[SV+] Smallville Solution for the WB!
KalElFan
Yo, Y'alls, Master K here with the Rx for my Smallville posse. :-)
The show with so much potential back in season 1 has got itself into
some very deep doo-doo. Here's the picture through last week's
viewership number:
http://smallville.tvscorecard.com
This week's ep is being referred to as the worst of the series by several
established posters not prone to "Worst Ever!" trolls.
In the middle of all this, we've had Executive Producer Al Gough on a
web site interview junket that did more harm than good (he eliminated
a whole range of options for Chloe's character, for some inexplicable
reason).
Except for the planned return appearance of Christopher Reeve as
Dr. Swann in April, I think a survey that measured Smallville's "want-
to-see" index would easily be at an all time low at this point, among
the already-substantially-reduced viewer base that have stuck around.
So what to do? Probably they'll do nothing. They'll just burn the
Reeve episode hoping it gives them a lasting bounce, but then the
ratings will trend a bit further down. We're already close to series
cancelation levels (Birds of Prey wasn't that much lower when it
got canned, and Smallville has actually lost more viewers off its
season 2 peak than Birds of Prey did off its premiere before it
got cancelled).
Here's a better way. Recognize the show is in serious trouble, and
save it right now by getting a vision and a plan. Be proactive rather
than play out the lame duck, headed for cancelation scenario. Put
the series on hiatus, effective after the March 3 episode 3-16 "Crisis".
That will allow you to wrap up the Adam Knight storyline in that
episode as you've announced.
Simultaneously announce a full, 22-episode Season 4, to begin
production in the summer, and the first episode of which will be
the "Legacy" episode starring Christopher Reeve. Stop production
now on the balance of season 3, using whatever good might be
there as part of season 4 production.
In the announcement of the hiatus, spin it any way you want. No
press release is going to say "We're putting the thing on hiatus and
cleaning creative house. We apologize for the state of the show
since the season 2 finale, and the Clark's-a-junkie-turned bank
robber stuff, and promise to fix it upon the show's return for a full
Season 4." But something more diplomatically worded could get
the message across that needs to get across. You recognize there
are problems, but you're going to address those. You still support
Smallville and this hiatus is not a cancellation, it simply reflects your
commitment that Smallville will return, better than ever, for a full
Season 4 starting with that Reeve episode.
Start Season 4 near the beginning of January perhaps, and run it
straight through May as one of your executives suggested. Have
February or May sweeps be a Homage to Superman-type month
with Superman-related crossovers or guest stars. Spend the time
that would be wasted now, on producing a doomed remainder of
season 3, to plan and execute Season 4 much better.
--
Anthony Michael Walsh
KalElFan [at] scifipi.com
http://moviescorecard.com
Robert Goodman
"Smallville", effective at the end of season 4. Limit the series to a fixed
number of episodes.
KalElFan
news:c0jq9h$17a402$1...@ID-140940.news.uni-berlin.de...
> I got a better idea for WB: Announce right now the cancellation of
> "Smallville", effective at the end of season 4. Limit the series to a fixed
> number of episodes.
I think they would prefer to have 100 episodes for syndication, so 5 seasons.
(They told the cast and crew of Angel today that the show will end after the
current season 5.)
Beyond that issue, a lot of damage could be done to the show if they burn
Reeve's episode this season, and then end up with even lower ratings over
the last 5 episodes. They might get canceled, or enter into season 4 from
a greater position of weakness..
3-16 is a good place to stop after the Adam storyline wraps up, and
the Reeve episode would be a great one to have out of the season 4
starting block. Warner Bros. would also gain valuable planning time
during the longer hiatus, to make any changes and get season 4 right,
and have a good shot at season 5.
Ian J. Ball
"KalElFan" <KalE...@scifipi.com> wrote:
> "Robert Goodman" <rob...@bestweb.net> wrote in message
> news:c0jq9h$17a402$1...@ID-140940.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
> > I got a better idea for WB: Announce right now the cancellation of
> > "Smallville", effective at the end of season 4. Limit the series to a fixed
> > number of episodes.
>
> I think they would prefer to have 100 episodes for syndication, so 5 seasons.
> (They told the cast and crew of Angel today that the show will end after the
> current season 5.)
This show is in no danger of being cancelled at the end of this season,
but ending the show at the end of season #5 (with, say, graduation from
High School) would be, IMHO, a splendid idea.
Because everything we've gotten in season #3 (e.g. more 'Reset
Buttons'(TM) then you can shake a stick at!) points up the real
storyline dangers in keeping "Smallville" open-ended...
--
Ian J. Ball | No good TV quotes lately... [shrug]
TV lover, and |
Usenet slacker |
ijball@macDOTcom | http://homepage.mac.com/ijball/TV.html
Robert Goodman
news:ijball***SPAM-No***-ABAC47.191...@orngca-news04.socal.rr.com...
> > > I got a better idea for WB: Announce right now the cancellation of
> > > "Smallville", effective at the end of season 4. Limit the series to a
fixed
> > > number of episodes.
> > I think they would prefer to have 100 episodes for syndication, so 5
seasons.
> > (They told the cast and crew of Angel today that the show will end after
the
> > current season 5.)
> This show is in no danger of being cancelled at the end of this season,
> but ending the show at the end of season #5 (with, say, graduation from
> High School) would be, IMHO, a splendid idea.
> Because everything we've gotten in season #3 (e.g. more 'Reset
> Buttons'(TM) then you can shake a stick at!) points up the real
> storyline dangers in keeping "Smallville" open-ended...
> --
It's an endemic problem in TV. Most series aren't good or lasting enough
that we notice the problem.
Glenn Simpson
you're not splitting your geek audience.
ANIM8Rfsk
<< Or just move the time so that it's not opposite Enterprise anymore, so
you're not splitting your geek audience. >>
They're moving Enterprise to an hour later.
Peter Henrikson
"Glenn Simpson" <gls36...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1287ea8f.04021...@posting.google.com...
> Or just move the time so that it's not opposite Enterprise anymore, so
> you're not splitting your geek audience.
Three letters "VCR". I do it every week watching Smallville live and then
Enterprise on tape. Double the pleasure, double the Geek. ;^)
David Johnston
VCRs are nice for that. However, you realise of course, that when
Nielsen families do that, Smallville gets the ratings and Enterprise
gets bupkiss (or vice versa).
KalElFan
news:20040214052717...@mb-m13.aol.com...
> No. Birds of Prey lost over 3.5 million viewers between its premier
> and the time it got cancelled (which was over half its original audience).
Birds of Prey had a premiere high of 7.5 million and a series low of 3.8
million. (The pattern was actually 4.5, that 3.8 low, then up to 4.6 and
a couple of 4.0 million episodes). So a loss of about 3.7 million viewers
and almost 50%.
The Smallville series premiere drew 8.4 million, and its series low just
a few episodes ago drew 5.1 million. So off its premiere that's a loss
of 3.3 million and 39%. However, Smallville's series high was 9.4 million
viewers in season 2, with an 8.9, an 8.8, two 8.7s, and an 8.6 in season
2 as well so the show was regularly drawing more than its premiere.
Off the 9.4 million high, it's been a loss of 4.3 million viewers, higher
than Birds of Prey as I said, and the percentage drop is 46% which
is almost as high.
Looking for excuses on the 5.1 million low? Sure, American Idol
that week was some of it, but Smallville has had a 5.6, 5.5 and a
5.3 as well in the last 4 episodes we have numbers for. One of those
weeks had no Idol or special competition, another was only up against
Idol in the second half hour, and one week had no new Enterprise.
Viewership has left because their want-to-see-Smallville motivation
has plunged. It's the show's fault, creatively. Not the competition.
> Smallville is definitely in trouble, but I doubt it's in danger of
> cancellation.
I hope they don't cancel the show because I not only think it's
possible to save it and run the 5 years at least, I think it could
still achieve the potential for greatness it had to start. Even have
a very successful feature film series. But it will not happen if they
don't act. The show is in very serious trouble. Wasting that Reeve
episode in this environment and throwing out more episodes after
that will probably kill it.. It needs to be shut down and some major
changes made.
Of course that means it'll probably die, because for some inexplicable
reason that's what executroids seem to do in situations like this. It's
within their power to act, but they become like a deer stuck in the
headlights and just watch the train wreck like the rest of us. There
should be ample evidence for them that they need to act if this show
is going to be saved, but they won't.
> I don't think your solution would work either, because it would no doubt
> influence advertisers to stop sponsoring the show.
The opposite if it were done right, and the current situation is actually more
vulnerable in terms of advertisers when you consider the content lately.
As an advertiser, do you really want to support a show that's pissing on
iconic American mythology by turning the future Superman into a "RED K
sniffing, bank robbing, car stealing, extortion paying, Bad Ass From Another
Planet"? If it were an intentional parody/comedy or something, maybe, but
as a drama it's a disgrace at this stage.
KalElFan
news:ijball***SPAM-No***-ABAC47.191...@orngca-news04.socal.rr.com...
> ... ending the show at the end of season #5 (with, say, graduation from
> High School) would be, IMHO, a splendid idea.
There are some problems with the High School part dragging out 5 years,
but somehow the 100 episodes is what they'd like. It's almost a moot point
if the problems aren't fixed though. Lois & Clark has proven to have almost
no syndication or ancillary value so far, and Smallville will be the same if they
don't act.
> Because everything we've gotten in season #3 (e.g. more 'Reset
> Buttons'(TM) then you can shake a stick at!) points up the real
> storyline dangers in keeping "Smallville" open-ended...
When Reset Buttons are used as we've seen them used here --
an excuse to do any damn fool thing, including character-destroying
things, because they think you can somehow just reset and continue
moving along slowly to nowhere -- of course that's a danger. But
to adapt a quote from Chicken Run, "those aren't the only choices".
Raymond Speer
Kal-El-Fan wants?
Step 1. Cease the production of this season's episodes effective
immediately.
Step 2. The network commits to producing a high quality "new season" of
_Smallville_.
Step 3. Kal-El-Fan has the cast, crew & creators for the show remain the
same.
Step 4. Following a prolonged production break, produce the new shows
and ai them.
How the eff is that procedure going to help the show? If Step 3 is
followed, the same bunglers who are ruining season 3 get more time to
prepare to ruin season 4.
Kal-El-Fan, do you believe Hack Wordsmith (a scriptwriter who has Clark
burn down a church) is capable of producing an Alan Moore quality plot
if he had only a couple more months of typing? Give Hack & his buds more
time and all they'll do is spew out more slop. ("Huh, okay. So lets have
Clark burn down a hospitak and not a church.")
Gadfly
> Or just move the time so that it's not opposite Enterprise anymore, so
> you're not splitting your geek audience.
