Viewing Single Post From: NBC Weekly Preview 9/30/13
Sep 27 2013, 07:28 PM
- May 20, 2009
This implies that the writers would misrepresent Kayla to further Joey's story. That's not what's happening with JJ. But as far as her kids finding out about that...I don't see why they'd care whether she was dead or alive. It's no where near the same as finding out your dad raped your aunt. You're not going to find many if any examples of me being against the show bringing up accurate parts of history, and what they're bringing up about Jack is accurate. Unless they keep it at just assault and don't use the word rape. That would bother me. Otherwise, it happened and I'd love for them to actually deal with the ramifications again now that involves more people.
- Sep 27 2013, 05:50 PM
- Sep 27 2013, 04:46 PM
- Sep 27 2013, 04:43 PM
- Panda Panda
- Sep 27 2013, 04:32 PM
I don't see how having Jack back would help JJ not hate him for what he did? Jack raped Kayla. There's no justification, no "other side", and no explanation behind his assault. And there shouldn't be.
I'm not too fond of the fact that this storyline is skating on the fringes of Fetch break/makeup #267253625362, but if the writers can somehow keep this story about JJ, Kayla, Jack, and Jennifer (ONLY THEM) then I wouldn't mind seeing how everything plays out
I don't think that's the point of having Jack back. It wouldn't keep JJ from hating him, but that is where the drama comes in. I just think having this story without Jack being involved at all is ....just wrong. It's going to all be about Daniel, and how JJ starts to accept him. That isn't at all what this should all be about. But I don't know any other reason to bring this all up when one of the key characters isn't even around. To me, it is a waste of a story without Jack. Sure, it might be a good story for a day or two, but if Jack were actually around....they could milk it for a whole lot more than what it will probably end up being.
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.