|
Post by Difficult Diva on Oct 13, 2012 15:38:10 GMT -5
Well, James NOR Brian Kirkwood NOR Chris Wood NOR Hollyoaks NOR the departed Emma Smithwick share that opinion. ;D Well obviously or he wouldn't be returning would he.... My concern is not just from the point of view of a Mcdean fan but as a James fan too. I've always loved JP first and foremost. I don't care if no believes that and sees me just coming at this from the point of view that I don't want the SE to be ruined. It's true anyway. I don't often refer to him as my 'beloved John Paul' for no reason. ;D I genuinely see this as a risk because I've seen great characters ruined by returns. It's often hard to recreate that same popularity around the character that said character had in their original era. Even if Craig was returning with JP I'd still have reservations. I just don't want this going wrong for John Paul or JS. So, you're having the viewpoint that it's going to be a failure from the very beginning? If that works for you, fine.
|
|
|
Post by candyflossuk on Oct 13, 2012 15:41:40 GMT -5
The part I've bolded, to me, sounds like you are describing the current state of the Doug character! ;D I couldn't diagree more and don't think we will ever agree n this. To me, John Paul was at his best away from Kieron and with Craig. When Craig left he lost a lot of his appeal to me. One of the most awful JP scenes I can remember was him at home, wearing oven gloves cooking ready meals for Kieron. . James seemed utterly fed up by this point too. I just thought the character just became too weak to invest in, which I think hurt him after Craig left, because there was no longer anything to John Paul, beyond waiting for a love interest. They tried a little, when he became friends with Kris and Katy, but that was about it. I remember what a hate figure Spike was, but I actually liked Spike and I liked him with John Paul. I wish the show had done more with their relationship. Maybe not keep them together, but keep him around. I thought Guy Burnet and James Sutton had wonderful chemistry. It was the writing which bothered me. I kept wondering why I was supposed to want Craig to be happy with anyone. I liked Kieron. I didn't like him with John Paul. I don't think the McPriest story was any good, as most of the big moments were rushed - they fell in love offcamera, they became friends offcamera, everything. I will always be grateful to whoever it was who spoiled the whole damn story about five minutes after the casting was announced, because that way I always knew to expect the brutal ending for Kieron, which was a huge, huge writing mistake, and one which the show had very little emotional depth in handling. I will never understand who decided THAT was the best way to have a happy ending for John Paul and Craig. I remember the scene where John Paul went to buy some beer in his pants, on a dare, and thinking it was just kind of weird and OOC. That really summed up where the character had gone. They should have waited until Emmett Scanlan finally left to announce this news. I think a lot of people may hate John Paul if he's seen as any big threat to the Ste/Brendan chokehold (no pun intended) of airtime in the show's gay stories. Wow! Sorry to sound so shocked but I agree with about 90% of this, particularly the Kieron parts. I liked Spike too. He was great. ;D Your views aren't that different to mine about John Paul's past (apart from some of the Craig bits ), it seems to be just his future that we disagree on. I prefer to think of him happy off screen then to bring him back and ruin 1) a happy ending (it was a happy ending to me despite Kieron's death because Craig was the one JP chose and wanted. I know you don't agree with that but that's how I feel. ) and 2) A great character who I love and fear they will not know what to do with second time round. I've seen this happen to so many good characters who've returned. I know that I am usually in the minority with my views on here. Believe me, I wish I could be as excited about a JP return as most of the other people on here seem to be, it's better than feeling like I do right now!
|
|
|
Post by anthonyl on Oct 13, 2012 15:42:38 GMT -5
Old faves return to soaps all the time. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. That shouldn't stop the show or any show from trying.
|
|
|
Post by candyflossuk on Oct 13, 2012 15:47:32 GMT -5
Well obviously or he wouldn't be returning would he.... My concern is not just from the point of view of a Mcdean fan but as a James fan too. I've always loved JP first and foremost. I don't care if no believes that and sees me just coming at this from the point of view that I don't want the SE to be ruined. It's true anyway. I don't often refer to him as my 'beloved John Paul' for no reason. ;D I genuinely see this as a risk because I've seen great characters ruined by returns. It's often hard to recreate that same popularity around the character that said character had in their original era. Even if Craig was returning with JP I'd still have reservations. I just don't want this going wrong for John Paul or JS. So, you're having the viewpoint that it's going to be a failure from the very beginning? If that works for you, fine. I think it will be a failure yes. Obviously I don't know for sure. I've said myself that I may be wrong and it may work. If I am wrong then I'll admit to that and be delighted for James. The fact is that no one here really knows if James' return will work until it's on screen. I'm allowed to be pessimistic about it if I want to be., just as you are allowed to be excited. I just don't have much faith left in Hollyoaks at the minute. I wish I did.