Exactly. Move the show back to its old Tuesday night timeslot. Stupid
morons at TheWB got arrogant and greedy... fools...
Len-L
Yeah, against "24." That'll work.
Robert Goodman
news:c0lu51$18tbrl$1...@ID-53145.news.uni-berlin.de...
> The show is in very serious trouble. Wasting that Reeve
> episode in this environment and throwing out more episodes after
> that will probably kill it.. It needs to be shut down and some major
> changes made.
If it does so, when it returns, should it continue where it left off? I say
re-start season 3 instead -- i.e. "erase" season 3's episodes from the
continuity.
David Johnston
What, exactly would that accomplish?
David B.
>
> Or just move the time so that it's not opposite Enterprise anymore, so
> you're not splitting your geek audience.
Since Enterprise gets lower ratings than Smallville it's mre likely that
it will move instead of Smallville.
David B.
24 has lost viewers this season as well. So it's not as much competition
as it was last year.
David B.
Nothing at all. It's a silly idea.
Robert Goodman
news:402ec250....@news.telusplanet.net...
> >> The show is in very serious trouble. Wasting that Reeve
> >> episode in this environment and throwing out more episodes after
> >> that will probably kill it.. It needs to be shut down and some major
> >> changes made.
> >If it does so, when it returns, should it continue where it left off? I
say
> >re-start season 3 instead -- i.e. "erase" season 3's episodes from the
> >continuity.
> What, exactly would that accomplish?
Make possible certain plots incompatible with the current continuity.
Consider the status quo at the end of season 2, and take it from there. It
was a big set-up for a considerable let-down this season.
David Johnston
The set-up at the end of season 2 was for Clark to wander off and
spend a few months being a jerk.
Robert Goodman
> >> >re-start season 3 instead -- i.e. "erase" season 3's episodes from the
> >> >continuity.
> >> What, exactly would that accomplish?
> >Make possible certain plots incompatible with the current continuity.
> >Consider the status quo at the end of season 2, and take it from there.
It
> >was a big set-up for a considerable let-down this season.
> The set-up at the end of season 2 was for Clark to wander off and
> spend a few months being a jerk.
No, you're thinking of how they resumed in season 3. "Wander off", yes, but
neither "being a jerk" nor "spend a few months" is a given. A re-done
season 3 might start a few MINUTES after where season 2 left off, with a
different story about Lex, for instance.
Google alt.tv.smallville for ideas my staff came up with in the weeks
following the end of season 2.
Robert
David Johnston
<rob...@bestweb.net> wrote:
>"David Johnston" <rgorma...@telusplanet.net> wrote in message
>news:402ee92a....@news.telusplanet.net...
>
>> >> >re-start season 3 instead -- i.e. "erase" season 3's episodes from the
>> >> >continuity.
>
>> >> What, exactly would that accomplish?
>
>> >Make possible certain plots incompatible with the current continuity.
>> >Consider the status quo at the end of season 2, and take it from there.
>It
>> >was a big set-up for a considerable let-down this season.
>
>> The set-up at the end of season 2 was for Clark to wander off and
>> spend a few months being a jerk.
>
>No, you're thinking of how they resumed in season 3. "Wander off", yes, but
>neither "being a jerk" nor "spend a few months" is a given.
Being a jerk most certainly is. He put on a red kryptonite ring and
drove off into the unknown. And the fact that he was driving off
into the unknown, made it unlikely that anyone would dering him
in a hurry. As for Lex, he may be the most interesting character
in the series, but he's still foredoomed to go downhill by the need
to make him a villain in the long run.
Ian J. Ball
rgorma...@telusplanet.net (David Johnston) wrote:
No, Robert's right - there were many things set up in the season #2
finale which weren't followed up on. To wit:
- no repercussions from Clark's crime spree in Metropolis
- The Kent's estrangement from Clark was glossed over
- the sabotage of Lex (presumable by Lionel, but that angle was
dropped for a less intereting 'out')
- "Chloe turns evil"
In fact, there were a whole bunch of interesting things set up in season
#2, and most of them have been ignored, glossed over, or forgotten in
season #3.
Peter Henrikson
>
> VCRs are nice for that. However, you realise of course, that when
> Nielsen families do that, Smallville gets the ratings and Enterprise
> gets bupkiss (or vice versa).
>
Is that still the case? I never thought Nielson Ratings were really
representative of the actual popularity of a show, but if they still don't
allow for "time-shifting", they're even further off. I guess they assume
that if you tape a show, you fast-forward through the commercials (and for
me they're right) so you might as well have not watched it at all.
Robert Goodman
> >> The set-up at the end of season 2 was for Clark to wander off and
> >> spend a few months being a jerk.
> >No, you're thinking of how they resumed in season 3. "Wander off", yes,
but
> >neither "being a jerk" nor "spend a few months" is a given.
> Being a jerk most certainly is. He put on a red kryptonite ring and
> drove off into the unknown. And the fact that he was driving off
> into the unknown, made it unlikely that anyone would dering him
> in a hurry.
Apparently your idea of "jerk" is different from mine. The red ring makes
him uninhibited, not necessarily jerky.
> As for Lex, he may be the most interesting character
> in the series, but he's still foredoomed to go downhill by the need
> to make him a villain in the long run.
What has that to do with where season 2 left off?
Robert
David Johnston
<rob...@bestweb.net> wrote:
>"David Johnston" <rgorma...@telusplanet.net> wrote in message
>news:402ef99d....@news.telusplanet.net...
>
>> >> The set-up at the end of season 2 was for Clark to wander off and
>> >> spend a few months being a jerk.
>
>> >No, you're thinking of how they resumed in season 3. "Wander off", yes,
>but
>> >neither "being a jerk" nor "spend a few months" is a given.
>
>> Being a jerk most certainly is. He put on a red kryptonite ring and
>> drove off into the unknown. And the fact that he was driving off
>> into the unknown, made it unlikely that anyone would dering him
>> in a hurry.
>
>Apparently your idea of "jerk" is different from mine. The red ring makes
>him uninhibited, not necessarily jerky.
We saw two episodes where his inhibitions were removed.
Yes, Clark without his inhibitions is a jerk. He's selfish,
inconsiderate of the feelings of others, and thinks that
his power automatically makes him better than anyone
else.
>
>> As for Lex, he may be the most interesting character
>> in the series, but he's still foredoomed to go downhill by the need
>> to make him a villain in the long run.
>
>What has that to do with where season 2 left off?
It has to do with where they could take Lex.
Christian Smith
Johnston) wrote
>We saw two episodes where his inhibitions were removed.
>Yes, Clark without his inhibitions is a jerk. He's selfish,
>inconsiderate of the feelings of others, and thinks that
>his power automatically makes him better than anyone
>else.
So basically, he's Guy Gardner?
Christian
--
"The Dark Phoenix may have been a threat to all life in the universe...
But she had great taste in costumes." (Rachel Summers Excalibur #65)
David Johnston
<ijball***SPAM-No***@mac.com.invalid> wrote:
>In article <402ee92a....@news.telusplanet.net>,
> rgorma...@telusplanet.net (David Johnston) wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 22:13:48 -0500, "Robert Goodman"
>> <rob...@bestweb.net> wrote:
>> >"David Johnston" <rgorma...@telusplanet.net> wrote in message
>> >news:402ec250....@news.telusplanet.net...
>> >
>> >> >> The show is in very serious trouble. Wasting that Reeve
>> >> >> episode in this environment and throwing out more episodes after
>> >> >> that will probably kill it.. It needs to be shut down and some major
>> >> >> changes made.
>> >
>> >> >If it does so, when it returns, should it continue where it left off? I
>> >> >say re-start season 3 instead -- i.e. "erase" season 3's episodes from
>> >> >the continuity.
>> >
>> >> What, exactly would that accomplish?
>> >
>> >Make possible certain plots incompatible with the current continuity.
>> >Consider the status quo at the end of season 2, and take it from there.
>> >It was a big set-up for a considerable let-down this season.
>>
>> The set-up at the end of season 2 was for Clark to wander off and
>> spend a few months being a jerk.
>
>No, Robert's right - there were many things set up in the season #2
>finale which weren't followed up on. To wit:
>
> - no repercussions from Clark's crime spree in Metropolis
There was no crime spree in Metropolis in season 2. However
there was one repercussion from the crime spree when Edge
showed up. As for the cops tracking him down, that would
have destroyed the series...or at least written Clark out of it.
While there are arguments for Kent to depart, I don't feel
the series would survive as the "The Adventures of Lex Luthor
in Smallville".
> - The Kent's estrangement from Clark was glossed over
Would have been a hideous soap opera plot.
> - the sabotage of Lex (presumable by Lionel, but that angle was
> dropped for a less intereting 'out')
That was business as usual in the Luthor family.
> - "Chloe turns evil"
OK, I admit it, Chloe being seriously out to get Clark might
have been interesting.
David Johnston
<peterhe...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>"David Johnston" <rgorma...@telusplanet.net> wrote in message
>news:402e6421...@news.telusplanet.net...
>
>>
>> VCRs are nice for that. However, you realise of course, that when
>> Nielsen families do that, Smallville gets the ratings and Enterprise
>> gets bupkiss (or vice versa).
>>
>
>Is that still the case?
It is still very much the case. Records of people watching tapes
are kept, but just so channels can have a basis on which to decide
to move a series to another timeslot against less formidable
opposition.
never thought Nielson Ratings were really
>representative of the actual popularity of a show, but if they still don't
>allow for "time-shifting", they're even further off. I guess they assume
>that if you tape a show, you fast-forward through the commercials (and for
>me they're right) so you might as well have not watched it at all.
Quite right.
KalElFan
news:c0mbsc$17vaaf$2...@ID-140940.news.uni-berlin.de...
[re my proposed shortened season 3]
> If it does so, when it returns, should it continue where it left off? I say
> re-start season 3 instead -- i.e. "erase" season 3's episodes from the
> continuity.
You only say that because you're one of the few around here who can
think outside the box. :-)
Think outside the box some more, and realize it can be a bit of both.
The end of season 2 was tailor-made for that kind of retcon. I would
make it that Clark began a training exercise at that time -- mental, moral,
physical, and immunization to Red K.
His participation was neither requested nor voluntary, because (I've
alluded to this part before) there are Bad Ass Threats, and even Badder
Ass Threats behind them, gunning for this Important Young Superman
of this Smallville Universe. The threats are imminent, and what appeared
to be an entire school year to Clark was actually a few weeks or a month
at most. SOME (but not all) of what Clark experienced was forced and/
or controlled simulation.
It wouldn't be necessary to exhaustively establish everything that
happened just as we saw, what was just a bit different, and what
was simulation. All the writers would need is a character or device
that fills in the most important blanks, and provides new information.
