Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]



Hello, soap fans -- and welcome to Daytime Royalty!

For those unfamiliar, we are an uncensored community for fans and lovers of the daytime genre. We have a no-holds-barred atmosphere in regards to the shows, writers, actors etc. but we do not allow member suffering succotash in any form.

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.

Join our community!

If you're already a member, please log in to your account to access all of our features.

Username:   Password:
Locked Topic
Social Media Posts, Week of May 26
Topic Started: May 26 2014, 03:46 AM (48,866 Views)
lysie


IIttu
Jun 1 2014, 04:13 PM
lysie
Jun 1 2014, 04:09 PM
Previous. Not precious. Lol
lol after reading the post I just assumed it was snark..
That's why I clarified, lol. I can be mean, but not THAT mean.
Online Profile Goto Top
 
Yoryla
Member Avatar


lysie
Jun 1 2014, 04:09 PM
Previous. Not precious. Lol
Oh. But that was so cute... :wub2:

I wonder if I'll ever make a post that could be called "precious". Probably not, lol.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
sillibella
Member Avatar


marie1969
Jun 1 2014, 03:34 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 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.
you are absolutely right. The definition of supercouple is just somebody's opinion, it is not gospel LOL. So if you feel that your ship couple is a supercouple, then they are. Why not? 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 definition 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. Personally I have never been interested in the previously mentioned supercouples except for Jack and Jen. So I really don't care for the label. But if I feel that my ship couple is a supercouple and the media obviously agrees, it really does not matter if other disagree because my opinion is as valid as the next person. It is not like anybody is an expert, we are just sharing our opinion.

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 rational, Lumi could not be a supercouple either LOL.

My point is if you feel Wilson should be a supercouple and evidently the media agree, then they are....at least to you.
I totally agree with you on this. It's pretty much all based upon perception. There are always going to be those who disagree with you. That's what makes the world go 'round and there is no utopia. That being said, I grew up watching OLTL and I was a HUGE fan of one of the most popular couples ever on that show, Todd & Blair (or T&B). They would, imo, easily fit some of the definitions of a "supercouple" that have been posted here. Talk about true love, a fairytale wedding but so much torture between the two and they were apart (years at a time) more than they were together yet they always had a large audience rooting for them to be together. However, this couple was meant to/deserved to be written this way because it completely fit their characters. Blair was a scheming, backstabbing bitch (at least when she was younger and first got with Todd) and Todd had so many flaws that I wouldn't even know where to begin to describe him. Their love had to be deliciously torturous. The fact that they ended the show married, completely in love, and yet he walked away from her yet again just speaks to how they were as a couple.

Now, take that very specific style of writing and apply it to a couple like WilSon (and many current/recent couples on Days, imo, tbh) and it just doesn't even begin to compute. At some point, at least with WilSon, it'd just be like kicking two puppy dogs and that just would not be fun to watch, imo. Those two characters were not made to have a torturous kind of relationship, imo.

Btw, my apologies to those who never watched OLTL or don't know who T&B are. Just ignore this post. :)
Edited by sillibella, Jun 1 2014, 04:25 PM.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Yoryla
Member Avatar


lysie
Jun 1 2014, 04:04 PM
Yoryla
Jun 1 2014, 03:38 PM
esp13
Jun 1 2014, 09:23 AM
Yoryla
Jun 1 2014, 07:30 AM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deepWhy does Ari "need" to stay with Will and Sonny?WilSon is a supercouple.
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.
Yes, I realized that and I agree with it in many ways, but some posts were trying to say that the "point" of these couples were that they were almost constantly apart or even never together at all, and that is what I could not agree with.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
concerned
Member Avatar


Yoryla
Jun 1 2014, 03:30 PM
throughthehourglass
Jun 1 2014, 09:18 AM
Yoryla
Jun 1 2014, 07:33 AM
am103
May 31 2014, 11:10 PM
Ewww............................
Why ew? They're all great looking guys (except for Daniel, IMO). Good for Nicole and Kate.
Well it doesn't exactly paint Nicole in a very good light, does it.
Depends on your views on female sexuality.

