My comments really aren't all that funny, but the initial postings are quite laughable for those who have any knowledge of Days of Our Lives and who are capable of forming their own thoughts and opinions with point and clarity. It's quite sad how the new generation of Days viewers consists of such short attention spans and limited thinking capabilities.

The responses to the topic have the lead-in "Posted by" and the responses to the responses are indented and have the lead-in "Subject." My comments are in bold face, and note that they are only a direct response to the post above, as each of my comments and criticisms are aimed only at one poster at a time. And as an added bonus, at the bottom is an excerpt taken from TV Guide Online bashing one of Days' media puppets.

How to read this bulletin board: From top to bottom, responses to the original topic are posted from newest to oldest, but the responses to the responses are posted oldest to newest. Go figure.

Topic: DAYS WILL SWEEP THE EMMYS

Topic Posted by: LaSchae Turner

Email: n/a

Date Posted: Thu Mar 12 10:53:30 1998

Additional Comments: I can't wait for the Emmy show in May, because finally DAYS is going to get its due. Over the past 5 years, DAYS has been the most entertaining daytime drama on the air and finally its going to win BEST DRAMA. Look at the other nominees, even though GENERAL HOSPITAL has won the past 3 years, last year was not one of its best years, it really stumbled badly in late summer with bad writing and acting to boot, it only improved in December with Bob Guza's return, but with only 3 weeks of good material against 49 weeks of mediocrity, they don't stand a chance. ALL MY CHILDREN, also had a bad year last year with the Erica babynapping story, the backlash against that story was horrendous and the show slipped badly in the ratings, they might have a good chance though if they submit the plane crash episodes but they submitted the tornado episodes from '94 and didn't win then either. YOUND & RESTLESS is DAYS only real competition and that's because the show remains consistent and of course Bill Bell is a daytime legend and well revered in the industry but their stories also weren't that engaging and their ratings were down amidst numerous cast departures. While DAYS on the other hand enjoyed incredible ratings sucess, innovative and original stories, a mostly decent acting ensemble led by powerhouse Eileen Davidson who gave a tour de force to end all tour de force performances. DAYS didn't stumble once last year and for that it will win and so will Eileen and Jensen, who was the critical and fan smash of the year. Way to go DAYS, plus it will win BEST WRITING TEAM also, GH and AMC both had numerous writing teams last year so who will the prize go to if they won and Y&R has won several in their 25 year history what would be the purpose in giving it to the same team who's written the show since its inception.

"It amazes me that you call Days of Our Lives a drama, when it's a burlesque at best. If General Hospital has bad acting and writing, then there are no words to explain just how low in the quicksand Days has sunk. Of course Days didn't stumble once last year--you can't stumble any further if you're already crawling on your stomach.

"If you wish to talk mediocrity, then I suggest you actually bother to pay attention Days for one episode, although attention span is something the writers seem to think their viewers have none of and you seem to verify. Dynamic writing it is not. Do you honestly think that characters talking to themselves to convey the most basic of emotions or thoughts is the art of the teleplay at its finest? It's a total cop out, an obvious sign of poor direction and even worse writing, which apparently caters to a zero watt bulb like yourself. These writers show their utter inability to show plot points and character development when the characters reveal and comment about stuff to themselves and only themselves, instead of within the context of a conversation. Do you really need them to point out every single thing that's on the screen to you? They also obviously don't know how to stage their script if there are characters explaining away everything they're going to do before they do it or state things that can be revealed within the context of a shot without any dialogue.

"Basically what you're saying is that if a soap lacks romance, mystery, and adventure (basically what makes a soap opera), it is 'innovative and original'? The very life blood of this show has been completely sucked out by Ken Corday and his legion of leeches, and their doltish fan base--with you as their president--is eating it up. Where's the excitement in plots that are strictly about scheming characters whose entire plans depend on them somehow MAKING other characters do everything they want them to do, no matter how out of character or downright unfeasible, where the only character 'development' is about not trusting others anymore over because they kept the 'truth' from them? What about the villains who are all about outlandish master plans that make no sense and have no real purpose, who the other characters blame for everything anyway and are always right? Where's the suspense and intrigue if you already know everything that's kept 'hidden' or is going to happen?

