Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]



ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums with no limits on posts or members.
Viewing Single Post From: NBC Weekly Preview 9/30/13
jwsel
Member Avatar


lysie
Sep 27 2013, 04:59 PM
LanaluvsBroe
Sep 27 2013, 04:55 PM
lysie
Sep 27 2013, 04:46 PM
supercool74
Sep 27 2013, 04:43 PM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deep
The complaint would still be that it's all about Daniel even if Jack were there. Jack being there wouldn't affect that one little bit. It would affect other things, but not that. If they were misrepresenting the history, I could empathize with the outcry over this. But they're not. This is what happened and it's what happened whether Jack is alive or dead. The drama comes not from Jack having to defend himself but from his son learning the truth. And that's what we're getting at this point.
But you're still missing a HUGE emotional beat by not having Jack around. This story should have been told with Jack and Steve back in Salem. Jack went through hell to redeem himself but that part of the story can't be adequately told without Jack around to tell it. That's the first part of the problem. The second part of the problem is their use of history as plot device to advance their glorification of Daniel Jonas. I don't mind them revisiting Jack's history. But leave Daniel the fuck out of it. He wasn't around back then and therefore should not be involved now.
But that happens. Even in real life. Yes, it's missing a best but there's also a completely different beat that they're hitting BECAUSE he's not there. And it's a beat for JJ. Not Daniel who still hasn't been mentioned as having squat to do with this story.
That's a great point. Part of the reason Jack is such a saint in JJ's mind is because he is dead. So the discovery that the dead saint wasn't necessarily perfect is still a major storyline worth exploring even if Jack is not around.

The big issue will be how the show plays out the story once JJ learns the truth. If it is simply a vehicle to JJ hating his father and concluding that Daniel is "better" for Jennifer, that will be a failure. If it is a way for JJ to learn that people make mistakes and Jack did something horrible in the past and it took a lot of work for him to turn his life around and prove himself, I'm all for it.

What does bother me is that the show skipped over the entire storyline of Abby learning. When did that happen? Did it color her view of Jack? Do we have to go back over her interactions when Jack returned and try to figure out if her treatment was influenced by knowing that her dad was a rapist? And if she supposedly has known all along, shouldn't those bonding moments with Kayla have been a little awkward? And if Abby knows, does that means Stephanie knows about what happened as well? Those are huge issues for the Johnson family and it is confusing that Abby would already know when we have seen no sign of it in any other interaction with anyone else.
Offline Profile Quote Post
NBC Weekly Preview 9/30/13 · DAYS: News, Spoilers & Discussion