IMO.
I just watched Friday's Days and I thought GW was incredibly stiff. He's not the worst actor ever to be on a soap but I don't think that the writing for Wilson or the acting is going to get them any attention outside of soaps....other than what they've already gotten for being a gay couple.
|
|
|
| |
|
nananana7
|
Jun 1 2014, 03:54 PM
Post #467
|
- Posts:
- 25,412
- Group:
- Veteran
- Member
- #12,620
- Joined:
- October 17, 2012
|
. (I'm quoting a LOT of people here -- so I'm going to put the entire series of quotes behind a spoiler tag. Click if you choose to view what I'm referring to.)
Spoiler: click to toggle - somuchwhatever
- May 31 2014, 08:21 PM
WilSon is an extremely popular couple with a huge fanbase (and one that I also happen to like). That said, they are NOT a supercouple.
Supercouples are written with a very specific formula that WilSon does not have. If WilSon were a supercouple, they would have been wrenched apart about 4 times by now, they would not have been married yet (and maybe not even have slept together yet), and they'd be angsting after each other so hard that no one would be able to stand seeing them onscreen without yelling at the TV for them to kiss already, dammit. People would be writing/emailing/tweeting/hiring airplanes with banners begging TPTB for them to be together, and in the meantime, we would watch them day after day (and potentially year after year) in relationships of one kind or another with interlopers whose purpose would be to keep Sonny and Will apart. And mainly, the people keeping them apart would actually be each other for some noble and selfless reason.
Anyway, the moral of the story is that popular, even hugely popular, does not equal supercouple.
- Matt
- May 31 2014, 11:45 PM
I don't think a lot of the younger viewers quite understand the concept of "supercouple" in relation to soap opera couples. It seems as if soaps have been so determined to jettison the whole supercouple concept that it's now just a generic term for a soap couple that you happen to really, really, really like. A true supercouple has to adhere to a very strong guideline of INTENSE fan devotion (and corresponding front burner status) while haven't nothing but one obstacle after another thrown in their way to keep them apart (i.e. misunderstandings, sacrificing their own happiness for the other, a scheming/crazy ex, a suddenly pregnancy with the wrong person, a sudden marriage to the wrong person, etc.). In truth, a TRUE supercouple typically spends more time apart and longing to be together (either openly or secretly) than they do together. Bless Will & Sonny's little hearts, but I have never once seen longing from them. lol And their road to romance & domestic bliss has been a fucking cakewalk in the park, imo.
- iheartwilson
- Jun 1 2014, 08:11 AM
How can two people be called a supercouple when they are always apart and not even a couple? Color me confused. PS. Thanks for calling me a younger viewer ;) Too bad is isn't true. :P
- six
- Jun 1 2014, 09:48 AM
Because the term is more about them being soulmates who long for each other and who belong together than about them actually being together, living in domestic bliss. If you're not frustrated for most of your ship's stories, while they're young and in the spotlight, you're not shipping a supercouple. And you might not necessarily be shipping a supercouple even if you are frustrated.
- esp13
- Jun 1 2014, 09:23 AM
"stable, committed to each other and a unit of sorts"'is everything a super couple is not. A true and traditional super couple is anything but stable. And, for a good portion of the time, they aren't even necessarily committed to each other or a unit of any kind.
A super couple is certainly deeply in love, but the ability to acknowledge that is usually limited to brief intervals of happiness in between the eons of unrelenting angst. The stability comes only after at least two years of a roller coaster ride and then generally only lasts for a brief period after the wedding before the long lost spouse, child, or enemy shows up to blow things up again. True stability and happiness are the death knell of a super couple (generally signaling that one half is about to die and/or the couple is about to leave) not a hallmark.
As others have said WilSon is a very popular couple, but nothing about their story has fit the traditional super couple model. If you doubt this, go watch the first two years of Bo and Hope, Shane and Kim, Steve and Kayla, or Jack and Jennifer and compare for yourself.
- Laufeyson
- Jun 1 2014, 10:21 AM
Supercouples only existed in the 80s and maybe even the 90s when the writing was spectacular in pairing people together. We didn't question it or even have these back and forths, it was (almost always) a universal understanding by the fans/actors/writers that person A belonged with person B no matter what nonsense was thrown at them to keep them apart. In my understanding this is not Wilson and it definitely is not Ejami and according to this show supercouples are now only good for one thing, destruction: Marlena&Roman(WN)/Jarlena/Bope/J&J/Steve&Kayla. The only couples in recent history that have even come close to true supercoupledom were Ericole 1.0/Lumi/Austin&Carrie but the today's writing has just about ruined them. The only surviving supercouples are Julie&Doug and Kim&Shane but they are off screen so we have practically forgotten about them.