I personally think looking at that photo she's done quite well for herself.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
nananana7
Member Avatar


lysie
Jun 1 2014, 04:08 PM
if you're having to use spoiler tags because you're quoting so many people, you're probably quoting too many people.

I have a very hard time with putting my own original thoughts into writing/typing. I can think my original thoughts and speak them, but its much harder to write them. It's a cognitive issue that's plagued me all my life.

Therefore, it is often much easier for me to quote people and then ping off what they said in my reply -- than for me to figure out how to compose a post that is my fully original thought from scratch. I think the process of replying gets my brain going and my writing functional, and then I can say what I need to say. Throughout my online posting history, most of my posts are replies to other people.

The interesting thing is ... sometimes when I quote someone and reply -- my response ends up being lots of my own thoughts, and not all of them relate to the post I'm replying to. In fact, Lysie, I think you mentioned this a month or two ago ... when you wondered how my reply related to whatever I was quoting that day!

Sometimes, with some of my posted replies-to-a-quote, .... when I read it the next day, I discover that my reply could have "stood alone" without the quote in front of it. LOL.

In fact, the post you're referring to -- could probably stand alone. I could go back now and deleted the batch of quotes behind the spoiler tag, and my post would be fine. But I'll just leave it for now, seeing as we've had this conversation.

And you accidentally calling it "precious" is hilarious, so now it must stay!
Edited by nananana7, Jun 1 2014, 04:32 PM.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
lysie


nananana7
Jun 1 2014, 04:31 PM
lysie
Jun 1 2014, 04:08 PM
if you're having to use spoiler tags because you're quoting so many people, you're probably quoting too many people.

I have a very hard time with putting my own original thoughts into writing/typing. I can think my original thoughts and speak them, but its much harder to write them. It's a cognitive issue that's plagued me all my life.

Therefore, it is often much easier for me to quote people and then ping off what they said in my reply -- than for me to figure out how to compose a post that is my fully original thought from scratch. I think the process of replying gets my brain going and my writing functional, and then I can say what I need to say. Throughout my online posting history, most of my posts are replies to other people.

The interesting thing is ... sometimes when I quote someone and reply -- my response ends up being lots of my own thoughts, and not all of them relate to the post I'm replying to. In fact, Lysie, I think you mentioned this a month or two ago ... when you wondered how my reply related to whatever I was quoting that day!

Sometimes, with some of my posted replies-to-a-quote, .... when I read it the next day, I discover that my reply could have "stood alone" without the quote in front of it. LOL.

In fact, the post you're referring to -- could probably stand alone. I could go back now and deleted the batch of quotes behind the spoiler tag, and my post would be fine. But I'll just leave it for now, seeing as we've had this conversation.

And you accidentally calling it "precious" is hilarious, so now it must stay!
I wonder if your browser is able to see quoted posts differently than mine. I'd never be able to keep up with the amount of posts you quote, because once you get into the reply screen on my browser, they're all jumbled together. Most of my posts are replies, too. ;)
Online Profile Goto Top
 
concerned
Member Avatar


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gk4Ntcq5uNg&feature=kp
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
throughthehourglass
Member Avatar


Yoryla
Jun 1 2014, 03:30 PM
throughthehourglass
Jun 1 2014, 09:18 AM
Yoryla
Jun 1 2014, 07:33 AM
am103
May 31 2014, 11:10 PM
Ewww............................
Why ew? They're all great looking guys (except for Daniel, IMO). Good for Nicole and Kate.
Well it doesn't exactly paint Nicole in a very good light, does it.
Oh my god! She slept with more than one guy! Better burn her at the stake.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
throughthehourglass
Member Avatar


concerned
Jun 1 2014, 04:28 PM
Yoryla
Jun 1 2014, 03:30 PM
throughthehourglass
Jun 1 2014, 09:18 AM
Yoryla
Jun 1 2014, 07:33 AM
Why ew? They're all great looking guys (except for Daniel, IMO). Good for Nicole and Kate.
Well it doesn't exactly paint Nicole in a very good light, does it.
Depends on your views on female sexuality.

I personally think looking at that photo she's done quite well for herself.
If I could like this a million times, I would.

Come on, people. This is 2014.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
marie1969


nananana7
Jun 1 2014, 03:54 PM
.
(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

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.


