Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]



Hello, soap fans -- and welcome to Daytime Royalty!

For those unfamiliar, we are an uncensored community for fans and lovers of the daytime genre. We have a no-holds-barred atmosphere in regards to the shows, writers, actors etc. but we do not allow member bashing in any form.

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.

Join our community!

If you're already a member, please log in to your account to access all of our features.

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Daytime Royalty Interview with Shawn Christian; Kate Mansi's K20 Birthday Benefit
Topic Started: Sep 22 2013, 03:06 AM (5,486 Views)
The Scorpion
Member Avatar


Ok, first I really feel sorry for the actor SC, may not be easy to play such a boring character like Daniel and also try to sell the lame couple Dannifer, with that said all gigs is a paycheck, lol There are couples similar Dannifer which lowers this show in my eyes just because they are so uninteresting and nothing exciting happens to these characters, they can break up to go back to each other how many times they want. I don't care. Plain and simple as long as the characters suck no story will be interesting with this couple.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Starr


Shawn Chirstian seems, in his interview, like a regular guy, but on the Days screen, he really looks lost. Not his fault! The writers need to get rid of the current storyline. But you know what? I think it is too late for Daniel, and, yes, I agree that it is the fault of the writing. People don't respect him anymore. Bail out, Shawn, and get a self-respecting gig. You could even play a real bad guy and get away with it, at least it would be plausible. But this storyline, the way it's written, smells fake and contrived, and just plain disgusting.
Edited by Starr, Sep 26 2013, 08:18 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
No1_ILoveLucyFan
Member Avatar


I just hope Tomlin isn't trying to make me hate Jack by having JJ & Abigail find out what happened with him & Kayla. It's not going to make me forgive EJ for raping Sami, nor is it going to make me root for Daniel to be with Jennifer. If anything, it will make me appreciate Jack MORE than I already do because he owned it, it was never sugarcoated and Jack & Kayla didn't become involved romantically afterwards. Days needs to just face it - Daniel is a douche (sorry to SC if he actually reads this, nothing personal) and could never be a fraction of the man that Jack was - and still is to some viewers. Matt Ashford portrayed Jack brilliantly and I'm hopeful that new writers that don't lick the taintsweat from Daniel, will find a way to bring Jack back, even if it's not to be with Jennifer.

p.s. These scenes are haunting in their brilliance...and Matt Ashford is so amazing in this, he made me forget Deidre was in the room, took me to that cave and made me feel the horror Jack felt, then brought me right back home again. This scene alone, made me believe Jack was and is a real person (kinda). Sorry to gush, but this constant beat-up-on-Jack-to-promote-Doctor Douchebag is pissing me off!! :flipoff:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFnLeATkKew
Edited by No1_ILoveLucyFan, Sep 26 2013, 08:45 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Lil
Member Avatar


That video makes me miss Jack so much!And makes me wish Marlena had more to do...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Romancer66


I've said it before. Jack being a villain--and he was recognized as a villain--26 years ago does not make Daniel the most heroic hero that ever heroed now. And call me partial, but I'd still consider present-day Jack a better person than present-day Daniel, maybe because he makes the active choice to be good and to do good, even if the ways he adopts to do good are unorthodox and sometimes blow up in his face. I would also argue that Jack has developed a fairly strong moral code over the years. Daniel strikes me as rather amoral--he drifts along, doing the right thing mainly when it's convenient, expedient, and comfortable for him. And "self-denial" isn't in his vocabulary, much less "self-sacrifice." Daniel will always look out for Number #1 first.

