Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]



ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Create your own social network with a free forum.
Viewing Single Post From: NBC Weekly Preview 9/30/13
annie21


Kriss4
Sep 27 2013, 06:10 PM
annie21
Sep 27 2013, 05:50 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 a lot of things happened back then. And many of those things were interconnected. I am concerned that if these writers only pull out part of the story for their own purposes, there will be a tendency for many to be misled by the new telling (or the inadequate telling).

Let's look at this way. We all know that Jack raped Kayla. Many of us actually saw that played out onscreen. It was wrenching and horrible. We saw the act (well, kind of), and we saw the aftermath as it affected both Jack and Kayla -- and others around them. It definitely "happened."

We also saw the events leading up to it, including when Kayla was shown to carry on an affair with Steve behind her husband's back, and lying to Jack for months. This also "happened."

Now, let's say that a few years from now, a new writing team decides to kill off Kayla and later tell a coming of age story about her son Joey. And let's say they decide he finds out that his mom was a lying, cheating woman who cuckolded her first husband -- perhaps because the writers want to diminish Kayla in the eyes of her son.

I would be incensed and enraged that a writing team would cynically take something that was so powerful and exploit it and twist it like that.

I am NOT excusing what Jack did. I am NOT saying that JJ shouldn't find out the truth. But what I am saying is that I don't want these writers to be the ones to bring it back up. They have given me no confidence whatsoever that they can handle the kind of complexity this warrants. Worse, I'm concerned that the "accepted canon" of what transpired will be altered by their mucking around in it.

Kayla had reasons for what she did...all the way down the line.

I think she was wrong in some of her decisions, but I understood why she made the decisions she did, even though I didn't agree with them.

If you have access to the whole story, you see Jack is very sick (Hodgkin's Disease), and it's thought that he's dying. Kayla's his friend, but she doesn't love him, because she's already given her heart to Steve. However, Jack's in a bad way, and everyone around Jack, from Harper to Angelica to Mike Horton (Jack's doctor) become very concerned about his attitude and lack of "fight." Even Melissa, who loves Jack, wants Jack to live badly enough that she doesn't say much against the marriage anywhere...because Jack wants Kayla, and if he wants Kayla, maybe he should have her, so he'll live.

Kayla gets a lot of pressure to accept Jack's marriage proposal, from well-meaning people who want Jack to fight harder to live. Jack even tells Melissa that if he doesn't have the hope of a future with Kayla, what's the point of living anyway?

Sometimes I wish Kayla had said to heck with it and disregarded that proposal, friendship or not. Jack never should have proposed to her anyway. He KNEW she loved Steve, and there he was in that hospital bed...How do you say no to a guy who everyone is concerned is going to die?

But she didn't say no. She married him. Her decision. An unhappy one for her...and when she finds out the truth, it becomes even MORE complicated and messy.

I completely agree, and that's actually my point. It was complicated and messy. And Kayla had reasons for what she did. We saw it all.

But what if Joey (and the viewers of that hypothetical time) never got to learn about all that complexity? What if it was reduced to a tabloid-style, titillating headline?

That's how I feel about the current regime running the show. In general, I feel they're "tabloid-izing" the show -- both it's past and it's present -- reducing everything to a few sensationalized plot points that go nowhere and signify nothing -- and are done via fact-checking that is lazy to nonexistent.

Have I mentioned I don't like the writing? :)

Offline Profile Quote Post
NBC Weekly Preview 9/30/13 · DAYS: News, Spoilers & Discussion