Tell your friends

TELL YOUR FRIENDS

POPULAR SEARCHES

List of Shows


Featured Blogs

Celebrity Photos Celebrity Hair Styles The Buzz

General Hospital - MESSAGE BOARDS

Soaps Boards :: General Hospital Forum :: Jonathan Jackson Returns Promo

Please register and login to be able to post in this message board.

Jonathan Jackson Returns Promo

Started by jnlforever at 2009/10/21 06:47AM
Latest post: 2009/10/23 04:09PM, Views: 1997, Replies: 39
|« « 1 2 3 page:
#21   2009/10/22 10:18AM
Re: Jonathan Jackson Returns Promo
JaneDoe
image

Quote AlyasMom: I love love love JJ, always had; sorry that Greg V got thrown under the bus, but that was the risk he took in taking on a BELOVED soap favorite. They would have done that to any one else on GH if a fav agreed to return.

I am a Brenda Barret fan, through and through, I know Guza has been tryna get her back fors years, baiting her by saying he was going to recast her role and all types of junk (like B could be replaced) But that was just hot air he likes to blow up arse's. But, hypothetically speaking if he were to replace Brenda, and then she decided to come back, GH would drop whoever was currently holding down that role within a blink of the eye.
No doubt about it!

Greg V happened to be in the same postion as VM and RB's stand ins were, unfortunately for him. I knew alot of people are hoping he goes to Y&R to play Diego again, so lets see how this all plays out!


I agree with this! If you take on the role of an already established beloved character, you have to know that the risk is there that the original could always return to take back their place. The promo is to hype JJ's return, so of course they are going to milk it for all it's worth. As much as I like GV, he had HUGE shoes to fill and it should really come as no surprise that there are many fans (myself included) that prefer the original..... it's that way with many things.

I'm sure GV doesn't enjoy this, but I'd expect nothing less from this promo. It comes with the territory.

#22   2009/10/22 10:48AM
Re: Jonathan Jackson Returns Promo
Stacy1975
image

I choose to think it's nothing against GV, but rather for JJ and the character of Lucky; a fresh start. Hopefully, they'll find the right way to put Lucky on the right path, because we all know that the character took a major detour from what he should've been.

#23   2009/10/22 04:36PM
Re: Jonathan Jackson Returns Promo
cardgirl
image

I so can't wait for Jonathan Jackson to return. And if they write it the way it looks like they are going to write it, well yippy. My only delima now is that I will not want Liz to be with Jason if the original Lukcy is around. Man this is really going to interesting. Finally a reason to be happy to watch GH again instead of just out of habit.

I feel bad for GV, but from what I have read he seems all right with it. It's hard for anybody to be unemployed these days but sadly that is the nature of the job in acting. I am sure some show will snap him up really soon. He is a good actor, but it's hard to take the place of an actor who played a character originally and from childhood. Some characters just can't be replaced with other actors. Like I can't imagine anybody but Steve Burton playing Jason or anybody but Maurice Bernard playing Sonny. And certainly I could never ever see anybody else playing Luke except Tony Geary. I bet he is really happy about this.

#24   2009/10/22 04:45PM
Re: Jonathan Jackson Returns Promo
onlygh
image

Jason Who? Cardgirl Jason Who?

#25   2009/10/22 05:09PM
Re: Jonathan Jackson Returns Promo
cherrycola
image

Quote onlygh:
Quote jnlforever: I want to know something are the writers going to focus on Lucky now and not write him as such the doofus he has become because JJ's back?


Hi jnl! I can't imagine TPTB would have gone to all the trouble to bring Jonathan Jackson back to the role if they didn't intend to write Lucky the way he should have been written all along...as a Spencer, through and through.