Finally, how do we know that Daniel doesn't have some long-ago skeletons in his closet that might rattle as loudly as any of Jack's? He's such a poorly defined character that they could make up just about anything about him. Personally, I wish someone would do an expose on Daniel and uncover some of those skeletons. Recognize the character as flawed and fallible, don't prop him as a plaster saint. Although at this point, I'd prefer TPTB to get rid of Daniel, period. He's had almost six years to catch on, and he hasn't, really. Time to move on.
Edited by Romancer66, Sep 26 2013, 09:49 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
concerned
Member Avatar


outrageous
Sep 22 2013, 12:56 PM
TFP. Such a nice guy. I don't want him to leave the show, that would leave him without a job and his only crime is that he's paired with Jennifer right now.
I didn't like the character long before he was paired with Jennifer It's a nice try big it's not the reason the character fails for me. I'd happily see other actors with Jennifer and have done so before. I love jack and I would have rather he had moved on with someone else than have left the canvas entirely.

These couples eho need exclusion zones to work annoy me no end.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jam6242
Member Avatar


I disliked Daniel long before he was paired up with Jennifer. The extremes the writers have gone to promote this character make me dislike him more. I can't think of anything the writers could do to make me like him (other than leave Salem), not even if they had him saving the lives of all of my favorite characters en masse.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
LanaluvsBroe
Member Avatar


Sadly, Romancer, even if the sainted Doc did have some skeletons in his closet the good citizens of Salem, starting with Jennifer, would always find a way to blame someone else for his choices. Just like Nicole got the blame when Daniel chose to lie about the paternity of her child. No matter what Daniel does, lying or putting his hands on someone's son, he will never be held accountable. Nor will he ever own his mistakes. And that, right there, is what will always set him apart from the great Jack Devereaux. Jack knew and accepted that he was flawed and he owned his mistakes. Daniel acts like he's never made a mistake in his life. He's never accepted responsibility for screwing his patients, sleeping with Lucas's fiance, lying about Nicole's baby, or putting his hands on JJ. He's a hypocrite at best (you can cheat with him but never on him, lying about a child's paternity is only wrong when it's his child) and a sanctimonious prick at worst. And bringing up Jack's mistakes won't make Daniel's go away nor will it make him likable. Matt Ashford showed us that Jack was human, he made him into a three dimensional character through his struggles, his triumphs, his sorrows. Shawn Christian has had six years to do something with Daniel and yet Daniel is still the same one dimensional man he was the day in stepped foot in Salem. So nice guy or not, the best thing that could happen to this show is if Shawn Christian left it. Permanently.
Edited by LanaluvsBroe, Sep 26 2013, 10:26 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
LanaluvsBroe
Member Avatar


No1_ILoveLucyFan
Sep 26 2013, 08:35 AM
I just hope Tomlin isn't trying to make me hate Jack by having JJ & Abigail find out what happened with him & Kayla. It's not going to make me forgive EJ for raping Sami, nor is it going to make me root for Daniel to be with Jennifer. If anything, it will make me appreciate Jack MORE than I already do because he owned it, it was never sugarcoated and Jack & Kayla didn't become involved romantically afterwards. Days needs to just face it - Daniel is a douche (sorry to SC if he actually reads this, nothing personal) and could never be a fraction of the man that Jack was - and still is to some viewers. Matt Ashford portrayed Jack brilliantly and I'm hopeful that new writers that don't lick the taintsweat from Daniel, will find a way to bring Jack back, even if it's not to be with Jennifer.

p.s. These scenes are haunting in their brilliance...and Matt Ashford is so amazing in this, he made me forget Deidre was in the room, took me to that cave and made me feel the horror Jack felt, then brought me right back home again. This scene alone, made me believe Jack was and is a real person (kinda). Sorry to gush, but this constant beat-up-on-Jack-to-promote-Doctor Douchebag is pissing me off!! :flipoff:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFnLeATkKew
Still cannot believe they dropped this fabulous PTSD storyline & actor for the crap we are seeing now. Casey Moss's fantastic acting aside, Dannifer sucks balls. TomSell & Corday are damn fools. :flipoff:
Edited by LanaluvsBroe, Sep 26 2013, 10:28 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
granolagirl
Member Avatar