|
|
carld2
Full Member
Posts: 2,103
|
Post by carld2 on Oct 13, 2012 15:54:09 GMT -5
Old faves return to soaps all the time. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. That shouldn't stop the show or any show from trying. If they are bringing them back for a good reason, sure. If it's for nostalgia or desperation, then I think it's a mistake. I can't remember one good Hollyoaks return. The only one I remember some fans liking was Warren, because he was another foil for Brendan and wasn't it great when Brendan made a stupid face and whispered dramatically, et al.
|
|
|
Post by Difficult Diva on Oct 13, 2012 16:56:52 GMT -5
Also, why is this discussion about JP's return in this thread, instead of the JP/James one?
Are we really that myopic on JP ONLY having value tied and chained to the memory of JPC?
|
|
|
Post by candyflossuk on Oct 13, 2012 17:26:28 GMT -5
Also, why is this discussion about JP's return in this thread, instead of the JP/James one? Are we really that myopic on JP ONLY having value tied and chained to the memory of JPC? Because having seen almost nothing but enthusiasm for John Paul's return on the spoiler discussion, I decided to specifically ask on here for the opinions of those WHO WERE JPC FANS, like me. If you look at my original post it discusses what reason they will give for splitting JPC and which reason folks might prefer, if they do have to split. That to me is a relevant question to ask in this thread about the John Paul and Craig love story, now legacy. I am almost always outnumbered in my opinions about Hollyoaks so I wanted to discuss it with other people who look at things from a similar perspective as I do. Sorry but what is wrong with that? Nothing is stopping you from starting a discussion about John Paul's return in another thread, is it? If you don't like JPC then fine but why come on here and expect to see like minded views to your own? I have never insulted you or your opinions DD but you regularly seem to laugh at mine or resort to sarcasm when addressing my posts? I can't count the amount of times that I've said it's fine for everyone not to have the same opinion. I know I've never agreed with the majority of people on here and that's just the way it is. Why can't I be pessimistic about this If I want to be? You are well aware on my thoughts about the never ending Doug/Ste/Brendan saga and the state of the writing at Hollyoaks in general. That is why I am worried abut this because I don't have much faith in the HO writers to get this right. As I keep saying, I really hope I did because I'd love to be enthusiastic about this.
|
|
|
Post by Difficult Diva on Oct 13, 2012 18:17:15 GMT -5
I react that way to you and others at times, because it does make me laugh. I'm just being honest.
Just like how you feel "alone in your POV" on being pessimistic about something before it even has aired yet, makes me laugh.
Now, in regards to JPC: we still do not know what's in store and how the show will write JP returning back home to Chester without the guy he thought everything he went through was "worth it" during that time.
I'm not going to imagine horrible things, because I might be upset. That thinking takes away any enjoyment that I may have had for that previous storyline OVER anything the show MIGHT do in the next two months.
|
|
|
Post by candyflossuk on Oct 13, 2012 18:31:59 GMT -5
I react that way to you and others at times, because it does make me laugh. I'm just being honest. Just like how you feel "alone in your POV" on being pessimistic about something before it even has aired yet, makes me laugh. Now, in regards to JPC: we still do not know what's in store and how the show will write JP returning back home to Chester without the guy he thought everything he went through was "worth it" during that time. I'm not going to imagine horrible things, because I might be upset. That thinking takes away any enjoyment that I may have had for that previous storyline OVER anything the show MIGHT do in the next two months. Fair enough DD and I respect a different point of view. I don't laugh at other's because I think that's childish. A debate is one thing but laughing because someone doesn't share your opinion is another. It's hard to have a discussion with someone who will revert to sarcasm most of the time. I have no problem discussing a different view point but it's difficult when all you get is sarcasm, which can come across as condescending. I never said I was 'alone in my view' in the sense that I am all 'woe is me' about it. I just sometimes like reading opinions from people who like the same characters and pairings I like. That's all. But whatever, I don't have the energy to argue here. I, like you, hope my view point is wrong and that John Paul's return will be good. I am willing to be proved wrong. As for not getting upset about things that haven't happened yet/may not happen at all, that kind of thing happens all the time in discussion about soap. If it didn't, we'd never have anything to talk about whilst waiting for spoilers.
