Options

Hollyoaks Jason Costello

Nova8221Nova8221 Posts: 1,455
Forum Member
✭✭✭
Would anyone else like this character to return? He was interesting back in the day and with all the Silas stuff it would be nice to see a more trustworthy member of Bobby's family look out for him.

Over the years we have seen Seth, Carl and Wendy return but no mention at all of Jason.

Comments

  • Options
    Ben_ThistlewaiteBen_Thistlewaite Posts: 13,891
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    No.
  • Options
    Joe_H11Joe_H11 Posts: 5,625
    Forum Member
    Was he the one who got his arse out??

    If so. Yes
  • Options
    Little LeighLittle Leigh Posts: 939
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    edited 01/10/22 - 08:53 #4
    I really liked Jason too and would like to see him back. I was glad to see Seth back and would have liked Jason to return at that time. I thought it was daft that he became Silas’ accomplice. It’s so annoying that Silas was reduced to some sort of teatime ‘Saw 3 onwards’ plot line following his first run (which was genuinely scary and really good). If he hadn’t wasted his time making mechanical dolls and electrified chessboards then maybe he might have actually killed Mercedes / or someone that was relevant to his ‘loose woman’’ code).
  • Options
    grasstractorgrasstractor Posts: 4,457
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I liked Jason and found him one of the more interesting characters back during that time. I'm not sure that he would fit it that well now in the show though. His main links were the rest of his family and Bart. Most of them are either dead or left the show.

    Also given that Seth and Wendy both turned out to be accomplices for Silas. I wouldn't trust the show with a Jason return. They would probably reveal that he is the next Silas and also plans to kidnap Bobby or obsess over the McQueens.
  • Options
    William_GravelWilliam_Gravel Posts: 1,185
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    They'd have to recast. It wouldn't be the same.
  • Options
    skteoskskteosk Posts: 19,224
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    They'd have to recast. It wouldn't be the same.

    Because...political correctness? If so, stuff 'em.
  • Options
    TotallyTVTotallyTV Posts: 603
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    skteosk wrote: »
    They'd have to recast. It wouldn't be the same.

    Because...political correctness? If so, stuff 'em.

    There's literally no sense in bringing back the cis woman who originated the role (which wasn't a great decision in the first place) to pay a post-transition trans man. Heck, even a cis man would be more appropriate, but - ideally - they would cast a trans man. That's not 'political correctness', it's just logic.
    To be honest, Jason was probably the least interesting member of the family: being transgender was pretty much all he contributed to the show; and it was handled pretty poorly in retrospect. Even his unconvincing relationship with Bart was all about his trans status; there was nothing to root for in their relationship. Though there was some potential after his mothered was murdered by his grandfather, but he left shortly after, so there wasn't even much opportunity to develop the character in that regard either. Jason wasn't a bad character, but there's no point in bringing him back, even if they found the right actor.
  • Options
    skteoskskteosk Posts: 19,224
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    TotallyTV wrote: »
    skteosk wrote: »
    They'd have to recast. It wouldn't be the same.

    Because...political correctness? If so, stuff 'em.

    There's literally no sense in bringing back the cis woman who originated the role (which wasn't a great decision in the first place) to pay a post-transition trans man. Heck, even a cis man would be more appropriate, but - ideally - they would cast a trans man. That's not 'political correctness', it's just logic.
    I realise the casting could be seen as problematic, especially with modern eyes, but they cast the role the way they did because Jason was identifying as female when introduced. It did seem a bit awkward after he transitioned, and they probably wouldn't do it nowadays, but my logic tells me that apart from the inevitable complaints and the need to disguise her figure, there's no real reason to recast. They'd have to avoid shirtless scenes but that's not necessarily a bad thing.
  • Options
    TotallyTVTotallyTV Posts: 603
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    skteosk wrote: »
    TotallyTV wrote: »
    skteosk wrote: »
    They'd have to recast. It wouldn't be the same.

    Because...political correctness? If so, stuff 'em.