I never liked the choice to do the Afghanistan story for Jack and give him PTSD. To me, it was as flawed as any other present-day storytelling both in terms of the story (melodrama that doesn't build into bigger story) and character dynamics (villifies Jen post-facto for her decisions and long time frustrations with Jack's habits, and lets Jack off the hook by turning him into the victim). I didn't see Jack in those choices. I was much more interested in the original idea of the walkabout, which was an opportunity for a more multidimensional Jack and an outlet to show how his self-interest conflicted with his family. It offered more balance between the characters of Jack and Jen at a time when they were determined to have Jennifer make some self-interested choices of her own, and returned Jack to his roots.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
MissLola
Member Avatar


I am really getting tired if having to FF through every Dan/Dan centered scene in order to get to something interesting. At times I have just given up and deleted the whole episode. I remember a few years ago when Ej was on 4-5 days a week and even when he wasn't characters spent the episode talking about him. The Daniel pimping is getting to be worse. Why can't they just balance out the show instead of heavily featuring one character who they consider to be "controversial".
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
esp13
Member Avatar


granolagirl
Sep 26 2013, 10:51 AM
I never liked the choice to do the Afghanistan story for Jack and give him PTSD. To me, it was as flawed as any other present-day storytelling both in terms of the story (melodrama that doesn't build into bigger story) and character dynamics (villifies Jen post-facto for her decisions and long time frustrations with Jack's habits, and lets Jack off the hook by turning him into the victim). I didn't see Jack in those choices. I was much more interested in the original idea of the walkabout, which was an opportunity for a more multidimensional Jack and an outlet to show how his self-interest conflicted with his family. It offered more balance between the characters of Jack and Jen at a time when they were determined to have Jennifer make some self-interested choices of her own, and returned Jack to his roots.
I agree. I think the worst part about the Afghanistan story is the vilification of Jen for moving on. By making Jack the victim, then Jen is made to feel guilty for believing exactly what Jack wanted her to believe. Even that could have been okay if they had delved into the dynamics of it. Why didn't Jack trust her with the truth? Why was it relatively easy for Jen to believe it was true? (And how Jack's history played into that).

Instead, it was simply that once the truth was out, Jack was absolved of his part in what happened and Jen was the bad guy for not immediately forgiving him and taking him back. So, yeah, while it might have given MA some good scenes, I don't think it turned into a good story at all.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Romancer66


granolagirl
Sep 26 2013, 10:51 AM
I never liked the choice to do the Afghanistan story for Jack and give him PTSD. To me, it was as flawed as any other present-day storytelling both in terms of the story (melodrama that doesn't build into bigger story) and character dynamics (villifies Jen post-facto for her decisions and long time frustrations with Jack's habits, and lets Jack off the hook by turning him into the victim). I didn't see Jack in those choices. I was much more interested in the original idea of the walkabout, which was an opportunity for a more multidimensional Jack and an outlet to show how his self-interest conflicted with his family. It offered more balance between the characters of Jack and Jen at a time when they were determined to have Jennifer make some self-interested choices of her own, and returned Jack to his roots.
I feel the exact opposite. To me, the walkabout scenario was ridiculous and out of character--a too-easy way to vilify Jack and justify Jennifer moving on to her next himbo without guilt. For one thing, Jack's idea of "roughing it" was no room service. The man liked his creature comforts. For another, I found it much more believable that, after years of taking risks and having them pay off, after countless hair's breadth escapes, Jack's luck would finally run out and he'd find himself in way over his head. And that his cleverness would work against him, and his family might actually believe that phony blog and give up on him. Although his not showing up after Jennifer's heart surgery should have been a huge red flag to her, because he would never have stayed away voluntarily after getting that news, no matter how "self-interested" his detractors want to claim he was.

