|
|
Post by Trey on Aug 16, 2012 21:14:55 GMT -5
A post in another thread got me thinking...
Days has really expanded. I think that they keep expanding out families rather than focusing on one "core" family has definitely dug them into a big hole. Back in the day it was Hortons, then the Brady's, and then it's expanded out to so many families. I wonder if they'd be better of focusing on just one family again and having them interact with multiple people.
Thoughts?
|
|
|
|
Post by Kpatch on Aug 16, 2012 21:25:06 GMT -5
I like a variety. I like interaction, but it takes me a while to get used to. I didn't like the shift away from the Hortons when the Bradys first came on. I definitely didn't like it when the show seemed to be trying to do with the Hernandi what they had done with the Bradys. I like (okay love) the Kiriakis family because they were built very gradually and never seemed to be forced down our throats (am I allowed to say that?). But the Dimeras are like roaches. They seem to multiply and take over. The show has become lopsided.
Getting back to the legacy question, the thing I like about quote-unquote legacy characters is that you feel some affinity for the children of characters you've gotten to know. There's a comfort level and almost an automatic caring about them. Sort of like home.
|
|
|
|
Post by DancingDays on Aug 16, 2012 21:27:02 GMT -5
There is some truth to the argument that, by focusing on only one or two families, the show became highly incestual. After all, when all the kids grow up, who do they marry?
However, I would hate to see them completely abandon the Hortons or Bradys. The Kiriaki need an awakening and the DiMeri have stalled. I'd like to focus a bit more on the familial relations rather than solely the sexual/romantic ones. We never see brothers and sisters anymore. I miss that!
|
|
|
|
Post by slyn11 on Aug 16, 2012 21:32:27 GMT -5
I loath the concept of LEGACY CHARACTERS. I actually was thinking about starting a thread like this too...but with the opposite opinion of yours.
Gotta have more than one family or it will be incest. I think Days needs more expansion...they were stuck in a corner around 2007...got themselves out by bringing in some non related blood - Nicole, Rafe, Ari, Melanie, Daniel, Chloe - then the reboot shot it all to hell and they are back in the corner again.
Besides the Hortons and Bradys are dull families good for the early days of soaps. These days people are used to seeing lifestyles of the rich eccentric types...got to compete with the reality shows. That is why the K and the D fam are more interesting to me. I like to see the boring normal Hortons and Bradys be corrupted and tempted by the Kiriakis' and the Dimeras...lends for more soapy scenarios.
|
|
|
|
Post by slyn11 on Aug 16, 2012 21:38:31 GMT -5
I like a variety. I like interaction, but it takes me a while to get used to. I didn't like the shift away from the Hortons when the Bradys first came on. I definitely didn't like it when the show seemed to be trying to do with the Hernandi what they had done with the Bradys. I like (okay love) the Kiriakis family because they were built very gradually and never seemed to be forced down our throats (am I allowed to say that?). But the Dimeras are like roaches. They seem to multiply and take over. The show has become lopsided. Getting back to the legacy question, the thing I like about quote-unquote legacy characters is that you feel some affinity for the children of characters you've gotten to know. There's a comfort level and almost an automatic caring about them. Sort of like home. People come and go in a town...I don't see anything wrong with new additions...keeps things popping. And there are no kids for you to get used to from the so called Legacy Characters if everyone is related. They can't have kids without these new people. And the only new Dimera I see is Chad. How are they multiplying? |
|
|
|
Post by Kpatch on Aug 16, 2012 21:45:09 GMT -5
Chad didn't need to be a Dimera any more than Daniel needed to be a Horton. I hate pop-up children. It's so fake. It makes it too easy for the writers to rewrite history. I like history. History gives you a compass.