"So what if Days has high ratings (by soap standards)? Jerry Springer has phenomenal ratings success, but does that mean its content is better than Oprah Winfrey's show? Independence Day is one of the highest grossing films of all time, so by your standard it's an infinitely better flick in EVERY ASPECT than movies that weren't runaway box office smashes, such as L.A. Confidential, Sling Blade, The Shawshank Redemption, The Apostle, Blade Runner, Dead Man Walking, Pump Up the Volume . . . shall I go on or will you never be convinced that Rain Man is a better movie than Beverly Hills Ninja?

"Just out of curiosity, what did Jensen Ackles do over the course of the past year to garner an Emmy? Compare the lack of storyline his character had and what he failed to do to rise above such a mediocre script with that of Jonathan Jackson's character on GH, how much he had to do as an actor because of the depth and dynamics of his character and script. Do you honestly think the character of Eric Brady is more complex and harder to portray than Lucky Spencer? Simply put, who had more to do and who made the most of their role, and whose number of facial expressions can be counted on one finger?

"Ludicrous comments like 'Mike and Carrie are the show's saving grace' and 'Steve Wilder's portrayal of Jack was good' have made me laugh hard, but this winner has to take the cake.

"Days of Our Lives deserved and got the number of Emmy wins they received in 1998."

Posted by: taylorlover

Email:

Date posted: Thu Mar 12 16:50:45 1998

Message:

Ok, some people here are slightly retarded. Days is OBVIOUSLY the best daytime drama. IMO, 90% of the soaps are so god damn boring. Ex: As The World Turns and Guiding light. If I wanted to see 80 year olds making out, I could go to my grand parents house, thank you very much!! GH has NOT been good for most of the year and that's a fact. So, even if DAYS doesn't win its deserved title for best drama, I know it's the best out there! AND EILEEN ROCKS!!!!

"You calling us retarded is like Charlie Sheen calling Bill Clinton a sex-crazed maniac. You don't think Days is boring? You find it dynamic when the characters repeat their entire storyline every single day, and recap the events that took place just before the commercial break every time they come back on? Do you just not catch what is happening on the show until the character rehashes it for the fiftieth time? If this show is the best out there, then you obviously have lower standards for writing than Dean Devlin and Roland Emmerich (Universal Soldier, Stargate, Godzilla) do, whose idea of a screenplay is 120 pages of special effects with dialogue thrown in for filler. I bet that when you were in school you used the 'Weekly World News' and 'National Enquirer' as sources for your term papers.

"Do you honestly find the so-called plot of Bo/Swamp Girl to be all that riveting? A flashback about Hope . . . eating beans??? Did that astound you? Did you think to youself, 'Wow, Hope eats beans'? Then again, it shouldn't surprise me since you NEED Bo saying 'Maybe the candy bar will work, it worked before' to himself to comprehend what he's doing.

"Is claiming your belief of GH not being good to be a fact your entire defense? If so, I'm quite surprised that Johnny Cochrane didn't ask you to be part of his Dream Team."

Subject: Well, I happen to agree with you ( especially about the old folks!) I'm so sick of people having only negative things to say about Days and it's nominations. It's just a corny soap! Yes it can have long storylines and love triangles, and a few bad actors. But I like the majority of actors on Days. That doesn't neccasarily wreck the whole show! I still find Days funny to watch and I a lso love Eileen, she's great.

Response Posted by: Erin

Email: ??

Date Posted: Thu Mar 12 17:27:40 1998

Message:

eom

"But liking the majority of actors on the show says NOTHING about the show itself. Of course the longtime Days fan will still enjoy seeing actors such as Peter Reckell, Drake Hogestyn, Kristian Alfonso, Joseph Mascolo, and Deidre Hall on the show. After all, they were there when the show was still GOOD. However, the same cannot be said about the characters they play. Stefano is the hollow shell of the supervillain he once was, and Bo is completely unrecognizable as a character now that he's been rewritten as a total spineless, thoughtless simpleton who heeds to everyone else's demands rather than thinking for himself and has totally forgotten who Carly Manning was. Of course, Hope has stopped thinking for herself as well, kind of like your approach toward Days. Remember when Franco was first on the show and how he basically told her what to do every episode? If that doesn't convey Hope's strength and independence, I don't know what does.