Also, I never saw that Jack's "self-interest" conflicted with his family--rather, the two always seemed to me to be oddly intertwined. He would make decisions that appeared selfish on the surface, but were actually rooted in love for them, a belief that he wasn't worthy of them, and a desire to spare them pain. Like leaving when he discovered he might have caused Abigail's illness and when he was diagnosed with a mortal illness. (Those, by the way, were the only occasions on which Jack left of his own volition--absences due to kidnappings and murder attempts were beyond his control--and he certainly didn't do it for shits and giggles.) He hated leaving, but somehow he'd erroneously convinced himself that it was the right thing to do. The other times he was kept from his family by force, he fought like hell to get back to them. Yes, his tendency to make unilateral decisions could be infuriating, and that was a legitimate beef Jennifer could have had with him.But seriously, Jack could have had a legitimate beef with Jennifer too: her fickleness and her apparent inability to go five minutes without a man. And why shouldn't Jennifer have to take some heat for her own choices for a change, instead of using Jack's mistakes and decisions as a convenient scapegoat? Too often, that's how it played out, and the last thing many J&J fans wanted was another iteration of that.

Frankly, it's always bugged me that Jennifer did many of the same things Jack did--made unilateral decisions that affected the whole family, logged in long work hours, and risked life and limb in pursuit of a story--and never got even half the flak for it that he did. Nor has she ever gotten called out for her incessant man-chasing, except occasionally by Alice, who, alas, can no longer perform that office. After so many years of heavy-handed Jennifer = Martyred Victim/Jack = Irresponsible Flake scenarios, I personally found it refreshing to see the shoe on the other foot for a change.

Back on topic, it's hard to feel much sympathy for SC when TPTB go to such extremes to prop Daniel. Jennifer on her own doesn't get nearly as much ridiculous shoring up. It's all about him for TomSell, and Jennifer's just the means to the end of making him the male lead of the show and the successor to Tom Horton, sickening and implausible as that is. If there was another Horton woman available and on canvas in the right age bracket (or younger), no doubt TIIC would be putting their anointed Golden Boy with her instead of Jennifer.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
granolagirl
Member Avatar


Romancer66
Sep 26 2013, 12:05 PM
Also, I never saw that Jack's "self-interest" conflicted with his family--rather, the two always seemed to me to be oddly intertwined. He would make decisions that appeared selfish on the surface, but were actually rooted in love for them, a belief that he wasn't worthy of them, and a desire to spare them pain.
It is selfish to run away from your family when things get hard and you think it's easier to deal with it alone. This always read as martyrdom to me. Rooted in love or no, he still caused pain by leaving, and other people's feelings about it were delegitimized by his guilt. His guilt and his feelings become important above all, and when Jennifer wanted to break that cycle, she became the villain.

IMO, Jack hasn't had compelling writing in a very long time, and MA like all the other vets is lucky to have had his character established at a time the writing was good. SC is charismatic, and while I don't care for everything about Daniel, he has had some stories in the last six years where I was very engaged by his role.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
annie21


esp13
Sep 26 2013, 11:39 AM
granolagirl
Sep 26 2013, 10:51 AM
I never liked the choice to do the Afghanistan story for Jack and give him PTSD. To me, it was as flawed as any other present-day storytelling both in terms of the story (melodrama that doesn't build into bigger story) and character dynamics (villifies Jen post-facto for her decisions and long time frustrations with Jack's habits, and lets Jack off the hook by turning him into the victim). I didn't see Jack in those choices. I was much more interested in the original idea of the walkabout, which was an opportunity for a more multidimensional Jack and an outlet to show how his self-interest conflicted with his family. It offered more balance between the characters of Jack and Jen at a time when they were determined to have Jennifer make some self-interested choices of her own, and returned Jack to his roots.
I agree. I think the worst part about the Afghanistan story is the vilification of Jen for moving on. By making Jack the victim, then Jen is made to feel guilty for believing exactly what Jack wanted her to believe. Even that could have been okay if they had delved into the dynamics of it. Why didn't Jack trust her with the truth? Why was it relatively easy for Jen to believe it was true? (And how Jack's history played into that).

