With all the sorrow and the pain, they have endured in their lifetimes, John and Timothy are just so happy they have found each other, at long last. John informs his father that Maude died a few years ago. Timothy feels sorry for the hard life John has had to live. John didn’t know much about his upbringing, except he was born on a rural farm, and Timothy came from a farm.Īs his memory is further triggered, Timothy remembers his wife’s name was Maude and she had their baby after he was lost in the war. Marlena (Deidre Hall) tells Timothy he was lost in the VA system after he was severely wounded in the war. ![]() John says “All this time, you’ve been searching for your son. Later, John reveals a pair of dog tags around his neck, and that Bell’s real name is Timothy Robicheaux. This key piece of intel is told by Bell while sitting with Marlena in her office, along with John. With so many twists and turns in the life of John Black, and so many confusing stories through the years, it is revealed through a series of flashbacks that during the Korean war and while in combat, Joseph Bell’s dog tags were switched by a soldier who left him there to die. But $1.99 (or $4.99 or $7.99 or whatever it turns out to be) is $1.99 no matter the age of the person who is shelling it out does that mean I’ll now be part of an audience they’ll care about attracting, or will TPTB keep pursuing the young folks and be unable to adapt to a different way of looking at things? My bet is on the latter, but I’d be delighted to be proven wrong about that. Which does raise, incidentally, a very interesting question whose answer I’ll be interested to see: will my (62-year-old) viewership mean more on a streaming platform than it has in a good long while on network TV? I got used a long time ago (though I’ve always resented it) to the idea that the day I turned 31, my eyeballs meant a lot less to the network execs, who only cared about eyeballs attached to bodies 30 years old and younger. I’m just not sure TPTB will know how to attract that audience any more on a streaming platform than they do on the networks. If your prediction proves to be right, and this is how soaps essentially get saved after all (after years and years of nothing but cancellations, budget cuts, and other bad news), that’d be great, because I maintain that the audience for soaps is still out there, largely untapped. If that proves true, (1) I’m back to thinking soaps are doomed and (2) I certainly wouldn’t pay for it, as it won’t be any more compelling that what I’m seeing now. I haven’t seen a whole lot about Peacock Days anywhere but here, but what I have seen on here seems to be suggesting that TPTB are going to lean heavily on the titillation factor (“We can do things we couldn’t do on network television!”) to get viewers, rather than solid storytelling about relatable characters (played by excellent actors) in believable situations. What’s not clear to me is whether “new soaps” will feel enough like the “old soaps” (and I’m not talking about the sad network versions of the last few decades I’m talking about soaps when they were GOOD think mid-70s to maybe mid-90s), and have enough of the elements of the old soaps that made them worth watching, to make me want to pay and tune in. ![]() I don’t mind too much about the paying-for-it part or the streaming part I pay now to stream reruns of The Doctors (and would gladly pay to stream reruns of other old soaps if they were made available). ![]() Whether I’d actually want more soaps in this new format is hard to say. I think Peacock Days has more and better support than the online reboots of AMC and OLTL did (with ABC fighting Prospect Park over who owned the OLTL characters, what chance did the Prospect Park version of either show have, really?) whether that will be enough to ensure Peacock Days’ success remains to be seen, but I do think NBC wants it to succeed, and that’s something.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |