General Hospital Tragedy: Has This Soap Finally Gone Too Far?

A toddler transplant on 'General Hospital'

The New York Post and LA Times also posted articles bashing this story. I think the reaction is interesting, and I can't disagree with much of what he said, but I thought I'd make this a main post to talk, not only about this story, but about stories like these (the death of children on soaps). Is it too far? Too much?

What do you think is too far for daytime or do you think that even exists? Is the problem less about killing a child and more about the way the story is told?

Edited March 29, 201114 yr by Vizion

Thanks for posting this. I'm glad that they pointed out the story sucks because of how poorly told it is, not because a child died. I think Guza and JFP and Frons want publicity for the oh so shocking move to murder a child, when the story is a big failure for many other reasons.

Thanks for posting this. I'm glad that they pointed out the story sucks because of how poorly told it is, not because a child died. I think Guza and JFP and Frons want publicity for the oh so shocking move to murder a child, when the story is a big failure for many other reasons.

No problem. The best part of the whole article might be this (or perhaps it's just the part I enjoyed the most):

Second, if Josslyn died and Jake needed a transplant, it would have been a fine opportunity for the writers to finally humanize Carly, a frequently detestable character with the emotional stability of an ill-tempered eight-year-old. She has done all sorts of nasty things during the last 15 years, but she has never been more disturbing than in recent weeks, when she chose to focus on sabotaging her ex-husband's wedding rather than deal with the fact that her oldest son had been raped in prison -- an incarceration that she had as much to do with as anyone else (as it was her decision to remove the boy from his family, the much put-upon Quartermaines, and insist that he be raised by a dangerous mobster).

Edited March 29, 201114 yr by Vizion

Great article. It's tough to know though how much of this is honest criticism and how much of this is just anger at the killing of Jake Morgan. Is Rebecca Herbst the most popular actress on the show as this article contends? Perhaps, but that seems almost impossible to gauge. Other than that, just about everything in there seems right on the money.

Oh, please. GH has gone "too far" so often, Jake's death doesn't even register a blip on the shock meter. It's almost as if this show has desensitized its viewers to violence of all kinds.

Where were they on the day of Ye Olde-Fashioned Good Fridae Shoot-Out?

Oh, please. GH has gone "too far" so often, Jake's death doesn't even register a blip on the shock meter. It's almost as if this show has desensitized its viewers to violence of all kinds.

I cop to that. I don't care the kid is dead and wasn't sad for even a moment. I don't know Jake, I don't know that I ever saw Josslyn, and frankly, I am just happy they gave Luke some story. The kids should have been Morgan and Molly. At least we know them. Josslyn dying, as this writer suggests, does nothing for me either.

The article seems like it was written by a disgruntled fangurl.

I don't agree wtih killing off Jake since I believe Jake had more storyline potential than all the other kids put together but a kid dying on a soap is certainly not going too far and if some people think that then maybe that is what's truly wrong with soaps these days and the reason why weare subjected to who's the daddy storylines and kidnappings recycled over and over again.

Edited March 29, 201114 yr by Marley

No problem. The best part of the whole article might be this (or perhaps it's just the part I enjoyed the most):

Four thoughts sprang immediately to mind when I read the article.

1. Isn't the writer jumping the gun considering the story has just begun? Many times I've seen posters on various message boards jump at first sign of something because they want to be the one to create the post with the Fan Outrage, only to have egg on their cyber face as the story continues to unfold in ways they didn't predict and the Outrage is totally moot. I think this writer is guilty of the same knee-jerk reaction.

2. If the writer was wrong about BJ's Heart hurting GH, perhaps he's wrong this time too - that obviously hasn't been woven into his thesis.

3. Why is our society so afraid of death? It happens. Not talking about it only makes it more difficult when it happens in real life.

4. And finally, wow….. way to underestimate a viewing audience. We don't want anything that challenges us apparently? That's rather insulting from where I sit.

Kiling a child can work as a sl. If this was about Luke being charged with DUI doing a few months in prison and getting help it would be a great sl.

I cop to that. I don't care the kid is dead and wasn't sad for even a moment. I don't know Jake, I don't know that I ever saw Josslyn, and frankly, I am just happy they gave Luke some story. The kids should have been Morgan and Molly. At least we know them. Josslyn dying, as this writer suggests, does nothing for me either.

IMO that was what made BJ's Heart so successful. I've re-watched and the writing wasn't any more stellar than this is. The difference is we knew BJ and we knew Maxie and we cared about who they were as characters, so when Felicia crumbled and cried "Not Barbara Jean" that was the voice of all of us. We've seen these toddlers how often? The investment in their lives just wasn't there. Vets were still used, and IMO a stronger calibre of vets this time around (love JZ but none of them were Emmy winners. This time we've got so many winners/nominees involved we need two hands to count), but they couldn't make us care for the tots.

Kiling a child can work as a sl. If this was about Luke being charged with DUI doing a few months in prison and getting help it would be a great sl.

I think this is also part of the oversight. This story was never about Jake and ALL about Luke, Luke's drinking and Luke's relationship with his family.

IMO that was what made BJ's Heart so successful. I've re-watched and the writing wasn't any more stellar than this is. The difference is we knew BJ and we knew Maxie and we cared about who they were as characters, so when Felicia crumbled and cried "Not Barbara Jean" that was the voice of all of us. We've seen these toddlers how often? The investment in their lives just wasn't there. Vets were still used, and IMO a stronger calibre of vets this time around (love JZ but none of them were Emmy winners. This time we've got so many winners/nominees involved we need two hands to count), but they couldn't make us care for the tots.

I think this is also part of the oversight. This story was never about Jake and ALL about Luke, Luke's drinking and Luke's relationship with his family.

I beg to differ

^^ Differ away, that's fine. The pace was different so more could be said at any one time, but this particular telling has used the "white space" in the dialogue to great effect. I actually prefer that to the constant need to keep the dialogue going.

I have to disagree Mama. The writing was far better. It was emotional. It was touching. It MEANT something. The dialogue was strong. Characters interacted. It was altogether written better.

And as for the performances, with the exception of BH and now TG, NO ONE even comes close to touching JZ or Brad Maule in the original story. JZ was robbed of her Emmy that year and everyone knew it.

And there aren't that many emmy winners involved here. In the core group around the children, there is only one. Becky has been nominated but never won (similar to JZ). Laura's never been nomincated. Ingo's never won, I don't think. JJ may have won, I can't recall, but that's it.

Yeah, this isn't even a contest. The writing of the BJ story was a million times better than this.

And, with only a couple exceptions (Becky and Tony) the acting was far better, too.