"When characters no longer have the characteristics that make them who they are, and are rewritten contrary to character history for the sole purpose of fitting the characters to match the storyline, instead of the other way around, doesn't that wreck the show? Does it tickle you pink that storylines you have WATCHED and FOLLOWED years ago are suddenly ignored as if they never happened?

"As far as love triangles are concerned, there's nothing wrong with them if they're DONE RIGHT, meaning they don't exist for the sole purpose of having them, that they're not one dimensional, and that characters have other things to do than JUST the love triangle. All Days' love triangles exist solely out of plot contrivances that don't work or make sense, and one of the three characters with a storyline that consists of merely 'the other two can never find out' in order to keep this triangle going.

"By the way, corny is a contradiction of drama."

Posted by: S.B.

Email: none

Date posted: Thu Mar 12 16:41:09 1998

Message:

Don't let them get you down LaShae. Some people here never have anything but negative comments to say about Days; yet, they continue to watch. I wouldn't watch a show I have so much disdain for. I agree with you about Eileen Davidson. She is a talented actress and deserves to win the Emmy this year. Each of her characters are so believable and so different from each other. I always totally believe Susan is a completely different person from Kristen. I don't like everything about Days but I like it enough to watch almost every day; and I think it's a lot of fun, even though it is silly. I don't bother to over analyze it. I just overlook it's shortcomings and enjoy it for what it is. If I wanted serious drama I wouldn't watch soaps at all. My life is serious enough. Iv'e watched Days pretty consistently for 30 years. So, I'm hoping Days wins the Emmy for outstanding drama series; just because.

"I have nothing but contempt for the powers behind Days, because it is obvious they don't see anything wrong with the show and therefore have no intention to improve it. After all, ratings are the bottom line, right? I've stopped watching the show a long time ago, and I don't miss it one bit. And I know that if I tune into it for just one segment on any given day, the characters will be saying and doing the exact same thing they've been doing when I last watched, and that one of them will repeat the entire storyline of what's going on -- unless, of course, the writers feel the need to completely rewrite the character to fit their own contrived and convoluted storyline (think Austin, and how he all of a sudden loves boxing just so Sami's poor excuse for a scheme can work; or how Mike is no longer a man of strong mind and action, just so that his character can fall in love with Carrie -- assuming the real Mike would even be involved with Carrie, he would've confronted her straight on rather than stand there puppy dog-eyed in the background, would've asked her directly how she feels about her marriage, and ultimately making her choose between him or Austin), in which case everything you've seen and come to expect about the character is now in the wastepaper basket. Of course, it does take the power of observation to be able to pick up on dialogue being repeated and plots rehashed for the five hundredth time, so more power to you there.

"If Eileen Davidson deserved to win the Emmy for the simple fact that she portrayed multiple characters, then where's your bleeding heart outcrying for Michael Keaton not getting the Oscar for Multiplicity, Eddie Murphy for The Nutty Professor, or Mike Myers for Austin Powers: International Man of Mystery? They were all characters that were distinctive and stood out from one another, unlike those losers-for-Oscar winners who only played one role apiece -- Jack Nicholson and Geoffrey Rush. Quantity is not quality. Would you rather have seven Pintos or one Porsche?

Posted by: Margie

Email: #

Date posted: Thu Mar 12 13:21:23 1998

Message:

While I don't watch alot of other soaps to compare I agree that Days has been fasinating these past few years. It's something so totally different from the Days of old but hey they have to try to reach the newer fast paced audience. Sometimes change is a big forward move. Eileen Davidson is also a "powerhouse" as you said. Her acting is really super and she has shown that she has many ranges. It's nice to see that from an actor instead of just the same o' same o' that a character does year in and year out. Most actors enjoy these types of challenges too. Like you I do hope that perhaps Days will see some wins this year.

