Instead of wasting money on him how about bringing the Hardy's back or more dead Quartermaine's SMH

Sad that not one original member of "General Hospital" is on the show

Edited July 24, 201114 yr by EyewitnessNews

Hosting the Oscars was due to their attempt not to be mainstream. They thought he would make them seem hip. Of course instead he was as fake as he has been on GH.

Edited July 24, 201114 yr by CarlD2

I don't think it would have to be all that convoluted. I felt at the time the story was done they left the door open for Franco to be the one who killed Jake. I don't really care if they go down that road or not, but I think the seed was already sown, so it's not some out of the blue rewrite.

I dont know what you are thinking but the theory that was pushed on this board back when it came out was that Franco lured Jake out of the house and then threw him onto the road just as Luke was driving by. Thats convoluted to me

Sad that not one original member of "General Hospital" is on the show

Its not sad considering the show is 48 years old and most of the cast is either dead or long retired. The only active actor is Susan Seaforth Hayes and she's semi-retired, making appearances on Days every so often. There is no original cast member that would fit on GH today

Edited July 24, 201114 yr by Cheap21

They should just have it where Franco is holding the real Jake hostage. It would at least give the actors something different to play, and they could show how this affects Lucky (no more tears!) since he also had his death faked and was kept prisoner.

Its not sad considering the show is 48 years old and most of the cast is either dead or long retired. The only active actor is Susan Seaforth Hayes and she's semi-retired, making appearances on Days every so often

There's still Rachel Ames.

Neither Susan Seaforth or Rachel Ames are original cast members of their respective soaps. As for Seaforth, being "semi-retired" is all on DAYS. If they actually wrote for her, she'd be happy to work.

Ames came in very early. I can count her as original.

Ames came in very early. I can count her as original.

I thought she didn't appear until '64?

It was 6 months or a year. She knew and shared story with the originals, so I end up putting her with them.

There's still Rachel Ames.

She's not an original cast member

Ames came in very early. I can count her as original.

You can count her but it doesnt change the fact that she wasnt. She didnt come on till the following year, 1964

Edited July 24, 201114 yr by Cheap21

The main point was Eyewitness News said the show didn't have any original cast members. I mentioned Rachel Ames because I figured she was as close as we were going to get. I guess they could try to ask Roy Thinnes back...

I dont know what you are thinking but the theory that was pushed on this board back when it came out was that Franco lured Jake out of the house and then threw him onto the road just as Luke was driving by. Thats convoluted to me

It seemed more likely to me that Franco took Jake and ran him over himself, then put DNA on Luke's car. That doesn't seem any more convoluted than hiring someone to rape Michael. It's not really something I want to happen because I'm pretty much sick of hearing about Jake already, I'm just saying it wouldn't be a rewrite, since people thought something like this happened from the start.

It seemed more likely to me that Franco took Jake and ran him over himself, then put DNA on Luke's car. That doesn't seem any more convoluted than hiring someone to rape Michael. It's not really something I want to happen because I'm pretty much sick of hearing about Jake already, I'm just saying it wouldn't be a rewrite, since people thought something like this happened from the start.

The big question is WHY? What is Franco's personal stake in Luke that he would go through all that trouble to frame him? Makes even less sense considering there were NO reprecussions frm what Luke did. None whatsoever. I really dont see any purpose in back peddling here

The big question is WHY? What is Franco's personal stake in Luke that he would go through all that trouble to frame him? Makes even less sense considering there were NO reprecussions frm what Luke did. None whatsoever. I really dont see any purpose in back peddling here

Luke never went to prison, never payed, nothing so what is the point of Franco's involvement. And I swear if this show wastes one moment of time bringing this kid, some off screen spawn not important in the least, back alive I will scream. With a zillion POPULAR Quartermaines dead, if they choose this kid it will be a slap in the face to fans of this show.

As for bringing cast members back, all you need to do is go back 5 years and bring some back since half the cast has changed or been added to since that time. Alan, Justus, AJ, Emily, Faith, Georgie, Alcazar, Kate(although she's returning), Dillon, Ned, Brook, Jax, Nikolas, Stan and all those NS people Nadine, Leyla, then Lesley, Audrey, and Bobbi who were used sparingly during that time but still used. Not to mention Laura and Felicia.

I still say Franco is a complete waste and bust. It's GH's attempt to be relevant and hip and has failed with each appearence

Edited July 25, 201114 yr by JaneAusten

The only reason I'd want Jake back is because I thought the way his death was handled was one of the crassest things I'd ever seen on a soap, and because I think it would drive a lot of story, but I see your point.

They should never have killed Jake off. Further, the way it was done destroyed the last shred of Luke's character.

I'd bring him back, but keep it a secret for some time. Bring it out at the worst possible moment - maybe Jason and Sam's wedding, maybe later - but I'd dump Sam and Jason as a couple, period.