md1347
Full Member
Posts: 1,505
|
Post by md1347 on Aug 19, 2010 7:26:49 GMT -5
And classy toward the fans. Always a plus. Yes, very much and sexy too.. hehehe
|
|
|
Post by caitlinp on Aug 19, 2010 7:46:52 GMT -5
This is so true, on both counts.
His comment on the ending was also true, and intriguing. I love the line about a "romanticized view of first love."
|
|
|
Post by jjose712 on Aug 19, 2010 7:51:34 GMT -5
I don't think he is happy with the ending (i get the same impression of Van's interview). The only one who seems happy with the ending is Eric (but i don't think Reid fans share his happyness). In my opinion the difference between the three is that Jake and Van are in contact with their fans for a long time, and they can't avoid thinking what the fans wanted (something that the writers didn't care at all).
Maybe in the interviews afer the end of the show, we get more clear answers, but probably not
|
|
|
Post by caitlinp on Aug 19, 2010 8:54:57 GMT -5
I don't see any of the three talking about it, except maybe Eric, and that's just because he doesn't have the history with the show that Van and Jake have. I think they will just move on, and let it go.
|
|
|
Post by anthonyl on Aug 19, 2010 9:29:37 GMT -5
It was an interesting interview... though I didn't see any baiting, just a reporting asking the appropriate questions. Frankly, I think there were much more provocative questions and issues that should have been asked and/or raised.
I agree that I don't think Jake is all that thrilled with the ending and it just makes me think viewers are going to have to make up how the story turns out more than anyone would like. He also came across as slightly bitter to me, especially as to how he was treated and shoved aside in the storyline, not that I blame him.
|
|
|
Post by caitlinp on Aug 19, 2010 10:45:11 GMT -5
I didn't get a bitter tone, even though I would have understood it if he was bitter. I actually thought he was honest, but he measured his words, and didn't say as much as he could have.
|
|
|
Post by jjose712 on Aug 19, 2010 13:12:01 GMT -5
I don't think Jake (or Van) will be totally clear on what they think, even if they do interviews after the end of the show. Both know that the show used them as publicity and they get very little in reward but on the other hand the show make them popular, and probably open the gates of other job oportunities. Eric was clear in his interview, but apart of the obvious fact that the gay couple has restraints to show affection he hasn't any reason to complaint (that's not the case of Van and Jake). Forbes March did the same in his exit interview, in fact, it seems that the restrictions were even worse in his case. Maybe Van and Jake comment that in future interviews, but i just don't see them given bitter interviews a la Brett Claywell (he has all the reasons to be bitter), the show treat them poorly but not disrespected them as actors like OLTL did with Brett and Scott
|
|
HQ75
Full Member
Do I contradict myself? Very well then I contradict myself, (I am large, I contain multitudes.)