"Just what is faster paced about storylines that haven't ended in several years (the Sami/Austin/Carrie/Mike situation, the Bo/Hope/Billie triangle, Kristin longing hopelessly after John up until her very last episode, etc.)? How fast is a show that has characters repeating each other and themselves every episode they're on, where pointless daydreams and phony flashbacks take up most of the show? What is the speed of a storyline that has one new plot point/development added to it every other month, and a plot point that doesn't lead anywhere at that? The new audience the writers are reaching are those who are too lazy to pick up the remote control, who don't like to form their own thoughts and opinions, and who accept anything and everything that the show presents to them, who don't even as much as make a peep when the very characters they are watching are completely ruined beyond all recognition. Sound like anyone YOU know?

"I suppose there is a challenge for the actors in making a line sound fresh and invigorating when they say it for the ten thousandth time. But it would also be a challenge for the WRITERS if they were develop their characters rather than to make them into whatever fits the storyline (Kristin, Billie, Austin, Mike, etc.). Think about when Jack chased down Peter during that oh-so-awesome Grand Canyon caper. If Jack were written IN CHARACTER, his approach would have been quite differently. For example, the real Jack would've been able to con the milita man into helping him, or have failed comedically trying. As it stands, the character was rewritten to fit the story as the writers wanted to see it. Or is that your idea of what change is all about? You must love the concept of having this Mike/Carrie puppy love bit of history inserted into the Days timeline--when Mike was mourning the death of his wife and Carrie was only five years old.

"I know I've been very redundant in responding to each of these posts by saying some of the same things over and over again in order to get my point across, but seeing as how you love to watch Days of Our Lives day in and day out, you obviously have no problems with redundancy."

Now for the ultimate example of stupidity regarding Days, the following is taken from an issue of "Ask the Experts" at TV Guide Online. There's no other way to state this other than that Reiner was obviously dropped on his head numerous times as a baby.

"Dear Reiner,

Why are folks like you and Logan so adamant in supporting the dumbing-down of this genre? Your incessant pandering to the likes of Reilly, Sunset and Days amazes me. Reilly's gimmicky writing of Days, which continues now under his good friend [executive producer Tom] Langan, was terrible. While you love to blame Sally Sussman-Morina for Days' 25 percent decline in viewership, I say that trend began with Reilly. Daytime on NBC is an embarrassment for anyone over the age of 20. &emdash; JCSPlace

Dear JCSPlace,

I can't (and won't) speak for Logan, but I am "so adamant in supporting" Reilly because he weaves simple, emotional, easily accessible stories that bring in viewers. Sunset is starting to follow suit, and I'm enjoying the show more than I do every show on the air except for GL. Days, on the other hand, is a complete mess, and it's no mystery why the ratings (including the 18-49 demographic) have dropped. SSM bashed Reilly in the press and then proceeded to drop the ball with nearly every storyline thread he left for her to continue. Characterization and situations have become muddled, and the show has a sprawl similar to a Los Angeles suburb. NBC Daytime is not an embarrassment, but rather a puzzlement."

Simple, emotion, and easily accessible? How much simpler and easier accessable are storylines that take months to develop because the characters say the same thing every single day for weeks at a time? Where more time is devoted to rehashing the plot than actually developing it? Where what plots they do have live and die by plot contrivances that rewrite history and don't add up to a damn thing? Where's the intrigue in watching the characters talking to themselves for half the show, when all they do is make redundant and obvious statements that only simpleton viewers like Reiner would find original and exhilarating? Does simple mean something that caters to a three year old's intelligence level -- YOUR intelligence level, Reiner? Sussman-Morina may be bad, but praising Reilly over her is like praising the electric chair over lethal injection. Reiner's miserable attempt at a critique is as valid as Dean Devlin standing by his claim that his Godzilla script is scientifically accurate. Apparently the only time television shows are accessable to the miniscule brain of Reiner is when everything is told to him point blank without him having to hurt himself trying to think about it.