- Kaha
- Jun 1 2014, 11:03 AM
If we only go by Matt's definition then many of the ingredient can apply to Ejami. Yes, they've hurt each other but they can be described as soulmates and they've yearned for each other and they were separated by multiple obstacles. They're not my ship but I cannot deny the smoldering hotness that was Ejami when they were fighting and we're using all their arsenals against each other. I don't think Matt said anything about a healthy or conventional love.
As for WilSon, I am not even interested in the supercouple label. I just want a front and center s/l for them. I want them to lead the young set and I think they have the connections and the rich history the writers can tab into to make that happen, but I guess they're cautious for whatever reason.
- esp13
- Jun 1 2014, 11:12 AM
Well I'm not sure Matt was writing the definitive definition. But, supercouple is not just about hotness or obstacles. And it is very much conventional love - just written fairytale large. It may not be "healthy" because this is soap, but it's not supposed to be destructive or vindictive. That's where (among other things) EJ and Sami fail the test.
- thepadange
- Jun 1 2014, 11:18 AM
IMO it makes no sense to have a discussion if X or Y is a supercouple or not, if there's no agreement on the "concept"/meaning of "supercouple". (Because there's no misinterpretation or right answer here, it's just a matter of agreement)
- esp13
- Jun 1 2014, 11:27 AM
Fair enough. But some of us believe there is a concept/meaning/definition of supercouple. So there really isn't an agreement that there should be disagreement about the term. And, beyond that, discussions would be boring if we could only talk about things that we all actually agreed upon. People are free to make their cases as to why they believe Wilson or EJami or any other couple is a supercouple. And I'm free to explain why I disagree with that classification. It might not change anybody's mind, but it serves to pass the time.
- nananana7
- Jun 1 2014, 11:37 AM
- Matt
- Jun 1 2014, 11:49 AM
Also, another thing to factor in, is that typical soap opera supercouples traditionally have a 3-5 year shelf life from introduction/launch until one or both of the partners leaves the show (be it by the actor's own choice or by a storyline dictate). It is very, very, VERY rare for a supercouple to hang around on a show indefinitely (especially front burner) while still getting supercouple style writing. John/Marlena are probably the longest term supercouple still on the show, but they're currently apart (after having been sent off the canvas for a couple of years) and their later stories became more and more outlandish (IMO). Also, as mentioned above, with true supercouple writing, there was never any doubt who each 1/2 belonged with even when there was an interloper. We were never led to believe that there MIGHT be a chance Roman wanted Anna. Larry or Diane was ever implied to be a TRUE rival to Bo & Hope's love. It was never written that fans should've ever rooted for Jack & Kayla. No one EVER thought that Justin might legitimately end up with Anjelica or Adrienne with Emilio (or Jennifer with Emilio, for that matter). Over the last 15 years or so, it seems the pattern has been "How many different couple configurations can we come up with for the same characters, how many different fanbases can we cultivate, how long can we string each of them along making each one of them think that their couple is the one who should be together by throwing them crumbs, & how viciously & bitterly can we make them fight against one another". Not supercouple writing.
- Halloween Family
- Jun 1 2014, 12:30 PM
I view Matt's definition as "super couple writing" but to me a super couple is a pairing that has made an impact in pop culture.
- concerned
- Jun 1 2014, 02:08 PM
Nicole and EJ <snip> Not at all a supercouple but kind of flawed soulmates who could have been amazing and fulfilled all their dreams by getting together and gone on to cause havoc all over Salem. More a perfect match.
- marie1969
- Jun 1 2014, 03:34 PM
I personally would go with the media's take on it. According to Wikipedia, Wilson is considered a supercouple, so does Ejami. I realize that some may not agree, but it is just their personal opinion.
According to some of the definitions I read online, a couple is considered a supercouple based on their popularity or how much the fans are fascinated and obsessed with them.
I personally don't care if Ejami is considered a supercouple or not although according to the media, they are. But I know they are popular and fans are fascinated and obsessed with them. So there you go. <snip> Someone mentioned up thread that Ejami can not be a supercouple because of their history. I disagree because Luke and Laura are considered the all time supercouple in spite of their 'history'.
Based on that rationale, Lumi could not be a supercouple either LOL.
I have to disagree with the poster who said that having lots of popularity and obsessed fans makes a couple a supercouple. I strongly disagree.
And frankly, Luke and Laura were famous, but I never saw Luke as rootable by himself, and I never wanted him with Laura. I never saw them as "destined" to be together. I think the late 1970s had different values than today. But even back then, I didn't want Laura with Luke.