Instead, it was simply that once the truth was out, Jack was absolved of his part in what happened and Jen was the bad guy for not immediately forgiving him and taking him back. So, yeah, while it might have given MA some good scenes, I don't think it turned into a good story at all.
While I had a lot of issues with the telling of the story, I don't recall any vilification of Jennifer at any point by anyone on the show. From the moment Jack returned, he was the one who was taken to task. No one, including Jack, blamed Jennifer for moving on or for not asking more questions or anything of the sort. The writing never portrayed Jennifer as the bad guy -- and she was never shown to be even the tiniest bit reflective about her own behavior -- before and after Jack's return. Poor Jennifer was portrayed as the victim, as she was comforted by everyone, especially Hope and Abigail, for her dilemma.

That was what was jarring to me about the entire setup. Here we had a guy who had been held hostage and tortured for a year, yet he got no sympathy or kind words from anyone while the whole focus of the entire story was on Jennifer and her being "torn." Juvenile and a horrible waste of story potential.

The primary people crying foul about Jennifer's behavior were her own fans -- and they started complaining pretty much from the moment Jennifer unquestioningly accepted that Jack was on a walkabout. Given all the times she has gone through Jack being kidnapped and held hostage, and given her background as an investigative journalist who snooped until she got answers, she should have done more. In my head, I've chalked it up to her own PTSD after her ordeal with the heart/organ thieves, which sadly was another area of great potential that was never explored.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Keith
Member Avatar


esp13
Sep 26 2013, 11:39 AM
granolagirl
Sep 26 2013, 10:51 AM
I never liked the choice to do the Afghanistan story for Jack and give him PTSD. To me, it was as flawed as any other present-day storytelling both in terms of the story (melodrama that doesn't build into bigger story) and character dynamics (villifies Jen post-facto for her decisions and long time frustrations with Jack's habits, and lets Jack off the hook by turning him into the victim). I didn't see Jack in those choices. I was much more interested in the original idea of the walkabout, which was an opportunity for a more multidimensional Jack and an outlet to show how his self-interest conflicted with his family. It offered more balance between the characters of Jack and Jen at a time when they were determined to have Jennifer make some self-interested choices of her own, and returned Jack to his roots.
I agree. I think the worst part about the Afghanistan story is the vilification of Jen for moving on. By making Jack the victim, then Jen is made to feel guilty for believing exactly what Jack wanted her to believe. Even that could have been okay if they had delved into the dynamics of it. Why didn't Jack trust her with the truth? Why was it relatively easy for Jen to believe it was true? (And how Jack's history played into that).

Instead, it was simply that once the truth was out, Jack was absolved of his part in what happened and Jen was the bad guy for not immediately forgiving him and taking him back. So, yeah, while it might have given MA some good scenes, I don't think it turned into a good story at all.
That's exactly what I think was wrong with the story. I didn't mind the twist being about chasing a story. Jack has been trying to get his moxie back since he lost his money to Hawk. A big story would push him, especially in an age when journalism is changing rapidly. And with two kids and a wife to take care of. The story Mardar wrote was inane. They should have brought all the points you're talking about to light rather than whitewashing them and totally victimizing Jack. Honestly, it would have made more sense had they stuck with their guns, had Jennifer move on with Daniel, have Jack have to, as he's had to before, face up to his mistakes and OWN them. Truly own them. Making the blog his idea would have been so much more powerful than writing it off as his captors doing it to throw people off the scent. Jack's moral compass as NEVER been completely on the straight and narrow. That's not vilifying him. That's showing for the flawed man that he is. Its a little bit of Africa again. Making the wrong decision for the right reasons. Instead we got a half assed story about his PTSD without any of these wonderful layers, next to no air time for the time he was back, the inane dating game, and a reunion that Missy Reeves never had her heart in, and thus, neither did Jennifer. If Missy has lost her passion for J&J, why not give J&J the realistic ending of a couple that has fallen out of love and just not worked out? I've never understood all the wasted potential.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Romancer66