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.[/quote]

Your post supports my point that being a supercouple is just an opinion and is open to interpretation. Your opinion about it is not anymore valid than mine. Case in point, you don't consider L & L a supercouple, yet every expert in daytime consider them the all time favorite supercouple. I never watched them as a couple, but I have always known that L&L were the very definition of super couple.

The fact that you considered that Lumi and Ericole proves to me that people consider certain couples super couples just because they like them. For instance, none of the previous definitions of supercouple apply to ericole, yet you think they are or rather they would have been. I never saw anything special about Ericole other than the fact that we all wanted Nicole to find true love and be happy.

Until recently, Eric was never longing for Nicole or even thought of her as anything but a good friend and all those years Nicole never longed or even thought of Eric as the love of her life. She fell madly in love with Brady, was obsessed with Ej and then got obsessed with daniel and Eric was just considered her first love. Her feelings only resurfaced after Eric came back to town and her feelings were one sided until after he got kicked out of the priesthood. They 'redeemed' Nicole briefly so she could be good enough for Eric. but that did not last very long. While Nicole was supposed to be in love with Eric, she hooked up with Vargas and was boinking eric's brother, not exactly supercouple writing IMO.

Offline Profile Goto Top
 
nananana7
Member Avatar


concerned
Jun 1 2014, 04:36 PM

Ha! I knew that was coming!

Offline Profile Goto Top
 
pagraves
Member Avatar


Eric was in love with Nicole long before he left the priesthood. He just didn't act on it until then.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Yoryla
Member Avatar


concerned
Jun 1 2014, 04:28 PM
Yoryla
Jun 1 2014, 03:30 PM
throughthehourglass
Jun 1 2014, 09:18 AM
Yoryla
Jun 1 2014, 07:33 AM
Why ew? They're all great looking guys (except for Daniel, IMO). Good for Nicole and Kate.
Well it doesn't exactly paint Nicole in a very good light, does it.
Depends on your views on female sexuality.

I personally think looking at that photo she's done quite well for herself.
I just don't think that's anything that should be bragged about. The same way it shouldn't be bragged about Daniel sleeping with half the women in town.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
concerned
Member Avatar


marie1969
Jun 1 2014, 04:39 PM
nananana7
Jun 1 2014, 03:54 PM
.
(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

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.


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.


Your post supports my point that being a supercouple is just an opinion and is open to interpretation. Your opinion about it is not anymore valid than mine. Case in point, you don't consider L & L a supercouple, yet every expert in daytime consider them the all time favorite supercouple. I never watched them as a couple, but I have always known that L&L were the very definition of super couple.

The fact that you considered that Lumi and Ericole proves to me that people consider certain couples super couples just because they like them. For instance, none of the previous definitions of supercouple apply to ericole, yet you think they are or rather they would have been. I never saw anything special about Ericole other than the fact that we all wanted Nicole to find true love and be happy.

Until recently, Eric was never longing for Nicole or even thought of her as anything but a good friend and all those years Nicole never longed or even thought of Eric as the love of her life. She fell madly in love with Brady, was obsessed with Ej and then got obsessed with daniel and Eric was just considered her first love. Her feelings only resurfaced after Eric came back to town and her feelings were one sided until after he got kicked out of the priesthood. They 'redeemed' Nicole briefly so she could be good enough for Eric. but that did not last very long. While Nicole was supposed to be in love with Eric, she hooked up with Vargas and was boinking eric's brother, not exactly supercouple writing IMO.

[/quote]

I think she has spoken of Eric during the time he was away.

I think it happened early EJ period, it may have even happened during a conversation with Brady as well, and it was generally said with regret and remorse that she had been responsible for it not working out. I'll have to go back and look at old clips and see if I can find it.

I don't think the feelings were all one sided whilst Eric was still a priest.