A very dramatic and very effective scene could be mapped out in
point form in five minutes (I just did it, but won't post the details. :-)).
There's a lot of other stuff I would do that I've alluded to in the past
(like establish a multiverse in this series, so the stakes are higher and
you can do sweeps-months crossovers like the Homage to Superman
month). There's also new generic or easily-adaptable stuff that I
won't post, some creative and some marketing and other supporting
strategies that would have this series at 10+ million viewers again at
some point during season 4. But the retcon itself ought to be very
easy for any writers worth their salt to do, and they wouldn't have to
wipe everything out. Keep Perry as we saw him for example, and
only make a point that the disgraceful stuff was not as it appeared.
Effectively, it would also achieve the same benefit you point out --
the ability to do a better continuation from season 2. But it would
be a turbo-charged reboot that kept the good of season 3, and also
added some kick-ass new stuff to work with and work towards the
rest of the way. Nothing but huge upside, compared to what I think
is certain downside if the show continues on this doomed season 3
path.
An additional (and not insignificant) benefit is that the 5 seasons
will work out to 4 years of high school, because season 3 will
have represented at most a month worth of events. So season
4 will be their junior year and season 5 their senior year.
KalElFan
news:402ED2AC...@netscape.net...
Supposedly it is moving to 9:00 pm Wednesday after February sweeps
according to something I read (based on a UPN statement or some such;
not sure if there's been anything official).
If Smallville doesn't shorten season 3 to the 16 episodes, and save that
Reeve episode to open season 4, I think Enterprise should stay right
where it is. It's already closed the viewership lead of Smallville from 3
million earlier this season to 1.2 million the last ep we have numbers
for. I think Enterprise has a good chance of overtaking Smallville in
May sweeps if it stays put.
Another factor -- Angel, now that May will be its series finale, may
draw better than Smallville that month. So again I think UPN should
definitely reconsider the move. I argued they should have run from
the time slot to begin the season, but now that they've performed so
much better relative to Smallville and Smallville is on the ropes, why
move?
KalElFan
[responding to Len]
> 24 has lost viewers this season as well.
Much less so than Smallville. 24 is down 10.6% versus almost 24%
for Smallville. Enterprise is down just under 18% for season 3 as a
whole. And Smallville is doing even worse in these comparisons for
the most recent episodes.
Here's the 24 graph:
KalElFan
of the last six Smallville episodes 3-17 to 3-22...
On rec.arts.sf.tv, "Raymond Speer" <ray...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:12512-40...@storefull-3172.bay.webtv.net...
> I do not comprehend the suggestion. Is this the sequence that
> Kal-El-Fan wants?
>
> Step 1. Cease the production of this season's episodes effective
> immediately.
Yes, with the possible exception of any remaining work on 3-16
"Legacy" (Reeve's episode -- they've already done most or this
at least, including all of Reeve's scenes at the New York Public
Library) or 3-17 "Truth" if they're so deep into that and it makes
no sense to stop.
Chances are the unproduced episodes will require at least some
changes, or might be better left out of post-fix Smallville entirely.
So it's a haste-will-probably-make-waste scenario to continue. If
what's left of unproduced season 3 is worthwhile, it can be adapted/
produced as part of season 4.
As further support that this ought to be doable, I cite one of Al Gough's
interviews where he said they viewed this season as three acts. The
first ended with "Shattered" (the Lex goes nuts episode) and the second
act will end with "Crisis" (the end of the Adam Knight arc). The third
act begins with the Reeve episode "Legacy" scheduled to air April 14,
but that Reeve appearance would be adapted for use as their season
4 premiere in this proposed scenario.
So "Crisis" should be a very appropriate endpoint of an abbreviated third
season (16 episodes). Reading between the spoiler lines, what we may
have is the Adam Knight storyline coming to an end with his death, and
it's learned that he was a resurrected/cloned prototype of Luthorcorp's
"Project Levitas" (this name is alluded to in kryptonsite.com's spoilers for
the episode "Truth").
An ending like that should be easily conducive to any continuation, adaptation,
or retcon of that storyline, or any other elements of the series that have taken
place from the end of season 2 through the 16 episodes of season 3.
> Step 2. The network commits to producing a high quality "new season" of
> _Smallville_.
Yes, and the press release announcing 1 & 2 would be key.
> Step 3. Kal-El-Fan has the cast, crew & creators for the show remain the
> same.
The crew, sure. The cast, yes I favor keeping this entire cast through not
only this series (probably 5 years will be optimal now -- see my response
to Robert Goodman), but approach it that the series will again be riding so
high that all of them go to a very successful theatrical movie series after that.
I would not kill off or replace any of the opening-credit characters/actors.
I don't think the state of the show, or their characters, is any of their fault.
Creatively -- and this includes everyone who has a hand in creative decisions,
or the vetoing of those decisions -- of course there has to be a reassessment
and almost certainly some major changes. That's what the shortened season 3
would allow them time to consider and implement.
> Step 4. Following a prolonged production break, produce the new shows
> and [air] them.
Yes, and I like the idea of running 22 episodes straight, starting January through
May, 2005. In fact announce that as the plan in the press release about this.
Spin it that it's addressing the changed state of scripted television yada yada
yada, and they plan to use Christopher Reeve's appearance to launch a season 4
that will give viewers a better way to watch television (as their executive put it).
No repeats, Smallville once a week for 22 weeks (but possibly an EasyView
re-airing of each episode the same week).
> Kal-El-Fan, do you believe Hack Wordsmith (a scriptwriter who has Clark
> burn down a church) is capable of producing an Alan Moore quality plot
> if he had only a couple more months of typing?
I think even Hack Wordsmith will be able to do a better job in this scenario,
yes. If the big-picture creative issues, and management issues are properly
addressed beforehand, and Hack Wordsmith has better terms of reference,
then the product will be even better. But with the shakeout taking place in
scripted television and this genre especially, I think there's also the prospect
that a proactive approach like this by the WB will attract some better Hack
Wordsmiths if that's judged to be a major part of the problem this season.
Maybe even some very good writer-producers.
Bill Bickel
Imagine the ratings boost if the season ended with Lana stepping out of the
shower telling Clark she'd just had the strangest dream...
Bill Bickel
http://www.comicsidontunderstand.com
http://www.missing-kids.us
http://www.lawsuit-of-the-week.com
Ian J. Ball
"Bill Bickel" <bill...@optonline.com> wrote:
> "David Johnston" <rgorma...@telusplanet.net> wrote in message
> news:402ec250....@news.telusplanet.net...
> > On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 18:43:21 -0500, "Robert Goodman"
> > <rob...@bestweb.net> wrote:
> >
> > >"KalElFan" <KalE...@scifipi.com> wrote in message
> > >news:c0lu51$18tbrl$1...@ID-53145.news.uni-berlin.de...
> > >
> > >> The show is in very serious trouble. Wasting that Reeve
> > >> episode in this environment and throwing out more episodes after
> > >> that will probably kill it.. It needs to be shut down and some major
> > >> changes made.
> > >
> > >If it does so, when it returns, should it continue where it left off?
> > >I say re-start season 3 instead -- i.e. "erase" season 3's episodes
> > >from the continuity.
> >
> > What, exactly would that accomplish?
>
> Imagine the ratings boost if the season ended with Lana stepping out
> of the shower...
Clothed? Or unclothed?...
> telling Clark she'd just had the strangest dream...
;)
David B.
That may all be true but it's no reason to wipe out an entire season out
of continuity. Today's audience won't accept that. People get pissed off
if Star Trek resets on little episode. Imagine if Smallville wiped n
entire season.
Robert Goodman
> >Apparently your idea of "jerk" is different from mine. The red ring
makes
> >him uninhibited, not necessarily jerky.
> We saw two episodes where his inhibitions were removed.
> Yes, Clark without his inhibitions is a jerk. He's selfish,
> inconsiderate of the feelings of others, and thinks that
> his power automatically makes him better than anyone
> else.
In other words, he's cool! But he was a lot more interesting and less jerky
in the previous episodes under the ring's influence than he was in the 1st
episode of season 3. Robbing ATMs, buying cars, and blowing them on women
was practically studied jerkiness. However, his previous exploits with red
kryptonite showed him to be clever, quite unlike Dumb Clark. Seems when
he's a good guy he frequently has no cunning at all, and tends to do dumb
things that lead to exposure. He's a lot smarter as Red Clark, but he
didn't show it in that episode.
> >> As for Lex, he may be the most interesting character
> >> in the series, but he's still foredoomed to go downhill by the need
> >> to make him a villain in the long run.
> >What has that to do with where season 2 left off?
> It has to do with where they could take Lex.
Are you saying that's a severe limitation on what could be done with his
predicament at the end of season 2?
Robert
Robert Goodman
> "Ian J. Ball" wrote:
It wouldn't be an entire season if by some ridiculous chance it were done as
the poster who started us suggested, putting the show on hiatus right now.
However, I'd say one big reset like that, just wiping the extant season 3
with NO joining material would be a lot less annoying than these frequent
hypocritic little resets that pretend to maintain continuity by stretching &
twisting things so as to restore the status quo ante.
Robert
Robert Goodman
just summarize that it comes to roughly the same sort of thing as a
preference for the ending currently showing in the movie "The Butterfly
Effect" or for another ending that was suggested in that movie. To discuss
those details would spoil it and be off topic for, uh, any of the groups
this is being posted to, but if you've seen it you probably know what I
mean.
Robert
David Johnston
<rob...@bestweb.net> wrote:
>"David Johnston" <rgorma...@telusplanet.net> wrote in message
>news:402fdce0...@news.telusplanet.net...
>
>> >Apparently your idea of "jerk" is different from mine. The red ring
>makes
>> >him uninhibited, not necessarily jerky.
>
>> We saw two episodes where his inhibitions were removed.
>> Yes, Clark without his inhibitions is a jerk. He's selfish,
>> inconsiderate of the feelings of others, and thinks that
>> his power automatically makes him better than anyone
>> else.
>
>In other words, he's cool! But he was a lot more interesting and less jerky
>in the previous episodes under the ring's influence than he was in the 1st
>episode of season 3. Robbing ATMs, buying cars, and blowing them on women
>was practically studied jerkiness.
<shrug> It's the kind of thing I expected him to do based on his
previous Red K episodes.
However, his previous exploits with red
>kryptonite showed him to be clever,
I must have failed to noticed any of that cleverness. If he'd
actually been clever, then Mr Kent never would have been
to dering him with a sledgehammer.
quite unlike Dumb Clark. Seems when
>he's a good guy he frequently has no cunning at all, and tends to do dumb
>things that lead to exposure. He's a lot smarter as Red Clark, but he
>didn't show it in that episode.
>
>> >> As for Lex, he may be the most interesting character
>> >> in the series, but he's still foredoomed to go downhill by the need
>> >> to make him a villain in the long run.