But media popularity/chatter isn't what Matt's earlier post was talking about. Matt was talking more about of a rootable couple with lots of angst due to the couple being kept apart by obstacles, yet yearning for one another.
Halloween Family has an interesting view that Matt's definition describes "supercouple WRITING" -- the WRITING -- in contrast to the wikipedia first paragraph saying a superCOUPLE is a pairing that has made an impact in pop culture.[/quote]
I think this is an interesting distinction!
The style of writing that Matt described is what I'd call "classic soap supercoupledom".
But, in my opinion, EJami don't fit the bill because they're not rootable individuals.
I agree with "esp13" who said: - esp13
- Jun 1 2014, 11:12 AM
supercouple is not just about hotness or obstacles. And it is very much conventional love - just written fairytale large. It may not be "healthy" because this is soap, but it's not supposed to be destructive or vindictive. That's where (among other things) EJ and Sami fail the test.
In my opinion, the two people have to be rootable heroes/heroines (although flawed). EJ is a villain. Sami is loud but not heroic. That's why Ejami don't fit my definition of classic oldschool superhero.
Member "concerned" pointed out that a couple (for example ejole) can be highly flawed and be a match for each other, but that doesn't make them an oldschool soap supercouple.
This is interesting to me as an old Lumi fan. I think Lumi fit well together, but I don't see them as a "hero/heroine" couple. Yet for some reason I cannot put into words, it seemed that there was something supercouple-ish about them. Now that we've overanalyzed the definition, I don't know how to label them.
In my opinion, the reason Ericole was starting to be what *i* call a classic (old-school) soap supercouple -- is that Nicole was becoming a good person while keeping her flaws, making her rootable by herself. However Eric needs to show something that makes him rootable. And of course it's all falling apart now, so .... whatever.
|
|
|
| |
|
jam6242
|
Jun 1 2014, 03:54 PM
Post #468
|
- Posts:
- 5,934
- Group:
- Veteran
- Member
- #3,305
- Joined:
- December 31, 2008
- Favorite Current Daytime Soap Opera
- The Doctors
- Favorite Soap Opera of All Time
- Days of Our Lives
- Favorite Primetime Soap Opera of All Time
- Peyton Place
|
- Yoryla
- Jun 1 2014, 03:47 PM
Re: the always being apart and longing for each other aspect on the "supercouples", it's utter bullshit. I did not grow up watching and seeing and getting to know some of those couples such as Bo & Hope, John & Marlena, Victor & Nikki, Luke & Laura, as being apart or constantly with other people. How the hell would I get a feeling that this is a supercouple if that were the case??? What the hell does it even matter if someone's a "super couple" if they're not together??? Sure they might have had their affairs and diversions but they would always return to each other, and when they did they were extremely happy. And Wilson has now been married for what, two months? That's hardly any time at all to say what will be the case for them. But the absolute fact is that from the current canvas there is no other pairing that I could see lasting in say two or three years together with obstacles than these two. May I ask when you started watching those couples you mentioned. Because they all certainly did have angst and were kept apart by various circumstances before they finally got together in any lasting way. The same was true for all the well-known and recognized supercouples (and I don't mean just wikipedia entries).
|
|
|
| |
|
Yoryla
|
Jun 1 2014, 03:55 PM
Post #469
|
- Posts:
- 4,222
- Group:
- Elite Member
- Member
- #13,816
- Joined:
- August 16, 2013
- Favorite Current Daytime Soap Opera
- Emmerdale
- Favorite Current Primetime Soap Opera
- Homeland
|
- lysie
- Jun 1 2014, 12:07 PM
Wikipedia, entertainment magazines, etc. have no idea what a supercouple is. It was a writing style that mostly involved one specific writer. Days has abandoned it, and while I enjoyed it at one point, it's not a bad thing at all that they've abandoned it. It's very limiting to the characters and the actors, and is a lot of the reason Days struggles to write for its vets. For some reason people seem to think that being labeled a supercouple is the end all be all for a soap couple, and it really just isn't. Not being a supercouple doesn't mean the couple isn't good or popular.
IMO, it's not even the horrible things Ejami have done to each other that keeps that label from applying to them. They're different kinds of characters than are used in the traditional formula, so I think they could have still been one even with that (if things had happened slightly differently at the end of 2007/beginning of 2008, I think there'd be a strong argument for them). IMO, what keeps them from being one is the fact that they haven't actually been trying to be a couple for the last 8 years, and then when they did actually get together, there wasn't a real story.