And the hooking up with Vargas and Brady she did that for Eric. She loved Eric so much and thought that what he wanted was to be a priest so she slept with them in the hope that that would distract her from wanting Eric so that he could continue to do what he wanted to do.
Edited by concerned, Jun 1 2014, 04:49 PM.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Yoryla
Member Avatar


pagraves
Jun 1 2014, 04:44 PM
Eric was in love with Nicole long before he left the priesthood. He just didn't act on it until then.
Well that's up for interpretation. In the rectory it never felt like he was feeling nothing more for Nicole than that she was a valued and in some ways trusted, friend of who he wanted to help get her life in order.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
concerned
Member Avatar


@ 1:57
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6rYf2K33eO8&index=8&list=PL11379742D7224F96
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
pagraves
Member Avatar


Yoryla
Jun 1 2014, 04:50 PM
pagraves
Jun 1 2014, 04:44 PM
Eric was in love with Nicole long before he left the priesthood. He just didn't act on it until then.
Well that's up for interpretation. In the rectory it never felt like he was feeling nothing more for Nicole than that she was a valued and in some ways trusted, friend of who he wanted to help get her life in order.
He admitted loving both her and the church for a long time. That was dialogue, not interpretation.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
lysie


I just don't believe in the concept of "if you believe it, then it's true." There will always be a debate on this supercouple thing because no matter how many times people say that not being a supercouple isn't supposed to be a negative thing, people are going to continue to react like it is. We just need a new term, because it seems like people don't want to continue to be held back by the "guidelines" of what that term meant, but they want to hold onto the term. The show really hasn't helped because on the one hand they've been pretty vocal about not liking the supercouples or the supercouple formula, but on the other hand they play right into it when it's time for an interview about a couple. It's a buzzword for soap fans, and not unlike other soap fan buzzwords (canon, grey, hero, heroine, victim, etc) a lot of the time it's used without any kind of regard for context...which makes it difficult to discuss.
Online Profile Goto Top
 
nananana7
Member Avatar


nananana7
Jun 1 2014, 03:54 PM
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.

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: "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.


marie1969
Jun 1 2014, 04:39 PM
Your post supports my point that being a supercouple is just an opinion and is open to interpretation. Your opinion about it is not anymore valid than mine. Case in point, you don't consider L & L a supercouple, yet every expert in daytime consider them the all time favorite supercouple. I never watched them as a couple, but I have always known that L&L were the very definition of super couple.

The fact that you considered that Lumi and Ericole proves to me that people consider certain couples super couples just because they like them. For instance, none of the previous definitions of supercouple apply to ericole, yet you think they are or rather they would have been. I never saw anything special about Ericole other than the fact that we all wanted Nicole to find true love and be happy.

Until recently, Eric was never longing for Nicole or even thought of her as anything but a good friend and all those years Nicole never longed or even thought of Eric as the love of her life. She fell madly in love with Brady, was obsessed with Ej and then got obsessed with daniel and Eric was just considered her first love. Her feelings only resurfaced after Eric came back to town and her feelings were one sided until after he got kicked out of the priesthood. They 'redeemed' Nicole briefly so she could be good enough for Eric. but that did not last very long. While Nicole was supposed to be in love with Eric, she hooked up with Vargas and was boinking eric's brother, not exactly supercouple writing IMO.


pagraves
Jun 1 2014, 04:44 PM
Eric was in love with Nicole long before he left the priesthood. He just didn't act on it until then.

concerned
Jun 1 2014, 04:47 PM
I think she has spoken of Eric during the time he was away.

I think it happened early EJ period, it may have even happened during a conversation with Brady as well, and it was generally said with regret and remorse that she had been responsible for it not working out. I'll have to go back and look at old clips and see if I can find it.

I don't think the feelings were all one sided whilst Eric was still a priest.

And the hooking up with Vargas and Brady she did that for Eric. She loved Eric so much and thought that what he wanted was to be a priest so she slept with them in the hope that that would distract her from wanting Eric so that he could continue to do what he wanted to do.


LOL my quote overload messed up everyone quoting me, so I've now removed the earlier mess.
I think it's sorted out as to who said what now ...

I think that Eric and Nicole's yearning for one another has been strong -- but the expression has been understated at times due to circumstances of his priesthood. And the writers distorted it by constantly inserting Daniel into the ericole storyline.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Fully Featured & Customizable Free Forums
Learn More · Register for Free
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · DAYS: News, Spoilers & Discussion · Next Topic »
Locked Topic