|
|
penny
New Member
Posts: 21
|
Post by penny on Nov 25, 2012 1:36:03 GMT -5
Well...I'll fully admit I was and still am a huge McDean fan, so this post is nothing if not completely biased. I loved every bit of the storyline, from the start all the way to the sunset ending (minus the priest stuff). So, given that, I am of course majorly disappointed that James' return will essentially nullify the ending for us. McDean was a "star-crossed lovers/soulmates" story. It was conceptualized as that, marketed as that, and eventually ended as that. As a fan who bought into that premise wholeheartedly, invested a lot of time and emotion into seeing it play out, it's incredibly disappointing to have that thrown out the window now and essentially be told, nope, Craig actually wasn't JP's soulmate, they didn't live happily ever after, and there is someone out there more suited for JP than Craig. And I just don't believe that, not after seeing (over a 2 year span) how hard both characters had to fight and struggle against huge odds to be together. To me, both their character arcs came to their natural conclusion when they left together. So, even as JP comes back and has new adventures and love interests in the village, I don't think I could suspend disbelief and buy into this new premise--whatever it may be--without Craig in his life in some capacity. Now, having said that, that's just my gut (and probably irrational) reaction to James' return. I more than anyone understand you can't always get what you want, especially in TVland. Life (and Hollyoaks) will go on. JP will go on without Craig. I'm disappointed it has to be this way, that I can no longer revel in my McDean happy ending anymore, but eh well. It's only a tv show in the end.
|
|
|
Post by Difficult Diva on Nov 25, 2012 5:07:37 GMT -5
Well, there's always the YouTube clips. Folks can live in that McDean bubble and not watch or follow JP's future storylines without his soulmate Craig and deny ANY of the things that may happen with JP during that time.
I, for one will not.
|
|
|
Post by candyflossuk on Nov 25, 2012 8:45:06 GMT -5
Well...I'll fully admit I was and still am a huge McDean fan, so this post is nothing if not completely biased. I loved every bit of the storyline, from the start all the way to the sunset ending (minus the priest stuff). So, given that, I am of course majorly disappointed that James' return will essentially nullify the ending for us. McDean was a "star-crossed lovers/soulmates" story. It was conceptualized as that, marketed as that, and eventually ended as that. As a fan who bought into that premise wholeheartedly, invested a lot of time and emotion into seeing it play out, it's incredibly disappointing to have that thrown out the window now and essentially be told, nope, Craig actually wasn't JP's soulmate, they didn't live happily ever after, and there is someone out there more suited for JP than Craig. And I just don't believe that, not after seeing (over a 2 year span) how hard both characters had to fight and struggle against huge odds to be together. To me, both their character arcs came to their natural conclusion when they left together. So, even as JP comes back and has new adventures and love interests in the village, I don't think I could suspend disbelief and buy into this new premise--whatever it may be--without Craig in his life in some capacity. Now, having said that, that's just my gut (and probably irrational) reaction to James' return. I more than anyone understand you can't always get what you want, especially in TVland. Life (and Hollyoaks) will go on. JP will go on without Craig. I'm disappointed it has to be this way, that I can no longer revel in my McDean happy ending anymore, but eh well. It's only a tv show in the end. Hi Penny, nice to see another Mcdean fan on here. I was incredibly torn over James returning. I LOVE JP. Always have. But I do love Mcdean too. So whilst there was a part of me that was like 'Yay JP's back!' there was another part of me that was like 'Noooooo Mcdean!'. Here in the UK, the only gay couples we've had who left together are John Paul & Craig and Christian & Syed. Now that Mcdean are to split, that just leaves Christian and Syed (who in all honesty were ruined by the time they left anyway) which I think is really sad. It's nice to think that some couples can make it outside of the relentless misery that is soap without one of them ending up dead and/or cheating on the other one. This is true for the straight couples too actually. I do agree that both characters reached their natural conclusions when they left together. JP was in danger of being ruined completely when he started sleeping with a priest and Craig came back a much stronger, more mature character than he had been originally. I thought in the SE we had an interesting role reversal with JP being the messed up one and Craig being the strong supportive one. So as much as I love JP, I was relieved to see the back of him before any more damage was done to his character! I did worry initially that James and BK were taking a big risk reinstating this character that was popular and expecting it to work a second time around. I still do worry to some extent. But what we have heard so far sounds intriguing. The 'never seen before' line in particular, has everyone guessing. Also the 'single man' quote from BK indicates that they are FINALLY going to explore JP's character outside of the fact that he likes to have affairs. That can only be a good thing. From the point of view of a Mcdean fan, you can either avoid Hollyoaks completely, which will be no great hardship because it isn't great at the minute, or try and enjoy JP as a character in his own right. What Difficult Diva says is true. Many people are choosing to live in a bubble and just act like JP isn't returning. I could personally never do this even if I wanted to (I'm too much of a JP fan!) but if it helps people then they should go ahead. It might seem a bit crazy but better than upsetting yourself over a TV show. I mean just venture onto twitter and have a read of some of the fanwar shite going over Ste and Brendan vs Ste and Doug! Reading some of that actually made me embarrassed that people invest into a soap so much and I've personally been trying to take a step back from Hollyoaks so I don't allow myself to get sucked in again. I love JP but I'm determined not to be obsessed with him this time! (in my defence, I was 17 at the time of the original Mcdean storyline! ).