But again. People get all kinds of pissed and defensive when someone says that a couple isn't a supercouple. It's not an insult. And if you want them onscreen in this decade, it's really a blessing. Every now and then a couple (sometimes even not overly popular ones) will get a few months worth of supercouple writing, but it doesn't last. Even the supercouples don't get supercouple writing anymore because it's not 1986. Ericole did have it very briefly. I think even Safe had it briefly in 2010 (the writing...not the other stuff) and Victor/Maggie even had it briefly during the buried alive redux. I don't think it's a very good formula for today's audience, though. I agree with this, especially about it not being a good or usable formula for this day's audience. If it was, it would still be used.
Also, I especially agree with the bolded. A couple is not a couple if they're not together or even trying to be together.
|
|
|
| |
|
IIttu
|
Jun 1 2014, 03:56 PM
Post #470
|
- Posts:
- 1,652
- Group:
- Elite Member
- Member
- #3,136
- Joined:
- November 17, 2008
- YouTube ID
- user/IIttuJM
|
Just finished watching Martha and Mary Beth's interview.. My thoughts:
A) I just love MBE, I could've listened to her on and on. She just has this natural aura of likeability. B) MBE looks stunning without make-up. C) MBE looks stunning on the Bay, gorgeous styling and make-up. D) Why cannot Days style their cast members beautifully? They believe in vanity when bringing in new characters (the looks comes first, acting abilities second), yet they style all the pretty people horribly. E) Why was it again that Days refuses to use this beautiful, talented actress, whose character -thanks to the writers- isn't even tied to any character romantically anymore and therefore should be free from any limitations?
|
|
|
| |
|
Yoryla
|
Jun 1 2014, 03:58 PM
Post #471
|
- Posts:
- 4,222
- Group:
- Elite Member
- Member
- #13,816
- Joined:
- August 16, 2013
- Favorite Current Daytime Soap Opera
- Emmerdale
- Favorite Current Primetime Soap Opera
- Homeland
|
- thepadange
- Jun 1 2014, 12:21 PM
Ken Corday is quoted in Wikipedia: - Quote:
-
Days of our Lives executive producer Ken Corday said that while he feels that "love in the afternoon" is still important to the genre, he takes exception with the supercouple title. "It disappeared from my vocabulary when Al Rabin left the show," he said.[14] Rabin, Corday's former supervising producer, had continually credited the word as the secret to the show's success.[14] "By definition, supercouple excludes others on the show," said Corday. "Every time they walk into a room, every other character, no matter how important, becomes window dressing, I've never believed in it. Either people are involved in a good story or they're not. They're an interesting couple or they're not."
Hmm... ? I'm kinda confused. What did he mean? It was ok to have supercouples and other characters as window dressings under Rabin but post-Rabin it's not ok anymore? He meant Rabin wrote supercouples like that, and he didn't want that to happen anymore. And thank GOD for that! Exactly the kind of mentality I do not want to see, I do not want to see other people to stop existing because of that.
|
|
|
| |
|
Yoryla
|
Jun 1 2014, 03:59 PM
Post #472
|
- Posts:
- 4,222
- Group:
- Elite Member
- Member
- #13,816
- Joined:
- August 16, 2013
- Favorite Current Daytime Soap Opera
- Emmerdale
- Favorite Current Primetime Soap Opera
- Homeland
|
- blueskies
- Jun 1 2014, 12:10 PM
MM said after she was fired from Days she put out feelers and Brian Frons came back and said he didn't want her on his network b/c she was matronly and overrated as an actress (24 mins in). ........................
Dear God. I mean, everyone knew what a crazy person, but really??? To say something like that to someone who was just basically looking for a job? How insulting!!!
|
|
|
| |
|
thepadange
|
Jun 1 2014, 04:00 PM
Post #473
|
- Posts:
- 19,424
- Group:
- Veteran
- Member
- #13,186
- Joined:
- March 3, 2013
|
Kassie DePaiva @KassieDePaiva 4m Headed west to #days! Had an awesome week on the east coast! Life is good and I'm grateful! https://twitter.com/KassieDePaiva/status/473205724021940224
|
|
|
| |
|
nananana7
|
Jun 1 2014, 04:03 PM
Post #474
|
- Posts:
- 25,412
- Group:
- Veteran
- Member
- #12,620
- Joined:
- October 17, 2012
|
Regarding how this conversation started --- about WilSon.
I'm going to avoid the debate as to whether WilSon are a supercouple or not.
And, instead, I'll say ...
In my opinion, WilSon are a superb couple.
Although they've had relatively ordinary lives, I find them superb!