Posts: 4,200
|
Post by HQ75 on Aug 19, 2010 18:50:57 GMT -5
Jake is not even one ounce bitter. That's total projection. He is a professional and always comes across as gracious and grateful for the opportunity ATWT and fans have given him and Van. Michael and Nelsen and other soap writers seem to WANT to see bitterness or resentment on the part of Van and Jake (or try to goad them into saying something inflammatory about the show or their storyline) because the viewers and soap bloggers personally feel so much bitterness and resentment (about various and sundry things). Maybe we as viewers have a right to be bitter because our expectations (as diverse as they may be) weren't met. But Van and Jake and Eric had a job to do. They did their damn thing and they were paid to do it. For Van and Jake, I'm sure they were just happy to have a job and get to ride it out til the end (even if they weren't happy with every single note of their storyline). They know they have no control over what the writers write or what P&G will allow to make it to screen and unlike US, Van and Jake also know what stuff the writer wish had made it to screen and didn't. Both Van and Jake have been very candid in the fan interview and Q&As about some of the ridiculous dialogue and plot twists and scenes and story arcs they've been given. I know this is an unpopular opinion but I sometime think we expect too much from soap operas (and I don't mean just in relation to how they treat gay characters). Soap operas are inherently soapy, they are high fantasy and impossibly unrealistic with just a hint of "real life situations" to make them relatable. But ATWT not only has ghosts and psychics and a man who heard voices and had visions of Ethan Synder in a well that no one knew he was in, it has impossible time-travel and people who never stay dead no matter how many times you kill them, etc. It takes all the fun out of soaps when folks try to talk about them as if they should be written like a feature film or even a really good prime-time drama. I know Jake and Van have both communicated their frustration that folks don't take a step back and enjoy the "soapiness" of soaps. Anyway, I've seen and read every interview with Jake and I've never once hear him be anything other than gracious and polite (unlike some of the interviewers). He has nothing to be bitter about (and has said as much). His life's goal is not to be a soap actor (some people do have that goal and I applaud them for finding something that they love and that fits them). Not everyone can do the high-emotive soap style acting well. I can think of a lot of actors and actresses who are MUCH better on other types of formats than they were on soaps. Being on ATWT has afforded Jake the change to gain a loyal fan base, make great friends and connections in the industry and pay his bills for 3 years. I don't know where y'all see bitterness. He always just seems happy for the ride to me. But as B'Chick says, "Your mileage may vary..." ATWT could have fired either one of them and replaced them OR they could have left (in Van's case, in between contracts). Since they weren't fired and neither of them left, we can assume that all parties were happy enough to stick together til the end. Plenty of characters have been replaced (successfully and not) so it's not like Jake was bound to the show or the show was bound to him. People adjusted to new Casey and it was all good. Just saying. I wish folks would stop acting like Jake got some special dispensation to be on the show for 3 years (instead of the magical 3 months folks like to bring up) He never had a contract and maybe he didn't get as much screen time as I think he AND NOAH deserved but he's still here for 2 more scenes and I'm glad I had the chance to take this trip with Van and Jake. I couldn't imagine it with any other actors and I'm glad I don't have to. Jake Silberman:I would love to play a gay vampire on True Blood. I just love that show. NOW THAT IS A CAMPAIGN I CAN GET BEHIND. SOMEBODY CALL ALAN BALL!! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
|
|
|
Post by Zathras on Aug 19, 2010 20:01:40 GMT -5
Thanks for the link, md1347 One thing that I thought was interesting was the brevity of Jake's answers, compared to the length of some of Michael's questions. Some of the questions were several sentences long, and the answer just one, maybe two. I wonder if that's just Jake's style, or there's more to it than that. Probably nothing worth reading into, but I thought it was interesting all the same. Hmm. I'm wondering how they keep coming up with that. In a way, it goes back to the previous question about airtime. Jake said he didn't think too much of it, but I (and some of you) still contend that you can't have a believable triangle if one of the three is off-screen for a long time. At some level it can be made to work if the character that is on screen frequently discusses the one off-screen (and when their actions are clearly shaped by it), but IMO they didn't do that with Luke, Noah, and Reid. Meh. I also love how he makes it obvious that if it weren’t for numerous fans asking for it, he probably wouldn’t have interviewed Jake for his take. Did I miss something? I didn't get that impression at all.
|
|
|
Post by Difficult Diva on Aug 19, 2010 21:35:52 GMT -5
When Michael Fairman put up the Eric Sheffer Stevens interview, on his site, LOTS of Noah/Jake fans wanted to know when Jake would be interviewed, since Van had been interviewed earlier in the year. It seemed like they wondered why no one seemed to want to get Jake's POV in the storyline. Really, just take a look at the Eric Sheffer Stevens interview and you'll see it. Thanks for the link, md1347 One thing that I thought was interesting was the brevity of Jake's answers, compared to the length of some of Michael's questions. Some of the questions were several sentences long, and the answer just one, maybe two. I wonder if that's just Jake's style, or there's more to it than that. Probably nothing worth reading into, but I thought it was interesting all the same. Hmm. I'm wondering how they keep coming up with that. In a way, it goes back to the previous question about airtime. Jake said he didn't think too much of it, but I (and some of you) still contend that you can't have a believable triangle if one of the three is off-screen for a long time. At some level it can be made to work if the character that is on screen frequently discusses the one off-screen (and when their actions are clearly shaped by it), but IMO they didn't do that with Luke, Noah, and Reid. Meh. I also love how he makes it obvious that if it weren’t for numerous fans asking for it, he probably wouldn’t have interviewed Jake for his take. Did I miss something? I didn't get that impression at all.