>
>> >What has that to do with where season 2 left off?
>
>> It has to do with where they could take Lex.
>
>Are you saying that's a severe limitation on what could be done with his
>predicament at the end of season 2?
No. But I am saying that the only thing they could do with his
predicament is have him survive the crash and eventually get
rescued.
David Johnston
wrote:
>"Robert Goodman" <rob...@bestweb.net> wrote in message
>news:c0mbsc$17vaaf$2...@ID-140940.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
>[re my proposed shortened season 3]
>
>> If it does so, when it returns, should it continue where it left off? I say
>> re-start season 3 instead -- i.e. "erase" season 3's episodes from the
>> continuity.
>
>You only say that because you're one of the few around here who can
>think outside the box. :-)
>
>Think outside the box some more, and realize it can be a bit of both.
>The end of season 2 was tailor-made for that kind of retcon. I would
>make it that Clark began a training exercise at that time -- mental, moral,
>physical, and immunization to Red K.
>
>His participation was neither requested nor voluntary, because (I've
>alluded to this part before) there are Bad Ass Threats, and even Badder
>Ass Threats behind them, gunning for this Important Young Superman
>of this Smallville Universe. The threats are imminent, and what appeared
>to be an entire school year to Clark was actually a few weeks or a month
>at most.
Has it ever occured to you that the generally negative reaction you
get to this kind of idea reflects how the viewing audience would be
likely to react to this kind of screwing around with them?
Gadfly
> On 14 Feb 2004 13:13:59 -0800, evil_...@hotmail.com (Gadfly) wrote:
>
> >gls36...@yahoo.com (Glenn Simpson) wrote in message news:<1287ea8f.04021...@posting.google.com>...
> >> you're not splitting your geek audience.
> >
> >morons at TheWB got arrogant and greedy... fools...
>
> Yeah, against "24." That'll work.
Of course it'll work. For two seasons, the show had some of its
highest ratings in that time slot against 24.
KalElFan
> On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 00:27:21 -0500, "Robert Goodman"
> <rob...@bestweb.net> wrote:
> >Are you saying that's a severe limitation on what could be done with [Lex's]
> >predicament at the end of season 2?
>
> No. But I am saying that the only thing they could do with his
> predicament is have him survive the crash and eventually get
> rescued.
Another public service message warning that David Johnston's World,
where Writers Have No Choice but to confine themselves to the
possibilities DJ can conceive of, bears absolutely no resemblance to
what's possible in Our Universe.
:-)
KalElFan
> "David B." <david...@netscape.net> wrote in message
> news:40303E17...@netscape.net...
> > "Ian J. Ball" wrote:
>
> > > In fact, there were a whole bunch of interesting things set up in season
> > > #2, and most of them have been ignored, glossed over, or forgotten in
> > > season #3.
>
> > That may all be true but it's no reason to wipe out an entire season out
> > of continuity. Today's audience won't accept that. People get pissed off
> > if Star Trek resets on little episode. Imagine if Smallville wiped n
> > entire season.
First, the "People get pissed off if Star Trek resets [one] little episode" part
is a less than meaningless phenomenon. They're people on the Internet who
in most cases couldn't even defend their opposition to the Reset Button in
principle. They don't understand the concept and its various uses.
But secondly we have Robert's two points here:
> It wouldn't be an entire season if by some ridiculous chance it were done as
> the poster who started us suggested, putting the show on hiatus right now.
Yes, but I think you mean 16 episodes rather than 22 there, and you've missed
the most important point that it wouldn't even reset the 16. In fact the default
assumption will be that it ALL happened exactly as we saw as I described in
the other response to you.
[Alas, "ridiculous chance" is probably still true as I conceded earlier in the
thread.]
This is the more important point though, which I wanted to agree with you on:
> However, I'd say one big reset like that, just wiping the extant season 3
> with NO joining material would be a lot less annoying than these frequent
> hypocritic little resets that pretend to maintain continuity by stretching &
> twisting things so as to restore the status quo ante.
Absolutely, and I'll note that the particularly annoying "Shattered" and its
resolution/reset of Lex with no consequences (he's back to season one
mode the last few eps) is a great example of a negative reset button. Same
with ridiculous, contrived, over-the-top cliffhangers like season 2's. THAT's
where people feel they're having their chains jerked in a way they don't like,
and it's part of the reason for the post-Shattered plunge the show took.
If you're going to jerk their chains in any way, at least make it fun and quick.
The tornado in season 1 -- force of nature causes havoc -- was closer to
that. It wasn't writers putting characters in absurdly contrived and angst-
soaked situations, all for different reasons and counter to their established
or necessary character in some cases.
KalElFan
> On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 17:06:58 -0500, "KalElFan" <KalE...@scifipi.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Think outside the box some more, and realize it can be a bit of both.
> >The end of season 2 was tailor-made for that kind of retcon. I would
> >make it that Clark began a training exercise at that time -- mental, moral,
> >physical, and immunization to Red K.
> >
> >His participation was neither requested nor voluntary, because (I've
> >alluded to this part before) there are Bad Ass Threats, and even Badder
> >Ass Threats behind them, gunning for this Important Young Superman
> >of this Smallville Universe. The threats are imminent, and what appeared
> >to be an entire school year to Clark was actually a few weeks or a month
> >at most.
>
> Has it ever occurred to you that the generally negative reaction you
> get to this kind of idea reflects how the viewing audience would be
> likely to react to this kind of screwing around with them?
No, exactly the opposite for almost all the people who whine about
the "Reset Button" (which this isn't; it's a Targeted Repair Button)
and the like.
For example, some of the greatest episodes in the history of Star
Trek ("City on the Edge of Forever", "Yesterday's Enterprise")
have used Reset or Reset-like Buttons, and the whiners most often
tie themselves in knots trying to make their comparative case for
why whatever they're whining about is different in principle.
The same would happen here with the way we get the revelation/
explanation scene (which remember, I haven't specifically described
and won't, but it would be HUGELY popular with viewers -- they
won't even be fixated on the "reset" or :fix" per se, because they'll
be so enthralled with the way it's being presented). A few folks on
the Internet would be unable to resist the urge to lash out (even as
viewership climbs back to that 10 million mark, a few would still
want to whine and lash out). Season Reset Button! Memory Wipe!
It's the Dallas Shower Scene!
No, no, and no. What I've proposed can't be tagged with any of that.
It's specifically designed that way, and it fits beautifully with what was
there at the end of season 2, and great stuff that will be there in season
3 and 4. What the online whiners would be reduced to at the end of their
failed argument would be:
"Waaaah! You took away my Disgraceful Clark! And you did it
SURGICALLY! You left Everything Else -- all the stuff that wasn't
disgustingly bad -- you left it intact. Waaaah! That's not fair KalElFan!
I have to whine about something! I can't help myself!"
90%++ would LOVE the way this was implemented, 9.9% wouldn't
care that much either way, and .1% would imagine they Must Whine
About It On The Internet. Just like the whining about Christopher Lee's
deleted scenes in Return of the King, it wouldn't amount to squat as
Smallville prospered more than it ever has.
But I'll concede, of course, that the fix could be done in a conspicuous
Dallas-like way that chucked everything and added nothing. That'd be
a vastly inferior way of doing that for Smallville season 3 IMO, but as
damaging as I think season 3 has been (and is poised to be), if Robert
Goodman's suggestion were the only alternative I think I'd take it. Either
that or just give up and cancel the show now. What he suggested would
be better than letting everything in season 3 stand as is IMO, but those
aren't the only choices.
KalElFan
> Rather than quote & comment on any of Anthony Michael Walsh's idea, I'll
> just summarize that it comes to roughly the same sort of thing as a
> preference for the ending currently showing in the movie "The Butterfly
> Effect" or for another ending that was suggested in that movie...
I've only seen the Butterfly Effect ads and skimmed a few articles/reviews.
Based on that you've misunderstood what I'm advocating and overlooked
several elements that I don't think can possibly be in the movie. I'm not
inclined to see the movie just to address your point, so feel free to go ahead
and spoil it with spoiler space. As a comparison to the hypothetical Smallville
fix, it is on-topic. Until then I'll reinforce a few things about what I proposed.
There would be no multiple alternate timelines or versions of events,
not even from Clark's point of view (which is what season 3 would
become -- a condensed "Training Month" for Clark). The entire season
"happened" just as we saw from his point of view, most of it physically,
i.e. he isn't locked in a room or back in that cellar with the ship. The
entire season also happened continuously with no break or time travel
or thought loop, or anything else I'm trying to imagine might have been
suggested in Butterfly Effect.
The Training Program Mode was initiated through a series of events that
we saw depicted in season 2, the cave download being the first step in
paving the way for it. That "It is Time..." summons from Jor-El or
faux Jor-El marked the beginning of the process of entering that mode,
and it was forcibly activated in the scenes with the ship where we saw the
hologram and the branding of his chest.
So from that activation moment, what we the viewers saw in Season 3 was:
1. Exactly what Clark experienced or perceived to be happening (along
with other things we didn't see -- i.e., the same concept as off-screen
events between episodes); and
2. Almost exactly what actually did happen in the Smallville Universe.
The very specific and very limited simulation elements would be the
only exceptions, and those were integrated into it continuously and
seamlessly. No loops or alternate "do overs", not even in his perception
of it. At most four major instances of simulation would be cited on-
screen. The default for everything else would be that it happened as
is, "Perry" being the example of that I'd use because I think it's probably
the strongest and most useful ep to come out of season 3.
The condensing of it from Clark's POV, such that he received what
seemed like a year's worth of [controlled training] experience in a
month, is a separate element of this that wouldn't even be required.
It's desirable as part of the way this overall package is perceived --
in particular that sense of urgency I mentioned would be key. Clark
and the Smallville Universe could not afford the full year. It also fits
well with the five-season run covering the four years of high school.
Again, feel free to spoil and tell me how you think The Butterfly Effect
(a term that had a meaning long before the movie) has ANYTHING to
do with the fix that I've described. I can't imagine it having more than
a very general similarity to something you perceived in my post -- i.e.,
"There's some simulation in this training program. Maybe 5% of season
3 would become that, but it's simulation. And there was a simulation
suggested in The Butterfly Effect (?), so it's the same thing."
geno_...@tin.it
>
>"David Johnston" <rgorma...@telusplanet.net> wrote in message
>news:402ec250....@news.telusplanet.net...
>> On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 18:43:21 -0500, "Robert Goodman"
>> <rob...@bestweb.net> wrote:
>>
>> >"KalElFan" <KalE...@scifipi.com> wrote in message
>> >news:c0lu51$18tbrl$1...@ID-53145.news.uni-berlin.de...