|
|
|
Post by Zathras on Nov 25, 2012 21:20:16 GMT -5
I totally get where you're coming from, penny. I'm also torn about JP returning alone. It would help if the writing was stronger these days, but generally it isn't all that great (in my opinion). I'll still watch, but they're going to have to tread carefully to avoid upsetting lots of McDean fans (if that's even possible at this point). I guess we'll see how well they handle it.
|
|
|
Post by Difficult Diva on Nov 26, 2012 7:10:13 GMT -5
There are McDean fans already upset. That's why Digital Spy had a separate article on the topic with Bryan Kirkwood. I wonder what James Sutton's articles are going to be like, because he's going to get the same sort of questions asked of him about it.
|
|
kathy
Junior Member
Posts: 201
|
Post by kathy on Nov 26, 2012 13:03:24 GMT -5
i agree with all you McDean fans out there. JP's return without Craig to HO is not going down well with me either. i mean i LOVE james sutton and followed him in the Emmerdale SL as well and was gutted when he left, i try to tune in whenever he has a guest appearance in TV shows but still JP without Craig is like having tea without biscuits i will still tune in HO and see what the writers have in mind for his character but am not holding me breath....
|
|
|
Post by candyflossuk on Nov 26, 2012 14:34:26 GMT -5
Hi Kathy, Nice to see there's still a few of us Mcdean fans around! ;D Anyway, All About Soap tweeted this last week: We had a great chat with @thejamessutton about his return to @hollyoaks. It's gonna be uh-maz-ing! #JohnPaulMcQueenSo hopefully James will be addressing some of these issues because spoilers about JP's return have been annoingly sparse so far! Unfortunately, the next issue of the magazine isn't out until Tuesday the 4th December but I'll keep an eye out for it & post if there is anything interesting in it.
|
|
|
Post by Zathras on Dec 14, 2012 21:52:47 GMT -5
Responding from the spoiler discussion thread... In no time at all, John Paul's entire life and personality became about Craig. Once Craig left, John Paul was given an infrequently seen, shock value storyline with a priest, where viewers were supposed to be happy that this poor man was murdered, because "McDean" reunited. I always thought that the whole reason they brought in JP was to be in Craig's storyline. I don't think they really had a plan for JP without Craig, so the fact that JP's existence was entirely about him for the first year doesn't surprise me. Unfortunately it also meant they didn't know what to do with him once Craig left, and it showed. I don't think viewers were supposed to be "happy" that Kieron was murdered. My take on it is that I think they wanted a cliffhanger. They wanted to keep people guessing about JP's fate. They wanted to further develop Niall as a villain and also make it plausible that JP might die for his exit. Would he die, go to Craig, or go his own way. The SE wasn't about 'giving fans what they want' but the characters following their planned trajectory, and getting WHAT THEY wanted/not killing the goose that lays them golden eggs. McDean's popularity and success for the show is one of the main reasons they went 'off into the sunset' - precisely for here and now, so that JP (or Craig) could return in the (now) future. I think that the sunset ending was exactly about giving the die-hard McDean fans what they wanted. They only needed to keep JP alive if they wanted him to be able to come back again (although sometimes that gets ignored ).
|
|
|
Post by candyflossuk on Dec 18, 2012 15:46:23 GMT -5
The scene with the Mcdean love padlock on the bridge was beautiful! It broke my heart a little bit but was a lovely touch all the same. JP looked devastated. I'm loving seeing James back on my screen.