|
|
|
Post by anthonyl on Aug 20, 2010 0:16:50 GMT -5
I dunno... I never really thought it was a triangle. I know all of the actors keep saying that and it never really played that way. And frankly, I'm not sure it was ever intended to be cause I think Luke/Reid was the show's intended pairing if not for cancellation. To me it read as a Luke/Reid romance from the minute Reid showed up in town. Luke was torn between them 'briefly', but I never had the sense Luke ever wanted to get back together with Noah. Even when he said he did, it more about guilt over his relationship with Reid. He also had the chance to go to LA with Noah, but again, chose to stay with Reid. And in the end, Luke is only back with Noah because Reid dies. Otherwise, Noah would have moved to LA as a sweet memory and Luke would have continued things with Reid. In a triangle there is a choice to be made and Luke never really made any choices.
|
|
|
Post by caitlinp on Aug 20, 2010 0:33:51 GMT -5
I think at the beginning it was somewhat of a triangle, but even then, it was more like Noah was their in spirit. Also at that time, it seemed more like the story was going to be whether or not Luke and Reid's relationship could withstand Noah's spirit, or to put it another way, Luke's past with Noah. At some point things changed, and the focus was more on Luke and Reid, since they stopped mentioning Noah's name.
Fairman also mentioned that fans had been asking him for months to interview Eric Sheffer Stevens, so I wouldn't read too much into him mentioning that fans asked him to interview Jake.
I also noticed the short answers from Jake, but without video tape, we really don't know how short Jake's answers were. Michael Muhney went on twitter the other day, and accused Fairman of changing around some of the things that he said in an interview, and not quoting him word for word. I think that the interview with Jake started out strong, but then the questions just became pointless. This interview didn't seem as in depth as the others that Fairman conducted.
|
|
|
Post by anthonyl on Aug 20, 2010 1:08:09 GMT -5
I guess that's what really struck me about the interview. It was a fine interview, don't get me wrong, but it was not as detailed or in depth as Fairman's interviews usually are. Maybe that's why things seemed 'off' or that there was something missing or that it wasn't as candid as it could have been. At least to me. But then it might not mean anything. LOL....
|
|
|
Post by jjose712 on Aug 20, 2010 5:06:27 GMT -5
I don't think ATWT really had the opportunity to fire Jake (i don't think they never had the intention of fire Van, he was quite popular even before Nuke, Luke is a legacy character and Van was nominated to the emmys). We know the OLTL blame Kish for the bad ratings, that was unfair, but OLTL really had bad ratings during Kish storyline (they had even worse right now). That didn't happen on ATWT, in fact most people think that Nuke storyline bring ratings up, so P&G could have a really rough time if the show decided to fire one of the actor who play one of the gay characters. And maybe P&G doesn't want to offend conservative viewers, but i really doubt they wanted to offend more liberal ones. On the other hand we know what happens online with Brett and Scott firing, and Van and Jake are far more popular, so the negative press for P&G could be really bad. So they backburned them (if OLTL would did this with Kish they didn't find a excuse to fire them, because it could be obvious that they weren't the cause of the bad ratings), so they solve (really bad) the problem. In my opinion the way the treated Jake was an attemp to make him left the show, because i really don't know any show who backburn on that way on of their most popular characters.
