Members irish secra Posted February 5, 2007 Members Share Posted February 5, 2007 Here is the link to an interview with Ashford. http://www.bradenton.com/mld/bradenton/new...ws/16627480.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Evan Posted February 5, 2007 Members Share Posted February 5, 2007 Thanks very much! Let's hope Matt's discussions with DAYS prove fruitful. A short term return for the character of Jack Devereux is better than nothing, and you never know, it might lead to something bigger in the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members KLN Posted February 5, 2007 Members Share Posted February 5, 2007 Ashford said no contract has been signed, but his agent is talking to NBC. "At this point, they are talking about a few days in March; you know this is pilot season," Ashford said. "There is no contract. They called and asked if I would be interested in coming back. They are great folks. I said, 'sure, let's talk.' So, my agent is talking to the people at 'Days.' " Ashford was pleasantly surprised that the Herald's story has created so much buzz. "If it works out, that is fine," Ashford said. "It seems that 'Days' has expressed interest, I have expressed interest and all the wonderful people out there have expressed interest." But Ashford does have one big request if he does come back. "I hope if Jack does come back, he comes back stirring up trouble," Ashford said. "That is the only way that it would be fun. It's no good to be nice and shake hands. "Jack is totally out for himself, which, I have a lot of fun doing," Ashford added. "I wouldn't call him evil. How about riotous?" ---------------------------------- LOVE LOVE LOVE the last part! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members KLN Posted February 5, 2007 Members Share Posted February 5, 2007 And it sounds like for now, a few days in March is what they've come to so far. They appear to be negotiating for a contract. Sweet! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Mitchapalooza Posted February 5, 2007 Members Share Posted February 5, 2007 YES YES YES!! Ashford back FOR SURE short-term, and POTENTIALLY long term is MUSIC to my ears. Even better would be Ashford returning to play a more devious Jack, a deliciously devious Jack...not a villain...but not what we saw during his last turn. Jack is one of the most interesting characters in daytime and there is no way Hogan can pass up this character. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members PhoenixRising05 Posted February 5, 2007 Members Share Posted February 5, 2007 It sounds like they agreed on the short term and may be discussing turning it into more. I wonder if this may be a way of Corday testing the waters to bring Jack back alone. He may be gauging audience reaction with this short-term thing. Matt's return in 2001 was only supposed to be a short run and then it ended up turning into long-term. I would not be surprised if this turns out the same based on how both sides feel. We all know Hogan likes the character. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Evan Posted February 5, 2007 Members Share Posted February 5, 2007 Bring him back long term.......but how would they deal with the Jennifer thing? I wouldn't go with a recast: it'd be better to separate Jack/Jen in some way(divorce or marital separation), bring Jack back to Salem first, and then let him get involved maybe with Billie or someone else. If DAYS is indeed ending in 2009, they could always try and bring back Missy Reeves for the final episodes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Mason Posted February 5, 2007 Members Share Posted February 5, 2007 Matt will SO be back on contract before the end of the year. I'm sure of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members PhoenixRising05 Posted February 5, 2007 Members Share Posted February 5, 2007 I think Days set up the perfect out with how they wrote J&J off in September. They went to run The Spectator branch in London so the way I would set up Jack without Jen is to have Jen go missing or be presumed dead due to a dangerous assignment. They could tie it to the Dimera's since J&J were helping with The Gloved Hand investigation prior to their exit. This way you can bring Jen back one day and this could take Jack back to a dark place of sorts. It could bring back some of the layers we use to get with his character. It's something Hogan may want to explore. I really don't want a recast nor do I think Days should put up the money for one becaue a newbie would not be a good idea for the role of Jennifer. You will need someone with experience and I would rather Days just bring Jack back and save the money they save from a Jen recast to bring another favorite back or something. Whatever the case, I think we will be seeing Jack more then for a short run. That is just my feeling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members DrewH Posted February 5, 2007 Members Share Posted February 5, 2007 No one in Jack and Jennifer's circle needs to be dead, presumed dead, thought to be dead, nothing to do with death in anything involving these two. The storyline can ben done without putting Jennifer's life in danger. It sounds like Matt wants to give Jack more of an edge. So staying true to character, Jack should be spending all of his time at work, and Jennifer feels neglected. We know that when Jack sets his sights on something, he goes after it full force, no matter if his family disapproves or not. I'm not going to go into how the storyline should be done, because I have a blog and intend on bringing Jack back this year. So keep an eye out for ADGB to see how it would be the most sensible and simple way to bring back Jack sans Jennifer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members PhoenixRising05 Posted February 5, 2007 Members Share Posted February 5, 2007 I know it can be Drew. It was just an idea that would push Jack to a darker place. There are a number of things they can do. However, some things can't be done unless you recast Jennifer. That is why having Jack work all the time and neglect her would be hard unless it played out offscreen, which would be bad because we saw that same setup when J&J returned in 2001. They broke up because Jack kept leaving, working, etc. I wish they would've gone the Jennifer goes crazy route before Missy left. I think that story could've been really good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members DrewH Posted February 5, 2007 Members Share Posted February 5, 2007 Nope. The whole thing can be played on-screen from start to finish without ever recasting Jennifer. It can be done. Jennifer going to crazy would ahve been the best way to go. Ask Keith, I had the best storyline for Jennifer's breaking point. It seriously took me weeks to develop, and that was during the summer where I was writing, almost everyday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members jjjg Posted February 5, 2007 Members Share Posted February 5, 2007 They are like a yo-yo with Jack returning and then always going, then returning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members DrewH Posted February 5, 2007 Members Share Posted February 5, 2007 You're right, jjjg. Jack is just one of those characters that you never get sick of him returning. Sure, the story sucked and was repetitive, but every time we heard that Ashford was returning, the viewers were excited. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Evan Posted February 5, 2007 Members Share Posted February 5, 2007 If my husband had returned from the dead 3 times in 3 years, I think I would have gone crazy! My suggestion is that Jack and Jennifer's marriage has broken down again, he comes back to Salem(to run the Spectator newspaper, and live with Abby), she stays in London with Jack Jnr. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.