>> >
>> >> The show is in very serious trouble. Wasting that Reeve
>> >> episode in this environment and throwing out more episodes after
>> >> that will probably kill it.. It needs to be shut down and some major
>> >> changes made.
>> >
>> >If it does so, when it returns, should it continue where it left off? I
>say
>> >re-start season 3 instead -- i.e. "erase" season 3's episodes from the
>> >continuity.
>>
>> What, exactly would that accomplish?
>
>Imagine the ratings boost if the season ended with Lana stepping out of the
>shower telling Clark she'd just had the strangest dream...
Oh yeah, a nude Kristin Kreuk on screen to raise ratings once again ? That's a desperate action that
a production would have to do only if the writers and producers simply don't have a clue about what
they are doing.
And I don't think that's the case with Smallville Season 3.
I don't have a big comics background, I'm more a manga fan than a comics fan, but I like the new
Smallville approach of a realistic scenario with no silly things on screen, just like all the last
Batman movies for example. That's not the right way to portray either comics or manga characters on
live action movies/series. That's a cheap, silly and unrealistic way of doing comics or manga based
live versions.
Fortunately Smallville has been great so far compared to the awful Batman movies after Tim Burton
left the production there. And that was a really big mistake. If they had Tim Burton directing the
other movies they would have got a not silly set of movies released.
Now, the issues with Season 3 so far are just that the plot line has been written so complex that
they are having a difficult time to explain it in a short number of episodes and so we get some
repetitions here and there and clues that apparently no one seem to notice about their real
masterplan and the plot they really wrote so far.
Someone is suggesting that Adam Knight would be a human version of Braniac from the comics or
something like that, right?
Well, that surely would make sense if that was true, considering what we've seen with the space-ship
computer dialogue so far.
What they should do is to reveal what seems to be hidden, that Reeve's appearance is that of a
Superman of another dimension that has got injured (due to real Reeve's physical conditions it
couldn't be otherwise, unfortunately) due to some evil enimy and Braniac might just be it. They
could easily tell us that Braniac almost killed the Superman that Reeve resembles and that they both
traveled to this Smallville's Clark dimension but that Braniac still doesn't know that Reeve is
there too and that as soon as it (since it's a computer using 'he' wouldn't be really appropriate,
would it? it's still an object after all... ) finds it out (maybe thru Adam Knight ..?) both
Supermans would be in danger.
That would be a great way to ensure higher ratings for the show, no?
Robert Goodman
news:HQ4Yb.4112$Cd6.1...@news20.bellglobal.com...
> Absolutely, and I'll note that the particularly annoying "Shattered" and
its
> resolution/reset of Lex with no consequences (he's back to season one
> mode the last few eps) is a great example of a negative reset button.
Same
> with ridiculous, contrived, over-the-top cliffhangers like season 2's.
THAT's
> where people feel they're having their chains jerked in a way they don't
like,
> and it's part of the reason for the post-Shattered plunge the show took.
> If you're going to jerk their chains in any way, at least make it fun and
quick.
> The tornado in season 1 -- force of nature causes havoc -- was closer to
> that. It wasn't writers putting characters in absurdly contrived and
angst-
> soaked situations, all for different reasons and counter to their
established
> or necessary character in some cases.
> --
Funny that I complained about the season 1 ending cliffhanger back then (I
thought it short-circuited some developments that could've used more time &
eposition), by the standard of what's gone on since then, that was a minor
quibble!
Robert
Robert Goodman
> Again, feel free to spoil and tell me how you think The Butterfly Effect
> (a term that had a meaning long before the movie) has ANYTHING to
> do with the fix that I've described.
A difference in audience preferences as to possible continuities: in the
case of "Butterfly", the ending as released vs. the director's cut or the
obviously suggested ending; in the case of "Smallville", a continuation such
as you propose, versus whatever we're actually going to get. Don't read too
much into it.
Robert
Robert Goodman
There was dread speculation in alt.tv.smallville at the end of season 2 that
we were in for such a thing, which might've resulted in a lot of smashed TV
sets. (Tip: throw a cushion, not something hard.) But I wouldn't do it
"Dallas" style. Instead, I'd have one of he principals just come on and
say, "We really blew it with season 3, and we beg your forgiveness. Those
episodes now stand on their own out there for what they're worth; hey, we
understand you liked some of them. But from here on we resume from the end
of season 2." Only time I heard of something like that being done was
Jackie Gleason's apology for "You're In The Picture", but all he did was
monolog to fill the time and there was no continuation.
If I get Anthony Michael Walsh correctly, his general idea of presenting
some or all of season-3-to-date as one character's distorted POV of "actual"
events would be a lot better than a "Dallas" throw-something-at-the-TV
reset. I might not like much of Mr. Walsh's version of that, but I could
see doing it SOME way interestingly.
Robert
David Johnston
<KalE...@scifipiNOSPAM.com> wrote:
>"David Johnston" <rgorma...@telusplanet.net> wrote in message news:40305ade...@news.telusplanet.net...
>
>> On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 00:27:21 -0500, "Robert Goodman"
>> <rob...@bestweb.net> wrote:
>
>> >Are you saying that's a severe limitation on what could be done with [Lex's]
>> >predicament at the end of season 2?
>>
>> No. But I am saying that the only thing they could do with his
>> predicament is have him survive the crash and eventually get
>> rescued.
>
>Another public service message warning that David Johnston's World,
>where Writers Have No Choice but to confine themselves to the
>possibilities DJ can conceive of, bears absolutely no resemblance to
>what's possible in Our Universe.
I'm sorry. I should have said, "If they want to keep Lex, and refrain
from being goofy"
David Johnston
<KalE...@scifipiNOSPAM.com> wrote:
>"David Johnston" <rgorma...@telusplanet.net> wrote in message news:40306c41...@news.telusplanet.net...
>
>> On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 17:06:58 -0500, "KalElFan" <KalE...@scifipi.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Think outside the box some more, and realize it can be a bit of both.
>> >The end of season 2 was tailor-made for that kind of retcon. I would
>> >make it that Clark began a training exercise at that time -- mental, moral,
>> >physical, and immunization to Red K.
>> >
>> >His participation was neither requested nor voluntary, because (I've
>> >alluded to this part before) there are Bad Ass Threats, and even Badder
>> >Ass Threats behind them, gunning for this Important Young Superman
>> >of this Smallville Universe. The threats are imminent, and what appeared
>> >to be an entire school year to Clark was actually a few weeks or a month
>> >at most.
>>
>> Has it ever occurred to you that the generally negative reaction you
>> get to this kind of idea reflects how the viewing audience would be
>> likely to react to this kind of screwing around with them?
>
>No, exactly the opposite for almost all the people who whine about
>the "Reset Button" (which this isn't; it's a Targeted Repair Button)
>and the like.
>
>For example, some of the greatest episodes in the history of Star
>Trek ("City on the Edge of Forever", "Yesterday's Enterprise")
>have used Reset or Reset-like Buttons,
Neither of those episodes had a "It was all just a dream/simulation"
finish". Neither of them eliminated a dozen episodes. In both of
them "undoing the historical change" involved the actions of
the protagonists rather than just being inflicted on the protagonists.
That being said, "Yesterday's Enterprise" had a crappy copout
ending that made no sense. City on the Edge of Forever, on
the other hand had nothing like a reset ending. Kirk ended
the episode having had to choose between all of humanity's
future, and the woman he loved. That was in no way
a reset. Kirk beamed up to the Enterprise knowing he'd
made that choice.
David Johnston
Johnston) wrote:
>>>
>>> No. But I am saying that the only thing they could do with his
>>> predicament is have him survive the crash and eventually get
>>> rescued.
>>
>>Another public service message warning that David Johnston's World,
>>where Writers Have No Choice but to confine themselves to the
>>possibilities DJ can conceive of, bears absolutely no resemblance to
>>what's possible in Our Universe.
>
>I'm sorry. I should have said, "If they want to keep Lex, and refrain
>from being goofy"
>
OK there is one alternative. Writing out Lex wasn't
really an alternative. He's the best character on the show.
Another alternative would have been to write _Lionel_ out of
the show, but that would mean that they'd have to make the
transition to Lex as opponent of Clark. Hm. That would have
been a dangerous and painful choice but it might have worked.
Of course logically it would meant that Clarks future really does
hold a Luthor who knows exactly who Superman is and is out
to get him. That sort of thing is problematic when you are dealing
with a licensed property since the licenser is probably going to
object if you screw them up.
Michael Pastor
> On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 06:33:14 GMT, "Ian J. Ball"
> <ijball***SPAM-No***@mac.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>> In article <402ee92a....@news.telusplanet.net>,
>> rgorma...@telusplanet.net (David Johnston) wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 22:13:48 -0500, "Robert Goodman"
>>>>
>>>>>>> The show is in very serious trouble. Wasting that Reeve
>>>>>>> episode in this environment and throwing out more episodes after
>>>>>>> that will probably kill it.. It needs to be shut down and some
>>>>>>> major changes made.
>>>>
>>>>>> If it does so, when it returns, should it continue where it left
>>>>>> off? I say re-start season 3 instead -- i.e. "erase" season 3's
>>>>>> episodes from the continuity.
>>>>
>>>>> What, exactly would that accomplish?
>>>>
>>>> take it from there. It was a big set-up for a considerable
>>>> let-down this season.
>>>
>>> The set-up at the end of season 2 was for Clark to wander off and
>>> spend a few months being a jerk.
>>
>> No, Robert's right - there were many things set up in the season #2
>> finale which weren't followed up on. To wit:
>>
>> - no repercussions from Clark's crime spree in Metropolis
>
> there was one repercussion from the crime spree when Edge
> showed up. As for the cops tracking him down, that would
> have destroyed the series...or at least written Clark out of it.
> While there are arguments for Kent to depart, I don't feel
> the series would survive as the "The Adventures of Lex Luthor
> in Smallville".
>
>> - The Kent's estrangement from Clark was glossed over
>
>
>> - the sabotage of Lex (presumable by Lionel, but that angle was
>> dropped for a less intereting 'out')
>
>
>> - "Chloe turns evil"
>
> OK, I admit it, Chloe being seriously out to get Clark might
> have been interesting.
Hey guys, can we begin to trim the followups to alt.tv.smallville?
michael j pastor
KalElFan
> Someone is suggesting that Adam Knight would be a human version of
> [Brainiac]...
Doctor Walden already became something that fits that description. While
an attempt here could turn out better than that, I don't think it would work
particularly well. Brainiac-anything doesn't really belong in the series at this
point.. He's the threat on the horizon if they take it theatrical perhaps.
> What they should do is to reveal what seems to be hidden, that Reeve's
> appearance is that of a Superman of another dimension that has got injured...