Has Jake reasons to be bitter? Of course he has, specially by the way they treat him in these last months, where nobodys like blackthorn (characters that nobody care about) get a lot more screen time than him. Is he bitter? i really doubt, he has a very calm temper, when nelson branco accused him for being the responsible of the lack of physical affection during Nuke sex scene, he remains calms (Van was the one who got angry) even when he had all the right to be upset.
This was the first prominent job for Van and Jake, so they are happy for the exposure (playing a gay character has a lot of disavantages, but some positive advantages too, because they has a lot more opportunities to catch the attention than playing a straight character). Nor Van neither Jake seems to want to stay in daytime, but they didn't burn that bridge (in fact i think a short stint on a west coast soap could be a first step to go to LA and then start to try to find a job on a primetime show or in films), and critisize the show that make them famous it's not the best policy. As i say, maybe they talk about the lack of intimacy or the way gay couples are treated in comparision with straight ones, but i don't think the'll go any further than that
|
|
md1347
Full Member
Posts: 1,505
|
Post by md1347 on Aug 20, 2010 13:40:45 GMT -5
^^ I'm sure Jake and Van go far. Too bad the soap reporters never gave Jake any credit for anything. Oh well, their loss. Too bad they don't hold the same standard to LuRe as they did Nuke for all those years but that shouldn't be discussed here.
|
|
|
Post by jjose712 on Aug 20, 2010 15:53:21 GMT -5
To be true Nuke storyline receive a lot of praise at the begining. When one storyline is short like it was Kish or it'll be LuRe, usually receive praise but there's not enough time to the story gets old (even with great flaws Kish and Lure were interesting the same way Nuke first storyline was, till Ameera appears). The problem is that when people started to feel frustrated about Nuke storyline (and they had reasons to be frustrated) it was Jake the one who receive the blame, and that was not fair at all, because of all people implicated in the storyline he was the weakest link (and frankly the actors are the last to blame when the problem is obviously in the writing)
|
|
md1347
Full Member
Posts: 1,505
|
Post by md1347 on Sept 7, 2010 8:48:20 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by jjose712 on Sept 26, 2010 14:56:02 GMT -5
It seems that we love soap will put out an interview with Jake about Stuffer next week
|
|
md1347
Full Member
Posts: 1,505
|
Post by md1347 on Sept 30, 2010 10:53:42 GMT -5
|
|
md1347
Full Member
Posts: 1,505
|
Post by md1347 on Sept 30, 2010 17:33:01 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Zathras on Sept 30, 2010 20:10:41 GMT -5
New pictures Jake put on his facebook wall... I put the shirtless one last, so you would look at the others...LOL I wish the wardrobe department at ATWT had dressed him up (down?) like that more ;D
|
|
|
Post by dalphine on Oct 1, 2010 12:50:30 GMT -5
Great pictures of Jake love him in the all black outfit and shitless. ATWT didn't use Jake sex appeal at all not letting him be naked like all the other soap hunks. I really feel the writers could have did more with his character. I will always be a Noah/Jake fan.
|
|
|
Post by jblaze08 on Oct 1, 2010 12:52:57 GMT -5
;DI would love for him to show up on my door step one day ..
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 1, 2010 16:29:59 GMT -5
Well, would you look at that indeed? *whistles away, having had day’s shallowness fill from unexpected place*
|
|
md1347
Full Member
Posts: 1,505
|
Post by md1347 on Oct 1, 2010 17:21:45 GMT -5
AE is an article with a link to this thread, to the pictures I posted here of Jake. Of course it being AE, they do take a slight dig at Jake. They show a picture of Jake fighting (last picture I posted) and their caption is... "But I'm not yet convinced of the tough guy thing." They don't mention Jakes movie but they do mention Van's movie on page 3..... "Jake's old buddy Van Hansis" Of course it being AE, I'm not surprised by the slight. www.afterelton.com/meme-10-01-2010?page=0%2C1
|
|