granolagirl
Sep 26 2013, 12:33 PM
Romancer66
Sep 26 2013, 12:05 PM
Also, I never saw that Jack's "self-interest" conflicted with his family--rather, the two always seemed to me to be oddly intertwined. He would make decisions that appeared selfish on the surface, but were actually rooted in love for them, a belief that he wasn't worthy of them, and a desire to spare them pain.
It is selfish to run away from your family when things get hard and you think it's easier to deal with it alone. This always read as martyrdom to me. Rooted in love or no, he still caused pain by leaving, and other people's feelings about it were delegitimized by his guilt. His guilt and his feelings become important above all, and when Jennifer wanted to break that cycle, she became the villain.

IMO, Jack hasn't had compelling writing in a very long time, and MA like all the other vets is lucky to have had his character established at a time the writing was good. SC is charismatic, and while I don't care for everything about Daniel, he has had some stories in the last six years where I was very engaged by his role.
I never got the impression that Jack thought dealing with his illness alone would be easier on him--honestly, why would anyone think depriving oneself of a loving support system during a mortal illness would be easy?--so much as he thought it would be easier on his family not having to watch him die. What he didn't realize, and this goes all the way back to his sense of worthlessness, is that his loved ones would have cherished every minute they had with him. I found it more sad than selfish, and I didn't think Jennifer's feelings about it were "delegitimized" at all, because she was given the opportunity to express how she felt, and in a way that was open, honest, and loving, instead of shrill, shrewish, and accusatory. Nor did I see her actions this time around as "breaking the cycle" so much as perpetuating another cycle of her own: tossing her marriage and moving on to another man at warp speed. It's what she always does when the going gets tough--look for Mr. Perfect--and while I don't think it necessarily makes her a "villain," it does mean that she's got flaws and issues of her own, and that it's high time they were actually addressed, instead of being glossed over because of something Jack did or something she thought he did.

I think MA got better material during the third run than he had at the beginning of his second run, for the most part. And he ran with it, all the way to an Emmy nomination and a PRISM award. Some may have resented or disliked the PTSD angle, but MA still sold it. Meanwhile, despite all his time on the frontburner, SC has never struck me as being especially charismatic. He's a very average, generic soap hunk-type, at least when he's playing Daniel, and the character would have to be twenty times more awesome than he is to justify all the insane propping. Daniel isn't particularly smart, brave, or generous; he doesn't have a strong moral compass; he's not all that faithful or loyal as a lover or a friend; he seldom reaches beyond what's comfortable or beneficial to him personally to help someone else. At best, he's good at his job and he can be kind when it doesn't cost him anything. At worst, he's self-righteous, judgmental, hypocritical, and self-serving. Not a dyed-in-the-wool villain, perhaps, but not a rootable hero, either. And I absolutely despise him with Jennifer because together they're self-righteousness in stereo. And self-righteousness is a quality I dislike in all characters, whether they're heroes, villains, or vacuous blanks like Daniel.
Edited by Romancer66, Sep 26 2013, 01:39 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
annie21


Keith
Sep 26 2013, 01:18 PM
esp13
Sep 26 2013, 11:39 AM
granolagirl
Sep 26 2013, 10:51 AM
I never liked the choice to do the Afghanistan story for Jack and give him PTSD. To me, it was as flawed as any other present-day storytelling both in terms of the story (melodrama that doesn't build into bigger story) and character dynamics (villifies Jen post-facto for her decisions and long time frustrations with Jack's habits, and lets Jack off the hook by turning him into the victim). I didn't see Jack in those choices. I was much more interested in the original idea of the walkabout, which was an opportunity for a more multidimensional Jack and an outlet to show how his self-interest conflicted with his family. It offered more balance between the characters of Jack and Jen at a time when they were determined to have Jennifer make some self-interested choices of her own, and returned Jack to his roots.
I agree. I think the worst part about the Afghanistan story is the vilification of Jen for moving on. By making Jack the victim, then Jen is made to feel guilty for believing exactly what Jack wanted her to believe. Even that could have been okay if they had delved into the dynamics of it. Why didn't Jack trust her with the truth? Why was it relatively easy for Jen to believe it was true? (And how Jack's history played into that).