He could literally be that Superman from the movie timeline as I've said,
but I don't see that kind of vision on this show so far, and wouldn't have much
faith in them executing it right.
KalElFan
> I'm sorry. I should have said, "If they want to keep Lex, and refrain
> from being goofy"
Lex on that Island was pretty darn goofy. If over-the-top implausible
is goofy, then surviving that crash at all qualifies.
There are always options. If you frame it as a binary -- Lex lives or
Lex dies -- then of course you can say it's limited to one of those two.
But within the preferred Lex Lives category there are probably dozens
of ways it could have been done. Lionel Luthor laughing his ass off as
he enters the flight simulator was raised as a possibility at the time, and
that might have been the highlight of this season had they done it that
way.
Or a promoted appearance by Wonder Woman who saves him. :-)
Goofy, yes, but it would have drawn viewers. And it also might have
been the highlight of this season.
KalElFan
> Neither of those episodes had a "It was all just a dream/simulation"
> finish".
So? The Picard episode where he lives out a life in one ep was one
of the best received. Wizard of Oz had a literal dream and it's on
the AFI Top 100 and many other best ever lists. What I proposed
doesn't make all of season 3 a dream/simulation anyway, nor eliminate
all the episodes. But in principle there's no basis to say that that
approach would be worse than what we have. Season 3 has been
bad enough to this point that many existing viewers might prefer an
apology and outright reset, not to mention the few million who have
left.
David Johnston
wrote:
>"David Johnston" <rgorma...@telusplanet.net> wrote in message news:403109f8...@news.telusplanet.net...
>
>> Neither of those episodes had a "It was all just a dream/simulation"
>> finish".
>
>So? The Picard episode where he lives out a life in one ep was one
>of the best received.
All the stuff in the Picard episode _really happened_. Those
aliens really did exist and really did die.
geno_...@tin.it
You're too much comics-minded. What might be considered acceptable in a comic it's simply silly in a
live-action version and would kill the show completely.
Smallville has been started as an ultra-realistic version of Superman, more realistic than the
movies with Reeve's, even thanks to higher quality special effects available nowadays.
So putting Roger Rabbit style elements into it would simply destroy everything.
Any introduction of characters from the comics must look realistic and a viable way to make them
look real and not a badly portrait fantastic character that doesn't match the world they put on
screen. Because the Smallville world represents our world anyway since the show is not placed in
some imaginary dimension where the audience could think that anything would be acceptable.
From Smallville people expect to continue seeing an ultra-realistic version of the Superman stories
which doesn't mean that it has to follow everything in the comics, even because the comics have been
rewritten tons of times and they look more like an unfinished work, a beta product from which to get
viable stories than anything else.
The Superman Crisis idea was born due to marketing reasons and the fact that US comics were
suffering from the Japanese Manga invasion BUT that resulted into something that has its pros and
cons. The idea has many potentials that might work better on video than on the comics if done
correctly, which still doesn't mean that they need to follow everything from the comics without the
ability to change things as they wish to make he live action story work correctly.
Unfortunately both US comics writers and Japanese manga writers put naive contents into many
stories, unless they're the ultra-realistic type. Anyway with long stories like Superman there have
been many different writers and not all of them did a good job at making it realistic just like it
happens on long manga stories.
So when you've to deal with comics or manga stories to build up a live action movie you've to deal
with compromises and you have to change a lot of things to make them look real enough, otherwise
they'd just look like the awful Batman movies after the good Tim Burton one, which still had some
fantasy-style elements but they worked correctly thanks to a top-notch dark-style everywhere in the
movie.
David Johnston
wrote:
>"David Johnston" <rgorma...@telusplanet.net> wrote in message news:403109a9...@news.telusplanet.net...
>
>> I'm sorry. I should have said, "If they want to keep Lex, and refrain
>> from being goofy"
>
>Lex on that Island was pretty darn goofy. If over-the-top implausible
>is goofy, then surviving that crash at all qualifies.
Plenty of people have survived plane crashes.
>
>There are always options. If you frame it as a binary -- Lex lives or
>Lex dies -- then of course you can say it's limited to one of those two.
>But within the preferred Lex Lives category there are probably dozens
>of ways it could have been done. Lionel Luthor laughing his ass off as
>he enters the flight simulator was raised as a possibility at the time, and
>that might have been the highlight of this season had they done it that
>way.
Too frivolous for Lionel.
>
>Or a promoted appearance by Wonder Woman who saves him. :-)
Outside the bounds of their licensing deal.
Richard
<geno_...@tin.it> wrote in message
news:gkr230tonfcikjhh0...@4ax.com...
more realistic than the
> movies with Reeve's, even thanks to higher quality special effects
available nowadays.
That has to be one of the funniest things I've read recently.
Ultra-realistic, that's rich. Keep 'em coming.
KalElFan
<geno_...@tin.it> wrote in message news:gkr230tonfcikjhh0...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 18:32:49 -0500, "KalElFan" <KalE...@scifipi.com> wrote:
[snip an example I gave to David Johnston of another way Lex might have
been saved from the plane crash in the Smallville season 3 premiere]
> >Or a promoted appearance by Wonder Woman who saves him. :-)
> >Goofy, yes, but it would have drawn viewers. And it also might have
> >been the highlight of this season.
>
> You're too much comics-minded.
No, these days I specialize in railing against modern comics, and I just
got through saying that Brainiac wouldn't work well in this series so I
understand what you're saying here to a point:
> What might be considered acceptable in a comic it's simply silly in a
> live-action version and would kill the show completely.
A few things here. Lois & Clark drew as many as 22+ million viewers
"despite" the spandex and very silly villains. The drawing potential of
a new Wonder Woman series on the WB, if they were to do one this
Fall, is easily higher than what Smallville is drawing now. One of the
key things about such series when they're at their best is that they're
*fun*. The drawing potential of fun is much higher than the drawing
potential of an unrelentingly dark, angst-ridden, "realistic" crapfest
which is what Smallville has been for too much of season 3.
One might also ask how everything from over-the-top cliffhangers
to Split-in-Two Boy and the like fits into your perception of Smallville
as realistic. But I won't, conceding instead that I understand your
point that Adam West's Batman and Burt Ward's Robin would be
inappropriate new supporting cast members to drop into the middle
of Smallville next season. But...
I didn't say the appearance would be ultra-cheesy, or cost a fortune.
In the context of Lex's scenario -- the ridiculously over-the-top
cliffhanger, crashing over the South Pacific -- it would have been a
safe opportunity to do a one-shot, off-the-wall ratings gimmick
with big upside and little downside. Lex is back in Metropolis a
few scenes or an episode later, he cracks a joke about it perhaps,
and the core Smallville environment is untarnished. It's been a
little bit of fun, a vacation for the viewers from the normal routine,
and they can return to the <cough> realism of Split-in-Two Boy.
WW herself would have to be set up in the episode, e.g., as
Diana witnessing the plane going down. A whoosh and then a
lasso and the cabin is broken open and Lex is pulled out just
before the plane impacts and explodes. Perhaps he knows of
Wonder Woman, who's played serious by the actress so none
of this comes off as campy, just fun and something different.
Banter exchanged and the yacht she was on when she spotted
the plane arrives. Maybe Lex hitches a ride part-way back
home, and there's another scene or two with a bit of "where's
Diana?" secret ID shtick from some others on the yacht.
I have no doubt it would have worked, and got a lot of free
press and drawn very well. Could Smallville not have used
that this season?
In fact I'll continue showing off here and throw out one of the
mega-million dollar ideas for the WB. Came to me a couple of
days ago, when I was thinking about how they'd need replacement
programming in the Smallville timeslot this Fall, if Smallville doesn't
premiere until January. Ideally something compatible/synergistic,
and of course a huge-drawing and cheap-to-produce reality show
would be quite nice thank you.
WHO WANTS TO BE WONDER WOMAN?
10++ million viewers on the WB this Fall, Wednesdays at 8.
10,000+ applications between now and then, from known
and unknown actresses. No superstars, because the prize
is being cast as the Iconic Female Superhero in a guest spot
on -- wait for it -- Smallville first, and then a two-hour movie
on the WB. No promises on a series, but you never know.
Not big enough for Catherine Zeta-Jones, but that MACO
babe from Enterprise last week really needs to be there. :-)
The hoopla surrounding it will be bigger than anything the WB
has ever had. Perhaps Lynda Carter's one of the judges, along with the
director who'll be doing the movie and a couple of cast members from
Smallville.
There's the how's-the-costume-look competition of course, but Diana/WW
have to be intelligent too. They have to be able to find the Amazon
on a map. :-) Their voice is important. Can they act? Are they
athletic? What's their WW IQ? Better than mine I hope. And
of course the thing that may really seal the deal: Lasso Wielding.
The viewers will of course have a role in this, along with the
judges. Imagine the Usenet threads and USA Today articles
on the race issue -- should there be Black and Asian contestants?
I say absolutely, and it's my idea so that should count for something. :-)
And the winner's first appearance on Smallville? 10++ million viewers.
It'll play very well in Italy too, Geno.
Now you Cynical Usenet Naysayers out there, do tell us how much
this sucks and wouldn't draw. Form a line, all ye reading who'd never
watch, never even take a peek.
Liars. :-))
So now you're an executive working for the WB. After cursing that
something like this has to appear in a KalElFan Usenet post, what
do you do? :-)
--
Anthony Michael ("And Moderately Priced" :-)) Walsh
ANIM8Rfsk
<< > Smallville has been started as an ultra-realistic version of Superman,
more realistic than the
> movies with Reeve's, even thanks to higher quality special effects
available nowadays.
That has to be one of the funniest things I've read recently.
Ultra-realistic, that's rich. Keep 'em coming. >>
That IS scary, isn't it?
Robert Goodman
> Lex on that Island was pretty darn goofy. If over-the-top implausible
> is goofy, then surviving that crash at all qualifies.
> But within the preferred Lex Lives category there are probably dozens
> of ways it could have been done.
The way I preferred is still possible, and is something that others also
have suspected -- that Lex is unbreakable. Google alt.tv.smallville for
what I & others have written about that.
David Johnston
<rob...@bestweb.net> wrote:
>"KalElFan" <KalE...@scifipi.com> wrote in message
>news:c0rk6j$1ab48l$2...@ID-53145.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
>> Lex on that Island was pretty darn goofy. If over-the-top implausible
>> is goofy, then surviving that crash at all qualifies.
>
>> But within the preferred Lex Lives category there are probably dozens
>> of ways it could have been done.
>
>The way I preferred is still possible, and is something that others also
>have suspected -- that Lex is unbreakable.
It would fit with his super-immune system that he also has a
regenerative power. That could explain his "malaria", his
dementia being the product of severe brain injury which
left him raving. It would also explain his inexplicable
recovery from a procedure that had a high chance
of permanently impairing even when correctly done,
which did not happen thanks to the interference with
the power.