|
|
|
|
Post by villa281 on Aug 16, 2012 21:45:55 GMT -5
I like a variety. I like interaction, but it takes me a while to get used to. I didn't like the shift away from the Hortons when the Bradys first came on. I definitely didn't like it when the show seemed to be trying to do with the Hernandi what they had done with the Bradys. I like (okay love) the Kiriakis family because they were built very gradually and never seemed to be forced down our throats (am I allowed to say that?). But the Dimeras are like roaches. They seem to multiply and take over. The show has become lopsided. Getting back to the legacy question, the thing I like about quote-unquote legacy characters is that you feel some affinity for the children of characters you've gotten to know. There's a comfort level and almost an automatic caring about them. Sort of like home. I agree 100% with everything you said. There needs to be a balance between "legacy" character and new characters. I have been watching Days since April of 1983 and I feel a very special connection to the offspring of my favorite couples like Romand and Marlena, Bo and Hope, Kim and Shane, Patch and Kayla, and Jack and Jennifer. I feel almost like their stories are continuing through their offspring, and I have an emotional investment in those characters. However, the show definitely cannot survive on only using these "legacy" characters there needs to be new characters are that woven in to the canvas to create new stories. What I don't like is when newer characters like Rafe and Daniel are given more importance than characters like Lucas and Philip or when Melanie is given more importance than characters like Stephanie and Abigail. |
|
|
|
Post by villa281 on Aug 16, 2012 21:49:44 GMT -5
Chad didn't need to be a Dimera any more than Daniel needed to be a Horton. I hate pop-up children. It's so fake. It makes it too easy for the writers to rewrite history. I like history. History gives you a compass. Again, agree 100%. |
|
|
|
Post by Kpatch on Aug 16, 2012 22:13:24 GMT -5
I feel almost like their stories are continuing through their offspring, and I have an emotional investment in those characters. . Investment is a perfect word, Villa. I feel that way too. I understand that not all characters can be legacy characters, nor should they be. I'm against incest as much as the next guy.  In fact, one of my favorite characters of all time is Chloe. But they tied her to a family that we had gotten to know over time. She wasn't thrust on us like Rafe or Arianna or Madison or Taylor or Dario or Ian. We saw how well most of those characters worked out. There needs to be a happy medium. |
|
|
|
Post by fluffysmom on Aug 16, 2012 22:18:43 GMT -5
One of the problems is that most of the new unrelated characters are written so poorly that most viewers can't stand them. Before long they are killed off or sent out of town only to be replaced by another poorly written character no one likes. There are a few exceptions.
|
|
|
|
Post by jwsel on Aug 17, 2012 1:17:30 GMT -5
The legacy characters certainly need new blood with which to interact, but even new characters work best if they have connections to Salem. One thing I notice in looking at the classic characters who were not legacies is that they usually have some background connections to existing characters plus an immediate plot purpose. Steve had a past with Bo, a connection to Victor and Savannah, and a clear-cut role when he arrived. Shane had a past with Roman and a mission in Salem (first as Hope's butler and then as the man watching Kim). By introducing characters that way, they didn't get thrust immediately into scenes with one or two characters. Plus all those characters had actual backgrounds to mine as they revealed the characters' histories and personalities. Today, characters arrive as "Nicole's sister" or "Lexie's previously unknown brother" or "the questionable businessman" and they never get defined as people before they are thrust into plots where we are supposed to care about them.
That needs to change. I would like the focus to be on the Hortons and Bradys as actual families. I miss the relationships between siblings and cousins. Creates some relationships across the family lines and add a few new characters who bring something to the table from a plot perspective and that could be a great core. One or two Kiriakis are enough; I don't really see them as a family in the same way. And I prefer the DiMeras as outsiders who come into Salem periodically to wreak havoc. I find cuddly Stefano listening to opera in his living room a total bastardization of the character.
|
|
In fact, one of my favorite characters of all time is Chloe. But they tied her to a family that we had gotten to know over time. She wasn't thrust on us like Rafe or Arianna or Madison or Taylor or Dario or Ian. We saw how well most of those characters worked out. There needs to be a happy medium. 
