|Viewing Single Post From: Tuesday, December 25th Daily Discussion|
|LuLu2102||Dec 27 2012, 04:33 PM|
I only tuned in for this episode because I've been watching Christmas at the Hortons since 1983 and I'm a sucker for it. It's a testament to what this show used to be that just the sight of former characters' ornaments can elicit an emotional reaction from me. They were well-developed over the years by the writers and the actors that they seemed like real people that we knew. I miss feeling that way about the characters.|
This bugged me to no end as well. Where do the writers get off having Jennifer treat Jack like an irritant, showing him little to no compassion, criticizing him at every opportunity will he was alive, but now that he's dead, act as if she was a loving, devoted wife who is somehow managing to drag herself out of her grief to embrace the miracle of a second chance at love with Daniel the Saint? It's such sloppy, lazy storytelling. These writers just swept in and started telling the stories they wanted to tell, without any regard to even the most recent history. I'd have more respect for them if they had Jennifer confessing to Daniel that her feelings for Jack never came back after he re-appeared, that she only got back together with him because Daniel had rejected her, and that she's sad that Jack's dead, but she isn't mourning him as a wife would her husband. I would hate it as a former Jack and Jennifer fan, that that's how their once-amazing story ended up, and it still wouldn't convince me to root for Jennifer and Daniel (or Jennifer and anybody), but at least it would have been consistent with the story over the last year.
Her "thank you for taking care of me" is, I think, the writers' heavy-handed way of implying that Jack is overseeing, and maybe even orchestrating, this latest go-around with Daniel. Implying that, just as Jack wanted Jennifer to be with Frankie after one of his previous deaths, he'd again want her to be "taken care of", by Daniel this time.
Seriously, the writers can't be that unfamiliar with various religions that they think all Christians are Catholics, could they? I can't believe that the actors wouldn't say something, like, "Hey, half of the characters at this Mass aren't Catholic", but I wouldn't be surprised if they learned a long time ago that character continuity is not high on the priority list of anyone in charge over there. I get that they wanted to have their montage of everyone singing hymns on Christmas, but they could have done that with two different groups on two different sets. Of course, it was probably budget constraints that make another set impractical. But they easily could have explained everyone going to Mass as a show of support for Father Eric. A family friend was presiding over a Christian service for the first time since returning home, and I would totally buy the Protestant Hortons celebrating Christmas at St. Luke's just for that reason. It could have been explained in one line of dialogue, but the writers obviously don't think the viewers will notice, and they don't care even if we do.
|Tuesday, December 25th Daily Discussion · DAYS: News, Spoilers & Discussion|