    There's literally no sense in bringing back the cis woman who originated the role (which wasn't a great decision in the first place) to pay a post-transition trans man. Heck, even a cis man would be more appropriate, but - ideally - they would cast a trans man. That's not 'political correctness', it's just logic.
    I realise the casting could be seen as problematic, especially with modern eyes, but they cast the role the way they did because Jason was identifying as female when introduced. It did seem a bit awkward after he transitioned, and they probably wouldn't do it nowadays, but my logic tells me that apart from the inevitable complaints and the need to disguise her figure, there's no real reason to recast. They'd have to avoid shirtless scenes but that's not necessarily a bad thing.

    BIB: Jason never identified as female. He presented as female, but identified as male; which was the whole point of the storyline. Of course, it made sense to cast a woman in the role (to show the early stages of the transition journey), especially at the time when the transgender community wasn't represented. Heck, in interviews, Jason was continually referred to as 'she', and had 'Gender Identity Disorder', which was a dodgy way to present the storyline! However, if the character now presents (and still identifies) as male, why would they bring back the original actress who - as far as I'm aware - presents and identifies as female?
    Regarding 'shirtless scenes': you do realise this is Hollyoaks, right? Jason would probably be in his prime to have gratuitous shirtless scenes, and deliberately avoiding that would insinuate that trans men should hide their bodies. In fact, having a woman playing the role would suggest that trans men are just women pretending to be men, which is definitely 'a bad thing'!
  • Options
    jordanjohnsonjordanjohnson Posts: 2,979
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    A great character but too much times passed now for that character to work.
  • Options
    pearlsandplumspearlsandplums Posts: 29,605
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    A great character but too much times passed now for that character to work.

    You'd wonder why characters come back to the village after their years of misery there.
    Russ bought the pub his brother set fire to and killed multiple people in.
    Jason was miserable the whole time he was in the village
  • Options
    grasstractorgrasstractor Posts: 4,457
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    A great character but too much times passed now for that character to work.

    You'd wonder why characters come back to the village after their years of misery there.
    Russ bought the pub his brother set fire to and killed multiple people in.
    Jason was miserable the whole time he was in the village

    Too many returning characters have been treated awfully.

    If Jason returned he would probably be revealed as the latest serial killer for no reason, or he would be a new victim for the latest serial killer.
  • Options
    William_GravelWilliam_Gravel Posts: 1,185
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    skteosk wrote: »
    They'd have to recast. It wouldn't be the same.

    Because...political correctness? If so, stuff 'em.

    The actress was amazing. I sometimes had to remind myself that she was really a woman. She can't, however, convincingly play the character after a decade of being on male hormones. Political correctness is another reason, though, now that you mention it. People would get upset about the casting.
  • Options
    Mike789Mike789 Posts: 262
    Forum Member
    Due to Silas and even Seth I think by association alone a return wouldn't work, I also wouldn't know what kind of storyline they would give Jason. I suppose being involved in the Eric storyline alongside Sally would've been good but that ship has sailed. Bobby barely shows any interest in his dad's side of the family, I'm assuming he's related to Maxine but I don't remember them ever acknowledging that.
  • Options
    Nova8221Nova8221 Posts: 1,455
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Mike789 wrote: »
    Due to Silas and even Seth I think by association alone a return wouldn't work, I also wouldn't know what kind of storyline they would give Jason. I suppose being involved in the Eric storyline alongside Sally would've been good but that ship has sailed. Bobby barely shows any interest in his dad's side of the family, I'm assuming he's related to Maxine but I don't remember them ever acknowledging that.

    Yep, him and Maxine are cousins.
  • Options
    RinsewindRinsewind Posts: 7,171
    Forum Member
    Nova8221 wrote: »
    Mike789 wrote: »
    Due to Silas and even Seth I think by association alone a return wouldn't work, I also wouldn't know what kind of storyline they would give Jason. I suppose being involved in the Eric storyline alongside Sally would've been good but that ship has sailed. Bobby barely shows any interest in his dad's side of the family, I'm assuming he's related to Maxine but I don't remember them ever acknowledging that.

    Yep, him and Maxine are cousins.