Instead, it was simply that once the truth was out, Jack was absolved of his part in what happened and Jen was the bad guy for not immediately forgiving him and taking him back. So, yeah, while it might have given MA some good scenes, I don't think it turned into a good story at all.
That's exactly what I think was wrong with the story. I didn't mind the twist being about chasing a story. Jack has been trying to get his moxie back since he lost his money to Hawk. A big story would push him, especially in an age when journalism is changing rapidly. And with two kids and a wife to take care of. The story Mardar wrote was inane. They should have brought all the points you're talking about to light rather than whitewashing them and totally victimizing Jack. Honestly, it would have made more sense had they stuck with their guns, had Jennifer move on with Daniel, have Jack have to, as he's had to before, face up to his mistakes and OWN them. Truly own them. Making the blog his idea would have been so much more powerful than writing it off as his captors doing it to throw people off the scent. Jack's moral compass as NEVER been completely on the straight and narrow. That's not vilifying him. That's showing for the flawed man that he is. Its a little bit of Africa again. Making the wrong decision for the right reasons. Instead we got a half assed story about his PTSD without any of these wonderful layers, next to no air time for the time he was back, the inane dating game, and a reunion that Missy Reeves never had her heart in, and thus, neither did Jennifer. If Missy has lost her passion for J&J, why not give J&J the realistic ending of a couple that has fallen out of love and just not worked out? I've never understood all the wasted potential.
I agree with most of this -- about what went wrong and about where the real potential of the story is. The only thing I can't get on board with is that Jack was totally victimized in the writing (for reasons I stated in a previous post). For one thing, Jack wasn't given enough airtime to be seen as a victim -- that was the role written for Jennifer. Mostly what we saw is him asking for and eventually receiving forgiveness from his wife and daughter -- and facing up to the fact that he would have to deal with his PTSD therapy and recovery entirely on his own.

Then, the whole thing was basically forgotten.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
granolagirl
Member Avatar


Romancer66
Sep 26 2013, 01:35 PM
I think MA got better material during the third run than he had at the beginning of his second run, for the most part. And he ran with it, all the way to an Emmy nomination and a PRISM award. Some may have resented or disliked the PTSD angle, but MA still sold it. Meanwhile, despite all his time on the frontburner, SC has never struck me as being especially charismatic. He's a very average, generic soap hunk-type, at least when he's playing Daniel, and the character would have to be twenty times more awesome than he is to justify all the insane propping. Daniel isn't particularly smart, brave, or generous; he doesn't have a strong moral compass; he's not all that faithful or loyal as a lover or a friend; he seldom reaches beyond what's comfortable or beneficial to him personally to help someone else. At best, he's good at his job and he can be kind when it doesn't cost him anything. At worst, he's self-righteous, judgmental, hypocritical, and self-serving. Not a dyed-in-the-wool villain, perhaps, but not a rootable hero, either. And I absolutely despise him with Jennifer because together they're self-righteousness in stereo. And self-righteousness is a quality I dislike in all characters, whether they're heroes, villains, or vacuous blanks like Daniel.
"Charismatic" is perception. That's how I see SC and why I've always enjoyed Daniel to a degree.

If I didn't have the background with Jack from the 80's, I don't know what I would think of the character based on his last run. I know MA got an Emmy nomination, but I thought the PTSD material was overwrought, and the performances not stellar -- not that I would expect anyone to be able to hit that kind of melodrama, not well-grounded in story, out of the park.