I agree with you in part, but my next question would be if they intend to change the writing, then that means they know the quality of the writing was to blame, so why not simply FIX THE WRITING? The way they are doing it implies Greg Vaughn was the problem. He wasn't. When given a decent script, the guy can act. So I don't think GV cares one way or the other how they promote JJ, but I as a longtime viewer feel a little insulted because the implication is that viewers will swoon over the star and forget that we've had to endure years of crap writing for this character. Personally, I think GH is getting better lately, but I remain cynical of their ability to fix a long-standing character problem by bringing in a differnt actor regardless of who the actor is. I'm not going to be distracted from bad character development by a publicity stunt or an obvious ploy to boost ratings by waving around former glory. Even JJ is only as good as the material he has to work with. If the writers don't create a smooth transition and start producing better scripts for the character, this could be a spectacular failure.

#26   2009/10/22 09:23PM
Re: Jonathan Jackson Returns Promo
kayliej
image

i absolutly cannot wait till tuesday. i was watching from like 5 or so and lucky was my favorite character, i loved JJ so much and was so upset when he left. i hope that the writing gets better with his return, but for me, who knows, starting at him day in and day out, i might forgive bad writing for a while. lol. but....i will miss GV. i never thought he was a bad actor, just bad material. and i never say JY as lucky due to school, but i think he makes JR on AMC so i have to say its a good thing that he hasnt been lucky for a while because i cant see anybody else as JR

#27   2009/10/23 05:53AM
Re: Jonathan Jackson Returns Promo
onlygh
image

Quote cherrycola:
Quote onlygh:
Quote jnlforever: I want to know something are the writers going to focus on Lucky now and not write him as such the doofus he has become because JJ's back?


Hi jnl! I can't imagine TPTB would have gone to all the trouble to bring Jonathan Jackson back to the role if they didn't intend to write Lucky the way he should have been written all along...as a Spencer, through and through.


I agree with you in part, but my next question would be if they intend to change the writing, then that means they know the quality of the writing was to blame, so why not simply FIX THE WRITING? The way they are doing it implies Greg Vaughn was the problem. He wasn't. When given a decent script, the guy can act. So I don't think GV cares one way or the other how they promote JJ, but I as a longtime viewer feel a little insulted because the implication is that viewers will swoon over the star and forget that we've had to endure years of crap writing for this character. Personally, I think GH is getting better lately, but I remain cynical of their ability to fix a long-standing character problem by bringing in a differnt actor regardless of who the actor is. I'm not going to be distracted from bad character development by a publicity stunt or an obvious ploy to boost ratings by waving around former glory. Even JJ is only as good as the material he has to work with. If the writers don't create a smooth transition and start producing better scripts for the character, this could be a spectacular failure.


Hi cherry! Is it possible that this is a situation where a character just should never have been recast? I'm not anti-recast by any stretch of the imagination. Laura Wright is Carly for me. Drew Garrett has done a tremendous job becoming Michael (even though the timeframe between recasts was so small). I do believe, however, that there are certain characters who just can't be recast. Robin is such a character. It is beyond me to imagine any actress other than Kimberly McCullough in that role. I feel the same about Jonathan Jackson. Frankly, I wish they'd left Lucky for dead all those many years ago. I never bought Jacob Young in the role. As for Greg Vaughn, I accepted him mainly because he is a talented actor and is so drop-dead gorgeous but he was never really the Lucky I saw in my head...that Lucky has always been Jonathan Jackson's version. I agree with you that the writing has to change and that if it doesn't, this was all a big waste. I believe that Jonathan Jackson resuming the role gives the writers the opportunity to reverse themselves in a positive fashion. We'll see. I hope we won't all be complaining in a couple of months about Lucky still being written OOC.

#28   2009/10/23 12:09PM
Re: Jonathan Jackson Returns Promo
Soapnexis
image

I think JJ is back to help end the Spencer legacy in Port Charles. My bet is in by January( when Tony would be leaving again for Holland) that Luke and Lucky will be leaving (for good) to be with Laura in Europe, leaving Lulu as the only Spencer left on Port Charles.

#29   2009/10/23 03:51PM
Re: Jonathan Jackson Returns Promo
ca2000
image

This is not a spoiler!!!! This is just my opinion!!!!