|
|
|
Post by Difficult Diva on Dec 18, 2012 17:51:58 GMT -5
That's nice that Kirkwood created a memory/moment that was never seen by the viewing audience for JP to mourn over.
|
|
|
Post by Zathras on Dec 18, 2012 20:28:20 GMT -5
Uh ... you really think JP was mourning a specific moment and not the loss of his relationship with Craig? Over a generic symbol of love that was explained just 2 minutes before?
|
|
|
Post by Difficult Diva on Dec 18, 2012 20:34:15 GMT -5
Whatever works for folks It's just a soap, right?
|
|
dio
New Member
Posts: 124
|
Post by dio on Dec 19, 2012 9:49:48 GMT -5
I think that the sunset ending was exactly about giving the die-hard McDean fans what they wanted. They only needed to keep JP alive if they wanted him to be able to come back again (although sometimes that gets ignored ). show runners don't really care, tho. I mean Craig was a (fairly) ancient character in HO that one could say had 'run his course' and the likelihood of Guy's reprisal would be so low - why not kill Craig, and truly 'free' John Paul/James? Because TPTB care about McDean's fanbase and tear-soaked letter campaign's and photobooks and how it would impact these diehard individuals that cared so much about (ROTFL) this fictional couple...? please. It's all about 1) ratings 2) and future capitalization on residual interest. TPTB know interest is STILL THERE, so of course they are gonna keep the 'reunion' subplot open. The lock on the bridge is meant to tug @ heartstrings, and reignite McDean fans... trust. JP will be on his own being 'bad' in true McDean fashion until at some point... Craig rocks up. Why else are we given a retread of 'Craig leaves John Paul...' instead of JP leaving Craig, for whatever reason? Why not demonize Craig in Guy's absence? Make it simple and clean as apposed to Craig leaving JP, yet again, and JP putting his heart in a damn lock box and keeping McDean fen on the hook... i mean, it's like, if Brendan lives through his portrayer's evacuation from the grounds... do peeps really believe that if/when Kieron Richardson decides to leave the show Brendan/Emmett Scanlan will return to sweep Ste off his feet/wisk him away? LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
|
|
|
Post by jjose712 on Dec 20, 2012 8:54:13 GMT -5
Oh come on, that would be depressing. I'm a little tired of killing gay characters for the sake of it, and Craig wasn't even on the show so this can not not even be used for cheap dramatic moments.
I'm more worried about the spoilers because the writting right now is really bad, and they can destroy a great character in the process
|
|
dio
New Member
Posts: 124
|
Post by dio on Dec 20, 2012 14:27:24 GMT -5
Oh come on, that would be depressing. I'm a little tired of killing gay characters for the sake of it, and Craig wasn't even on the show so this can not not even be used for cheap dramatic moments. I'm more worried about the spoilers because the writting right now is really bad, and they can destroy a great character in the process i don't mean like that. I mean if TPTB truly wished to 'free' John Paul/James from the McDean stigma they would could have either killed off Craig or had JP be the one that did the dumping, simple as. But, not doing so means that's not 'the end' of the pairing or TPTB capitalizing on their popularity, and the door is WIDE OPEN for Craig's return... a death can be story/character driven. It's not always about a character's sexuality. i honestly don't believe TPTB asked Guy back in the same sense that they did James, because if they had PLANS for JP/Craig ON SCREEN and together, they could have easily recast the role and gone forward with the STORY they had in mind. But I just don't think they did. I do think they wanted James/JP (another McQueen) back to try whatever SL they have in mind out... without Craig. LOL It's just more JP Adventures w/o Craig shenanigans, IMO.
|
|
bsgnut
Junior Member
Posts: 790
|
Post by bsgnut on Dec 20, 2012 15:33:54 GMT -5
Ugh. There has got to be a ban on killing any more gay characters! Between Kieron, Edwin, Fer, Pavel and Reid we have WAY more than our fair share. It's much better to keep open the possibility that Craig could return to Hollyoaks, thereby providing future storylines for John Paul. Guy Burnet has always had huge plans to take Hollywood by storm but so far not much has panned out for him. What I'd like to see is maybe John Paul settles down with a new love interest (after the "dark" turn) and Craig comes back to mess it all up. He's so good at that. We could have had the same option with Kieron but oh guess what, he's dead.
|
|