:wub2: :wub2:
|
|
|
| |
|
lysie
|
Jun 1 2014, 04:04 PM
Post #475
|
- Posts:
- 64,320
- Group:
- Admin
- Member
- #4,604
- Joined:
- May 20, 2009
|
- Yoryla
- Jun 1 2014, 03:38 PM
- esp13
- Jun 1 2014, 09:23 AM
- Yoryla
- Jun 1 2014, 07:30 AM
- somuchwhatever
- May 31 2014, 08:21 PM
Quoting limited to 4 levels deepWhy does Ari "need" to stay with Will and Sonny?WilSon is a supercouple.
But on a larger scale, there are no supercouples anymore. And in that context Wilson imo is the nearest thing of a supercouple these days we can have. They're stable, they clearly love each other, are committed and they're a unit of sorts.
Except that "stable, committed to each other and a unit of sorts"'is everything a super couple is not. A true and traditional super couple is anything but stable. And, for a good portion of the time, they aren't even necessarily committed to each other or a unit of any kind. A super couple is certainly deeply in love, but the ability to acknowledge that is usually limited to brief intervals of happiness in between the eons of unrelenting angst. The stability comes only after at least two years of a roller coaster ride and then generally only lasts for a brief period after the wedding before the long lost spouse, child, or enemy shows up to blow things up again. True stability and happiness are the death knell of a super couple (generally signaling that one half is about to die and/or the couple is about to leave) not a hallmark. As others have said WilSon is a very popular couple, but nothing about their story has fit the traditional super couple model. If you doubt this, go watch the first two years of Bo and Hope, Shane and Kim, Steve and Kayla, or Jack and Jennifer and compare for yourself.
And btw, I'm not going to evaluate couples based on some "model" I can do that perfectly fine myself. And I don't need to be told to go watch anything when I remember how it was. Secondly even if there was a "model" in place sometime in the 80's or 90's, why should that be taken into any sort of an account today? I mean, surely people don't expect for soap storytelling to not change, since everything else in the world has and has evolved? Nothing is being told the same way as it was in the 90's, and that's just how it is, really. This has been the point all along.
But those couples you mentioned were kept apart a lot. Someone mentioned earlier that the point back then was that you KNEW the story was going tk eventually get those tek back together. So yeah. They weren't actual couples but they were getting Supercouple writing.
|
|
|
| |
|
lysie
|
Jun 1 2014, 04:08 PM
Post #476
|
- Posts:
- 64,320
- Group:
- Admin
- Member
- #4,604
- Joined:
- May 20, 2009
|
- nananana7
- Jun 1 2014, 04:03 PM
Regarding how this conversation started --- about WilSon. I'm going to avoid the debate as to whether WilSon are a supercouple or not. And, instead, I'll say ... In my opinion, WilSon are a superb couple. Although they've had relatively ordinary lives, I find them superb! :wub2: :wub2: I can't even quote your precious post, but if you're having to use spoiler tags because you're quoting so many people, you're probably quoting too many people.
|
|
|
| |
|
Yoryla
|
Jun 1 2014, 04:08 PM
Post #477
|
- Posts:
- 4,222
- Group:
- Elite Member
- Member
- #13,816
- Joined:
- August 16, 2013
- Favorite Current Daytime Soap Opera
- Emmerdale
- Favorite Current Primetime Soap Opera
- Homeland
|
- ShaneDOOLFan
- Jun 1 2014, 02:07 PM
Apparently James Scott (EJ) mentioned that there is the most fucking fantastic twist in soaps coming up. Eeeehhh.... this doesn't sound very good now does it? So it probably means something VERY lame.
|
|
|
| |
|
lysie
|
Jun 1 2014, 04:09 PM
Post #478
|
- Posts:
- 64,320
- Group:
- Admin
- Member
- #4,604
- Joined:
- May 20, 2009
|
Previous. Not precious. Lol
|
|
|
| |
|
nananana7
|
Jun 1 2014, 04:12 PM
Post #479
|
- Posts:
- 25,412
- Group:
- Veteran
- Member
- #12,620
- Joined:
- October 17, 2012
|
- lysie
- Jun 1 2014, 04:09 PM
Previous. Not precious. Lol
Oh! I was wondering! ROFL
|
|
|
| |
|
IIttu
|
Jun 1 2014, 04:13 PM
Post #480
|
- Posts:
- 1,652
- Group:
- Elite Member
- Member
- #3,136
- Joined:
- November 17, 2008
- YouTube ID
- user/IIttuJM
|
- lysie
- Jun 1 2014, 04:09 PM
Previous. Not precious. Lol lol after reading the post I just assumed it was snark..
|
|
|
| |
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
|