I have said before and I will say it again...I really really hope that when JJ returns, that the storyline will really be great if all this time HElena had the "real" Lucky captive. And that GV was a Lucky pawn...This way GV could stay. It would make very good storylines!! There would be JJ Lucky having to come home to the "so called mess" fake Lucky made. There would Liz trying to overcome that the Lucky she loved for the last couple years was not really Lucky. There would be Lulu, Luke, Laura, Nick, etc. who would have to deal with this. Then of course, GV/Lucky. Who is he really? Is he good or bad?

I could think of whole lot of places the writers could go with certain storylines and characters!!! The writers really know how to drop the ball!!!!!!

Like someone said on this thread though, the preview makes it seem like something big and then when you watch it, after he says "remember me?" she will say something along the lines of "its only been a couple of hours."

#30   2009/10/23 04:09PM
Re: Jonathan Jackson Returns Promo
cherrycola
image

Quote onlygh:
Quote cherrycola:
Quote onlygh:
Quote jnlforever: I want to know something are the writers going to focus on Lucky now and not write him as such the doofus he has become because JJ's back?


Hi jnl! I can't imagine TPTB would have gone to all the trouble to bring Jonathan Jackson back to the role if they didn't intend to write Lucky the way he should have been written all along...as a Spencer, through and through.


I agree with you in part, but my next question would be if they intend to change the writing, then that means they know the quality of the writing was to blame, so why not simply FIX THE WRITING? The way they are doing it implies Greg Vaughn was the problem. He wasn't. When given a decent script, the guy can act. So I don't think GV cares one way or the other how they promote JJ, but I as a longtime viewer feel a little insulted because the implication is that viewers will swoon over the star and forget that we've had to endure years of crap writing for this character. Personally, I think GH is getting better lately, but I remain cynical of their ability to fix a long-standing character problem by bringing in a differnt actor regardless of who the actor is. I'm not going to be distracted from bad character development by a publicity stunt or an obvious ploy to boost ratings by waving around former glory. Even JJ is only as good as the material he has to work with. If the writers don't create a smooth transition and start producing better scripts for the character, this could be a spectacular failure.


Hi cherry! Is it possible that this is a situation where a character just should never have been recast? I'm not anti-recast by any stretch of the imagination. Laura Wright is Carly for me. Drew Garrett has done a tremendous job becoming Michael (even though the timeframe between recasts was so small). I do believe, however, that there are certain characters who just can't be recast. Robin is such a character. It is beyond me to imagine any actress other than Kimberly McCullough in that role. I feel the same about Jonathan Jackson. Frankly, I wish they'd left Lucky for dead all those many years ago. I never bought Jacob Young in the role. As for Greg Vaughn, I accepted him mainly because he is a talented actor and is so drop-dead gorgeous but he was never really the Lucky I saw in my head...that Lucky has always been Jonathan Jackson's version. I agree with you that the writing has to change and that if it doesn't, this was all a big waste. I believe that Jonathan Jackson resuming the role gives the writers the opportunity to reverse themselves in a positive fashion. We'll see. I hope we won't all be complaining in a couple of months about Lucky still being written OOC.


Hi Only, I don't know. I liked JJ as Lucky, but in my head he is the "young Lucky" and GV is the "adult Lucky" -- or at leasst up to the addiction s/l...after that, I think Lucky just disintergrated and GV did all he could to persevere through some gawdawful bad scripts.

I'm not anti-recast either. I'm sure I'm in the minority about recasting because I feel if the writing and directing is solid, that a good actor should be able to step into a role and make it his own regardless of who played it before. Then again, I'm more interested in the story than the actors. I guess I don't get star-struck. LOL! To me, they're just regular people who happen to have an interesting, high-profile job.

But soaps seem to foster celebrity fandom as well as character fandom, and there will probably be an outcry anytime a character is recast. (OK, except for the recasting of Monica. I don't think there are too many people who missed Patsy Rahn after a week or two, although GH took heat for the way the recast was done -- which, come to think of it, was handled about as crudely by TPTB twoard the actors as this Lucky recast has been handled.)

I"m going to try to withhold judgement for at least a month, but I admit I wonder if TPTB aren't just trying to con us.

|« « 1 2 3 page:

Please register and login to be able to post in this message board.

« Go back to topic list