21 minutes ago, j swift said:

But, you get my drift.  There was a time when daytime felt a duty to inform their audience with socially relevant storylines.  Now, it just filled with misinformation that could be easily corrected by a story editor with access to google.

Yes.  Sure, it would be a nice sentiment, but where do you draw the line?  Do we need a PSA on cobalt poisoning and bad hip replacements?  This is a show that thinks gun violence is the correct action to take when someone is a mild inconvenience to you.

This isn't a groundbreaking story like Robin/Stone's AIDS story.  This is just a run of the mill medical drama used on soaps all the time.  I just don't think it's that serious.  It's not like Days where Rolf is just keeping dead people alive without hearts with secret serums he creates.  

GH stopped being socially relevant and aware years ago.

Edited October 13, 20241 yr by carolineg

5 hours ago, Vee said:

I think JJ's return has been pretty well-received from the general audience from what I've seen, it's the story/execution that has been found to be at best mediocre. No amount of irate Liason stan accounts trying to astroturf reaction against Lucky on Twitter has managed to alter the positivity towards the actor. It's one example where FV ignoring Twitter comes in handy for once. I don't think anything is going to change re: the Lucky/Liz trajectory, and I think the show is far better with him than without him.

I don't think that Liasion stans are representative of the fan view, but I think the fans of JJ Lucky will be limited in present day because they are, for the most part, just not tied to what GH has been over the last 20 years. That show is never coming back, and neither is the family unit that made him so loved.

They might be able to readjust, or at the very least have better material for him than he got when he was on in 2011, but I don't think today's GH cares about telling stories with him that could help make more current viewers feel invested. I think Frank only brought him back because he had no choice.

Edited October 13, 20241 yr by DRW50

29 minutes ago, carolineg said:

Yes.  Sure, it would be a nice sentiment, but where do you draw the line? 

Truly, I only draw the line on misinformation.  Soaps have used fictional illness to get around stuff for years.  But they shouldn't mislead people.

I'm fine with actresses looking fully made up and gorgeous, while dying of some mystery disease.  Nobody ever having to pay their hospital bills (except for Lucky, that one time).  Surgery being done by a relative.  And everyone getting a single room. 

But, soaps should adhere to some ethical principles, and not to spread lies about real medical issues.

Edited October 13, 20241 yr by j swift

1 hour ago, DRW50 said:

I don't think that Liasion stans are representative of the fan view, but I think the fans of JJ Lucky will be limited in present day because they are, for the most part, just not tied to what GH has been over the last 20 years.

Except I don't think GH (unfortunately) has that much of a new generation of fans over the last 10 years, let alone the last 20. And Jonathan was just as popular the last time he was back on contract. So I don't see a reason not to utilize a strong core actor. YMMV. My issue is far more with the creative output of the show itself.

9 hours ago, Vee said:

Except I don't think GH (unfortunately) has that much of a new generation of fans over the last 10 years, let alone the last 20.  

That's true (the closest they came was trying to get new people in for pairings like Sprina and we see how happy Frank and co were about that). I suppose what I meant was I think most of the viewers who watched for whatever the show is half-heartedly trying to go back to left a long time ago.

I wonder how many old viewers tuned in to JJ's return initially and watched him played cards for a few weeks and tuned out.  I don't think there was enough going on story wise elsewhere to capture lost views.

2 minutes ago, carolineg said:

I wonder how many old viewers tuned in to JJ's return initially and watched him played cards for a few weeks and tuned out.  I don't think there was enough going on story wise elsewhere to capture lost views.

Assuming old viewers tuned in... it's not like ABC openly advertised Jonathan Jackson's return, unlike what they did when Steve Burton returned in 2017.

14 minutes ago, carolineg said:

I don't think there was enough going on story wise elsewhere to capture lost views.

Which is typical of this show.

15 minutes ago, carolineg said:

I wonder how many old viewers tuned in to JJ's return initially and watched him played cards for a few weeks and tuned out.  I don't think there was enough going on story wise elsewhere to capture lost views.

Was there any boost when he came back in 2010? I think most of the people who were interested probably had their fill around that point, although maybe some of those viewers who quit since his last return might have come back.

You're right they should have done a better job, but they didn't with Jason, and I am not sure of the last time they did with a return.

Edited October 13, 20241 yr by DRW50

2 hours ago, DRW50 said:

Was there any boost when he came back in 2010? I think most of the people who were interested probably had their fill around that point, although maybe some of those viewers who quit since his last return might have come back.

You're right they should have done a better job, but they didn't with Jason, and I am not sure of the last time they did with a return.

I don't think there was a big bump when JJ returned in 2010, but they certainly didn't promote it the way they did Vanessa's return either.  Plus Lucky was already on canvas in the shape of Greg Vaughn. I believe there was a much larger bump for Brenda's initial return.  It ended up leveling off because, much like Lucky's current return, Brenda was stuck in Rome so long and the show was a mess. 

I think the last time there was an effort made for a return was Steve/Jason's in 2017, but it was nowhere near the level they promoted Brenda/James Franco/50th anniversary.  But budget changes happened and Soapnet doesn't exist.   I know Soapnet is considered an overall failure, but those commercials and marathons probably did bring some eyeballs to viewers of other soaps that were either lapsed viewers or mildly intrigued.

25 minutes ago, carolineg said:

I don't think there was a big bump when JJ returned in 2010, but they certainly didn't promote it the way they did Vanessa's return either.  Plus Lucky was already on canvas in the shape of Greg Vaughn. I believe there was a much larger bump for Brenda's initial return.  It ended up leveling off because, much like Lucky's current return, Brenda was stuck in Rome so long and the show was a mess. 

I think the last time there was an effort made for a return was Steve/Jason's in 2017, but it was nowhere near the level they promoted Brenda/James Franco/50th anniversary.  But budget changes happened and Soapnet doesn't exist.   I know Soapnet is considered an overall failure, but those commercials and marathons probably did bring some eyeballs to viewers of other soaps that were either lapsed viewers or mildly intrigued.

SOAPNet helped things along so much for ABC soaps.

1 hour ago, Liberty City said:

SOAPNet helped things along so much for ABC soaps.

Yes, I agree.  The constant commercials for their soaps and the marathons of classic episodes they did at least help build interest for like-minded audiences.  The 50 hours of GH for the 50th was amazing to be able to see on tv.

Just now, carolineg said:

Yes, I agree.  The constant commercials for their soaps and the marathons of classic episodes they did at least help build interest for like-minded audiences.  The 50 hours of GH for the 50th was amazing to be able to see on tv.

SOAPNet was gone for me by that point. So sad.

Overall, it might’ve helped.

SoapNet was the reason I started watching GH (and OLTL) 😂

On 10/12/2024 at 11:04 AM, Liberty City said:

So, that justifies Sonny murdering him in cold-blood and getting away with it?

YES!