Doug
> (Was "Re: [SV+] Smallville Solution for the WB!" and note crossposts)
>
> <geno_...@tin.it> wrote in message news:gkr230tonfcikjhh0...@4ax.com...
>
> > On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 18:32:49 -0500, "KalElFan" <KalE...@scifipi.com> wrote:
>
> [snip an example I gave to David Johnston of another way Lex might have
> been saved from the plane crash in the Smallville season 3 premiere]
>
> > >Or a promoted appearance by Wonder Woman who saves him. :-)
> > >Goofy, yes, but it would have drawn viewers. And it also might have
> > >been the highlight of this season.
> >
> > You're too much comics-minded.
>
> No, these days I specialize in railing against modern comics, and I just
> got through saying that Brainiac wouldn't work well in this series so I
> understand what you're saying here to a point:
I actually find myself enjoying some comics nowadays, given an almost
20 year hiatus.
> > What might be considered acceptable in a comic it's simply silly in a
> > live-action version and would kill the show completely.
>
> A few things here. Lois & Clark drew as many as 22+ million viewers
> "despite" the spandex and very silly villains. The drawing potential of
> a new Wonder Woman series on the WB, if they were to do one this
> Fall, is easily higher than what Smallville is drawing now. One of the
> key things about such series when they're at their best is that they're
> *fun*. The drawing potential of fun is much higher than the drawing
> potential of an unrelentingly dark, angst-ridden, "realistic" crapfest
> which is what Smallville has been for too much of season 3.
A new version of the character that's "Wonder Woman meets Xena:
Warrior Princess" might actually work, given the WW character's
backstory.
I wouldn't have done Lex's meeting the way you've set it up, but a
guest shot is an interesting idea.
The problem as I see it is that the way Smallville is set up is that
all of the classic Superman stuff is occurring in the town because of
the meteor shower. To me that's the most innovative thing about this
show. As such, there's no reason why Braniac (or any of the other
usual suspects from Superman's rogue's gallery) can't be spawned in
Smallville. They'd be different from their comic cunterparts, but
that's fine by me. Wonder Woman would be an exception to this rule.
(As far as I know -- I've seen less than a third of the episodes, so I
could be wrong.)
Doug
KalElFan
[re my reality series proposal for the WB in the thread title]
> Putting something in a Usenet post guarantees that it will not be used.
False. I could give you at least a half dozen examples of specific
"somethings", just Superman-related, where "it" has been used. But
in an effort to make the best restatement of your assertion I can:
"Putting something substantive and specific enough in a Usenet post,
that cannot be reverse-engineered in a way that affords plausible
deniability of its source, virtually guarantees that it will not be used
unless a direct agreement is reached between the author and user."
I'd be interested to hear if you disagree with that restatement (e.g.,
if you think one of the qualifications I've added is unnecessary) and
why. How you got your mistaken impression is interesting to me
(e.g., you just thought that's the way it is, somebody who you think
knows told you that's true, or whatever).
> Blame the lawyers.
You've identified nothing to blame anyone for so far, let alone the
lawyers who can actually be quite accommodating. They're there to
advise their clients/employers, not decide what gets used or doesn't
get used, or what gets considered or doesn't get considered. In fact
I could give you at least two or three specific personal examples
relevant to the kind of proposal you see in this thread, that illustrate
it really depends on the circumstances.
But back to this proposal. It is unique in terms of the content and
the way I've done it. Normally, I don't post something that I think
has high generic and adaptable value (e.g., something that I have
the free-and-clear rights to but someone could easily reverse-
engineer on me). At first I thought this proposal might be that. But I
tried to think of other iconic female characters that might work. The
two best candidates I could come up with were Buffy (a hypothetical
Whedon sequel) and Supergirl (for the same kind of thing as my
WW proposal -- Smallville guest spot, movie and possible series.)
And of those three, I'm quite certain that Wonder Woman is by
far the one most conducive to launching this. I'd recommend the
Buffy and/or Supergirl ones as follow-ups, but I don't think either
of those would create the broad-based, life-of-its-own hoopla
Wonder Woman would. The other two could make it on a
smaller scale I think, but WW is the only one that could make
it work in that on-the-WB, 10+ million viewer range I mentioned.
Probably 20+ million on any of the Big 3 networks.
I tried to think beyond the genre as well, but if you think about
non-genre iconic female characters that would trigger highly-rated
versions of this show proposal, you come up almost empty.
--
Anthony Michael Walsh
KalElFan
> On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 18:32:49 -0500, "KalElFan" <KalE...@scifipi.com>
> wrote:
> >... a promoted appearance by Wonder Woman...
>
> Outside the bounds of their licensing deal.
Though I've read several times in the past that the estate of the creator of
Wonder Woman has considerable control over that property, and it isn't
one that DC Comics can just do whatever they want with -- why should
this be an insurmountable obstacle? Is the controlling estate not in a position
to license a guest spot, or a TV movie for the WB, if they saw merit in that?
Are such rights tied up or bogged down a la the way Spider-Man was
for years? I'd never read that they were.
David Johnston
wrote:
>"David Johnston" <rgorma...@telusplanet.net> wrote in message news:40316e9d....@news.telusplanet.net...
>
>> On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 18:32:49 -0500, "KalElFan" <KalE...@scifipi.com>
>> wrote:
>
>> >... a promoted appearance by Wonder Woman...
>>
>> Outside the bounds of their licensing deal.
>
>Though I've read several times in the past that the estate of the creator of
>Wonder Woman has considerable control over that property, and it isn't
>one that DC Comics can just do whatever they want with -- why should
>this be an insurmountable obstacle? Is the controlling estate not in a position
>to license a guest spot, or a TV movie for the WB, if they saw merit in that?
Sure they are. But only if the WB is prepared to pony up more cash.
They aren't in business just for fun, you know.
KalElFan
Well, as long as that's clear. There's no obstacle, except the normal license
fee negotiation. And in combination with the reality series and TV movie
as well as guest spot on Smallville, the WW creator's estate would stand
to make a good buck and gain huge publicity for the character. I don't
see why a deal couldn't be done. (Maybe at the time, for a one-shot guest
appearance on Smallvlle only, they'd have priced themselves out of the
market.)
Len-L
Smallville people to use this idea? Or are you just lobbing it out there
on Usenet with the hope that someone connected to the show will see it
and think "That's a great idea! But we'll have to pay this fellow to use
it. I wonder if he would settle for 50,000 dollars?"
Or do you just have a lot of time on your hands?
Len-L
KalElFan
> Do I understand, then, that you are actively trying to get the
> Smallville people to use this idea?
No, the entity this proposal would be addressed to would be the
WB network. It's the reality show concept that's really at the core
of the proposal. I've described that with reasonable specificity, i.e.:
There's the concept of casting a specific iconic female genre role (at
least initially, I'd argue iconic male roles are a logical extension of that in
terms of whatever rights exist). The specific casting is done through
the reality series, making that series a ratings draw in itself. The prize
is a movie and/or series where the winner plays that role (the Smallville
guest spot in this case is just an add-on that reflects my desire to have
Smallville get cross-promoted and benefit). The movie and/or scripted
series is cross-promoted in advance -- people watch the reality show
to see who'll be the new iconic character, and they watch the movie and/
or scripted series later to see the winning actor play that role. I described
the kind of content that would vary a bit to suit each role: knowledge of
the character, looking the part, voice and acting skills and athleticism
and so on. The kinds of judges -- prior actors in the role, the director,
others affiliated with the genre or cross-marketed properties, and those
viewing at home vote as well. And I specifically mentioned Buffy and
Supergirl along with Wonder Woman as being the three most suitable
iconic female genre characters for the reality show.
So it's fairly well defined, and would be difficult to reverse engineer
and still have the same effectiveness and synergy. "Star Search" and
talent type shows are a dime a dozen and anyone can do those, but
a big part of the hook here is the specific casting of the iconic role
and the built-in synergy.
> Or are you just lobbing it out there on Usenet with the hope that
> someone connected to the show will see it and think "That's a
> great idea!
Again, it's the WB that would be the entity this gets proposed to.
Ultimately, they control the life and death of Smallville, and by
design I'd like Smallville to be the cross-promoted beneficiary
of this. But depending on how things Smallville get between now
and this Fall, the "prize" of a guest spot may be less attractive
or even moot. The WW reality series would still have the same
huge potential IMO, and other versions could follow. My heart
just wouldn't be in it as much, but I'll keep whatever bucks I
make from my creative genius. :-)
> But we'll have to pay this fellow to use it. I wonder if he would
> settle for 50,000 dollars?"
That's a nice round number that brings back memories, but it's
a fraction of the worth of this proposal. The WB will stand to
make 8 figures in profit, easy, from this. So fair compensation
would actually be much higher than that, but not only am I not
looking to get rich I'm willing to sign a release (again!) to show
good faith. I've had material read by divisions of Warner Bros.
twice before (and they were willing to look at things a couple
of other times but I never followed up). So hopefully they'll be
interested in looking at this.
But of course they could also ignore me. Shred the fax I sent to
one Time Warner executive's machine out there in Burbank this
morning (their time). It's not the proposal and not to The WB
per se yet, it's to a legal person there I dealt with before, and
intended to pave the way (i.e., get a release signed) for the
next step.
If they ignore or shred the fax though, there won't be all
those mega-million bucks and ratings through the roof.
They'll be cutting off their lassos to spite their tiaras... or
something like that. :-)
KalElFan
> >From: geno_...@tin.it
>
> >What they should do is to reveal what seems to be hidden, that Reeve's
> >appearance is that of a Superman of another dimension... [snippage]
> >
> >That would be a great way to ensure higher ratings for the show, no?
> No, it wouldn't. That's exactly the kind of convoluted writing that turns
> off the average TV viewer.
>
> As a Star Trek producer once said, "If we only wrote ST for the hard-
> core ST fans, the only audience we'd have would be hard-core ST fans."
>
> The same holds true for Smallville or any comics-based series.
Geno's in Italy based on his domain suffix, and so I think we should give
him a bit of break in terms of the context of what he says. For example
a few people railed at his "realistic" point. There's no reason to assume
he meant the show is literally realistic, just that it's no-tights, no-flights
and avoids the camp of the old Batman series or the villains in Lois &
Clark and so on. He saw my suggested Wonder Woman popping into
the show like Lynda Carter's version, maybe paying a visit to the Torch
or something, and completely altering the established tone of the show.
Likewise, I snipped part of what he said above, elaborating on his
main suggestion that Reeve's Dr. Swann could be revealed as an
alternate Superman, injured in a kryptonite accident or attack. In
fact he could be THE Superman from the movie series if they wanted
to do it that way (they've already got the rights to the music). It
would not be difficult to establish the concept of a multiverse in
Smallville, and it's been done in other genre shows many times.