Jack and Daniel are both flawed characters. Neither character's flaws elevate the other.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Romancer66


annie21
Sep 26 2013, 01:08 PM
esp13
Sep 26 2013, 11:39 AM
granolagirl
Sep 26 2013, 10:51 AM
I never liked the choice to do the Afghanistan story for Jack and give him PTSD. To me, it was as flawed as any other present-day storytelling both in terms of the story (melodrama that doesn't build into bigger story) and character dynamics (villifies Jen post-facto for her decisions and long time frustrations with Jack's habits, and lets Jack off the hook by turning him into the victim). I didn't see Jack in those choices. I was much more interested in the original idea of the walkabout, which was an opportunity for a more multidimensional Jack and an outlet to show how his self-interest conflicted with his family. It offered more balance between the characters of Jack and Jen at a time when they were determined to have Jennifer make some self-interested choices of her own, and returned Jack to his roots.
I agree. I think the worst part about the Afghanistan story is the vilification of Jen for moving on. By making Jack the victim, then Jen is made to feel guilty for believing exactly what Jack wanted her to believe. Even that could have been okay if they had delved into the dynamics of it. Why didn't Jack trust her with the truth? Why was it relatively easy for Jen to believe it was true? (And how Jack's history played into that).

Instead, it was simply that once the truth was out, Jack was absolved of his part in what happened and Jen was the bad guy for not immediately forgiving him and taking him back. So, yeah, while it might have given MA some good scenes, I don't think it turned into a good story at all.
While I had a lot of issues with the telling of the story, I don't recall any vilification of Jennifer at any point by anyone on the show. From the moment Jack returned, he was the one who was taken to task. No one, including Jack, blamed Jennifer for moving on or for not asking more questions or anything of the sort. The writing never portrayed Jennifer as the bad guy -- and she was never shown to be even the tiniest bit reflective about her own behavior -- before and after Jack's return. Poor Jennifer was portrayed as the victim, as she was comforted by everyone, especially Hope and Abigail, for her dilemma.

That was what was jarring to me about the entire setup. Here we had a guy who had been held hostage and tortured for a year, yet he got no sympathy or kind words from anyone while the whole focus of the entire story was on Jennifer and her being "torn." Juvenile and a horrible waste of story potential.

The primary people crying foul about Jennifer's behavior were her own fans -- and they started complaining pretty much from the moment Jennifer unquestioningly accepted that Jack was on a walkabout. Given all the times she has gone through Jack being kidnapped and held hostage, and given her background as an investigative journalist who snooped until she got answers, she should have done more. In my head, I've chalked it up to her own PTSD after her ordeal with the heart/organ thieves, which sadly was another area of great potential that was never explored.
You know, that's a very good point. None of the characters on the show itself "vilified" Jennifer for moving on--if that had been the intention of the writers then, there would have been people like Adrienne or Abigail criticizing her decision or at least asking her if she really thought things through and maybe she should make more of an effort to get in touch with her husband and find out what was really going on. Instead, everyone supported her, joined in with her embittered Jack-bashing, and practically applauded when she hooked up with Daniel. And that didn't change much, even after Jack returned and the truth about what happened to him came out. Jack still got virtually no sympathy or support from his so-called friends and loved ones, with the exception of Marlena, John, and even Rafe, of all people, and no one in Salem acted as though there was anything wrong with that.

The people who rebelled against this interpretation of events and characters were the viewers. And I think that was just highly inept writing on the part of MarDar & Company. They seem to have honestly believed the audience would be more invested in who Jennifer would pick, and sympathize more with how "torn" she supposedly was, rather than care about a beloved character's struggles with PTSD and the complete lack of support he received from his family while dealing with his condition. So why blame viewers for not responding as expected to a poorly executed story? That makes about as much sense as blaming diners in a restaurant for complaining about a poorly cooked meal.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Create a free forum in seconds.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · DAYS: News, Spoilers & Discussion · Next Topic »
Add Reply