    Would you care to explain that to somebody who has lost track of how people are related to each other? It almost seems that everybody is, somehow, related to everybody else.
  • Options
    Robert_Davies1Robert_Davies1 Posts: 901
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Rinsewind wrote: »
    Nova8221 wrote: »
    Mike789 wrote: »
    Due to Silas and even Seth I think by association alone a return wouldn't work, I also wouldn't know what kind of storyline they would give Jason. I suppose being involved in the Eric storyline alongside Sally would've been good but that ship has sailed. Bobby barely shows any interest in his dad's side of the family, I'm assuming he's related to Maxine but I don't remember them ever acknowledging that.

    Yep, him and Maxine are cousins.

    Would you care to explain that to somebody who has lost track of how people are related to each other? It almost seems that everybody is, somehow, related to everybody else.

    I think, Maxine and Heidi were cousins. So Trish and Heidi were sisters
  • Options
    Robert_Davies1Robert_Davies1 Posts: 901
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Rinsewind wrote: »
    Nova8221 wrote: »
    Mike789 wrote: »
    Due to Silas and even Seth I think by association alone a return wouldn't work, I also wouldn't know what kind of storyline they would give Jason. I suppose being involved in the Eric storyline alongside Sally would've been good but that ship has sailed. Bobby barely shows any interest in his dad's side of the family, I'm assuming he's related to Maxine but I don't remember them ever acknowledging that.

    Yep, him and Maxine are cousins.

    Would you care to explain that to somebody who has lost track of how people are related to each other? It almost seems that everybody is, somehow, related to everybody else.

    I think, Maxine and Heidi were cousins. So Trish and Heidi were sisters

    Or maybe Heidi's mother and Trish were sisters. It's very confusing!
  • Options
    Shinealight12Shinealight12 Posts: 2,681
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Rinsewind wrote: »
    Nova8221 wrote: »
    Mike789 wrote: »
    Due to Silas and even Seth I think by association alone a return wouldn't work, I also wouldn't know what kind of storyline they would give Jason. I suppose being involved in the Eric storyline alongside Sally would've been good but that ship has sailed. Bobby barely shows any interest in his dad's side of the family, I'm assuming he's related to Maxine but I don't remember them ever acknowledging that.

    Yep, him and Maxine are cousins.

    Would you care to explain that to somebody who has lost track of how people are related to each other? It almost seems that everybody is, somehow, related to everybody else.

    Silas married Heidi's mum who was the sister of Trish's mum. Heidi and Trish were cousins. Maxine, Mitzeee and Jason and his siblings were second cousins. Hence all the dating a relative jokes when Riley and Mitzeee had their thing.
  • Options
    William_GravelWilliam_Gravel Posts: 1,185
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Rinsewind wrote: »
    Nova8221 wrote: »
    Mike789 wrote: »
    Due to Silas and even Seth I think by association alone a return wouldn't work, I also wouldn't know what kind of storyline they would give Jason. I suppose being involved in the Eric storyline alongside Sally would've been good but that ship has sailed. Bobby barely shows any interest in his dad's side of the family, I'm assuming he's related to Maxine but I don't remember them ever acknowledging that.

    Yep, him and Maxine are cousins.

    Would you care to explain that to somebody who has lost track of how people are related to each other? It almost seems that everybody is, somehow, related to everybody else.

    Silas married Heidi's mum who was the sister of Trish's mum. Heidi and Trish were cousins. Maxine, Mitzeee and Jason and his siblings were second cousins. Hence all the dating a relative jokes when Riley and Mitzeee had their thing.

    If any of my relatives looked like Mitzeee, I might be tempted to go there, too.
  • Options
    CAMGRAYCAMGRAY Posts: 634
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Trish was Heidi’s aunt and sister to Joan, Silas’s wife. It was established that Mitzeee and Heidi were first cousins. Still confuses me that we didn’t have any mention of the relation while Silas was back, especially when Trish and Wendy were both on the show around the same time. Then again, the poor writing for that storyline doesn’t surprise me.

    I believe there was mentions of the relation between Maxine and Bobby when Carl came back but it’s been mostly forgotten.
Sign In or Register to comment.