The Mirror Universe eps of Star Trek were not just popular with
Star Trek fanatics, Pat. This is mainstream genre stuff, and I think
that core idea -- that THE Superman for a generation still is that
in this character -- would be hugely popular and a big marketing
boost if done right. Doesn't have to happen his next appearance,
but there's no reason the Mysterious Dr. Swann could not be that.
> Frankly, Kal-el Fan's "plans" for the series are a recipe for disaster. You
> don't build an audience by disappearing from the airwaves for eight months.
It'd actually be off for 10 months if it goes on hiatus after #16,
but think of how much differently the whole series will be
perceived when it comes back, as part of this proposal.
Getting it on hiatus is good damage control in and of itself given
season 3's problems, but you also have the commitment to come
back with an even better season 4, led off by Reeve, running for
22-straight weeks (the "better way to watch television). AND
with this Wonder Woman casting show you'd have the Smallville
judges and a highly-rated cross-promotion in that Smallville time-
slot all this Fall. It's a perfect fit. Then the WW guest spot during
season 4, played by the winning actress, not to mention other
creative marketing hooks (Homage to Superman Month, etc.)
that can be better planned and developed during the hiatus.
People will be SALIVATING for season 4 at the beginning of
January. There'll be cross-promotion and free publicity up the
wazoo, and a huge influx of new viewers giving the show a shot
in the arm. The most damaging elements of season 3 will be a
distant (not to mention repaired if they're smart!) memory.
So it won't be out-of-sight out-of-mind at all, it'll be absence
makes the heart grow fonder. Other HBO shows do it, and
we can wait almost 5 months now anyway, plus the annoying
breaks.
DomDawes
<< Likewise, I snipped part of what he said above, elaborating on his main
suggestion that Reeve's Dr. Swann could be revealed as an alternate Superman,
injured in a kryptonite accident or attack. In
fact he could be THE Superman from the movie series if they wanted to do it
that way (they've already got the rights to the music). It would not be
difficult to establish the concept of a multiverse in Smallville, and it's been
done in other genre shows many times.
The Mirror Universe eps of Star Trek were not just popular with Star Trek
fanatics, Pat. This is mainstream genre stuff, and I think that core idea --
that THE Superman for a generation still is that
in this character -- would be hugely popular and a big marketing boost if done
right. Doesn't have to happen his next appearance, but there's no reason the
Mysterious Dr. Swann could not be that.<<
The syndicated SUPERBOY series also did a multiverse two-parter with the Golden
Age Superman (Ron Ely, who also played Tarzan and Doc Savage) and a toddler
Kal-El along with the teen-aged Kal-El.
The series also featured an appearance by ex-James Bond George Lazenby as
Jor-El, wearing Marlon Brando's costume!
-D
Podkayne Fries
wrote:
>But of course they could also ignore me. Shred the fax I sent to
>one Time Warner executive's machine out there in Burbank this
>morning (their time). It's not the proposal and not to The WB
>per se yet, it's to a legal person there I dealt with before, and
>intended to pave the way (i.e., get a release signed) for the
>next step.
>
>If they ignore or shred the fax though, there won't be all
>those mega-million bucks and ratings through the roof.
>They'll be cutting off their lassos to spite their tiaras... or
>something like that. :-)
Are you really serious, or is this a long, contrived troll by someone
who should have moved out of his mother's basement years ago?
--
Regards, Podkayne Fries
Born to count beans.
KalElFan
> >From: "KalElFan" KalE...@scifipi.com
>
> >People will be SALIVATING for season 4 at the beginning of
> >January.
>
> No they wouldn't be... After ten months, the vast TV audience
> would have moved on to other things.
You're in simple re-assertion mode Pat, without any facts or
argument at all to back it up
Successful HBO shows are off for that long, hugely successful
reality shows have been off for that long, and almost every show
is off for close to half that long. Reunion shows have been known
to draw huge, Millionaire with Regis is coming back next week
after a few years and should do well. Star Wars came back after
15+ years and people flocked to it. People are always saying
Star Trek needs a break to allow demand to come back.
There's just no basis or evidence at all for your assertion, even
as a general statement. Five months, a year, two years, fifteen
years can all work but 10 months can't? The maxim "absence
makes the heart grow fonder" and the concept of building pent-
up demand have been disproven?
And of course you're ignoring the state of a show at any given
time, and the reality craze kicking scripted series ass, and the
things that can be done during the hiatus to improve things, and
the 22-straight episodes that people can gear up for once the
hiatus is over, leading off with the Reeve episode. Even if your
assertion had any general truth to it (it doesn't), you ought to be
able to see that there's a lot more to it than that.
KalElFan
> KalE...@scifipi.com sez...
> >Likewise, I snipped part of what he said above, elaborating on his main
> >suggestion that Reeve's Dr. Swann could be revealed as an alternate Superman,
> >injured in a kryptonite accident or attack...
> The syndicated SUPERBOY series also did a multiverse two-parter
> with the Golden Age Superman (Ron Ely...
Yep, I missed most eps of that series, but people often mention that.
These kinds of stories, like the Mirror Universe in Star Trek, are
memorable, and there's nothing complex at all about the concept.
Virtually anyone watching this genre gets it. There can and should
be a coherent and useful structure to it for hard-core fans and writers,
but on-screen it wouldn't get into any of that.
KalElFan
> On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 18:58:38 -0500, "KalElFan" <KalE...@scifipi.com>
> wrote:
>
> >But of course they could also ignore me. Shred the fax I sent to
> >one Time Warner executive's machine out there in Burbank this
> >morning (their time)...
> >
> >If they ignore or shred the fax though, there won't be all
> >those mega-million bucks and ratings through the roof.
> >They'll be cutting off their lassos to spite their tiaras... or
> >something like that. :-)
>
> Are you really serious, or is this a long, contrived troll...
"Are those the only choices?" -- Chicken Run
Thanks for popping in Podkayne. I wasn't intending to troll
the Cynical Usenet Naysayers so much as I was making the
point they'd almost all be watching this reality series too.
I'm not sure I ever get "really serious" about anything, but did
I really send that fax to Warner Bros.? Yes. Do I think -- in
fact am I absolutely certain -- that this reality series would draw
as huge as I've said for the WB? Yes.
Now while I have you here, a general and specific question for
you. First the general one, seriously and with a bit of a preamble.
1. Your question suggests incredulity, which is great. It just
reinforces that what I've proposed couldn't be easily conceived
of. That perception works in my favor if someone else were
to come forward saying "Oh, but I came up with that same nutty
idea first!". Anyway, beyond "That's the stupidest thing I've ever
heard!" and personal slams and the like, why do you think it
wouldn't not only work, but be as successful as I've said?
2. The specific question -- would you personally watch or not?
(If you aren't in the U.S. with access to the WB, assume you
are or can see it at more or less the same time.)
I've never been much of a Wonder Woman fan personally. I
watched the Lynda Carter series occasionally and read a few of
the comics as a kid. But I recognize just about everyone in the
world is aware of her. There's no way I could stay away from
a reality series that cast that role, and involved viewers in that
decision. Think about it. Everyone has an opinion on who would
be a good or bad Batman or Superman or anything else. It's
discussed all the time, not just here in cyberspace but around
water coolers everywhere. For an iconic character like that,
people will watch in very big numbers. You can't risk a $200
million movie on that casting approach, but a TV movie/pilot,
sure you can. In fact it's a great way to test the viability of it.
I've never watched a full episode of the first Buffy, but I'd be
there for the Buffy version of this. Probably thinking Eliza Dushku
but maybe some other actress or new actress would persuade me.
And once the winner was announced, chosen in part by viewers,
I'd watch the movie/pilot and the series too. A lot of people will
who otherwise wouldn't have enough interest in it, because they'd
feel an investment in the show and the star.
Can you see the appeal here, and how the psychology of it will
work? The show itself is important. It has to be fun with off-the-
wall stuff like that lasso wielding, and there'll have to be a bit of
the Acerbic Judges thing going on with virtually scripted jokes.
But they'd also have screen test competitions where different
kinds of mock scenes get played out and the judges and viewers
can assess that. 10+ million would watch this on the WB, easy.
There'll be wide mass-media publicity right after the announcement,
indicating how/where to apply and so on.
> by someone who should have moved out of his mother's basement
> years ago?
Good line! But you shouldn't have given away something original like
that on Usenet. Every consider writing for TV? :-)
David B.
He's serious I'm afraid.
ANIM8Rfsk
<< > Are you really serious, or is this a long, contrived troll by someone
> who should have moved out of his mother's basement years ago?
He's serious I'm afraid. >>
Although that doesn't negate the 'mother's basement' likelihood.
Kevin Robinson
>
> "Are those the only choices?" -- Chicken Run
>
KANGA RACING! There Must be KANGA RACING!
Too bad you can't take it to one of WW's former networks,
CBS. I'd watch SURVIVOR: PARADISE ISLAND.
C'mon, naysayers, it'd be fun. Much like the Amazon
tournament from All-Star Comics #8!
Kevin
KalElFan
> He's serious I'm afraid.
Don't be afraid, David. I won't expose your secret -- how you blend
in here with the indigenous population, when in truth your real agenda
is... deeply ironic in ways you probably don't even recognize. :-)
Not that your answer would ever reflect more than your finger-in-the-
wind assessment, but I'll offer the same two-question challenge to you
I did to Podkayne. Why do you think it wouldn't not only work, but
be every bit as successful as I said? And are you saying you wouldn't
even take a peek?
KalElFan
> "KalElFan" <KalE...@scifipi.com> wrote in message
news:<c13pue$1dsoo3$3...@ID-53145.news.uni-berlin.de>...
> > It has to be fun with off-the-wall stuff like that lasso wielding,
> > and there'll have to be a bit of
>
> KANGA RACING! There Must be KANGA RACING!
No Kanga Racing. At least until it's explained to me what it is,
and why Wonder Woman needs to be skilled in it, as she must
be in lasso wielding. :-)
> Too bad you can't take it to one of WW's former networks,
> CBS.
Well I could actually, if you think about the dynamics here. The
reality show concept and description, and even the suggestion
that the initial iconic role should be Wonder Woman, do not
require the WB at all unless there is some restriction on "all WW
TV-related rights" that we don't know about. (If there were such
restrictions, they might just as likely involve CBS having first dibs
on the Wonder-Woman-specific show, as Time Warner. Maybe
someone here would know.)
From DC's point of view as trademark holder (I was reading up a
bit on this yesterday), and assuming Marston's estate/agreement
doesn't have most of the control and benefit from TV rights, they'd
want to make the best buck they could. CBS's viewership potential
is greater, so in theory there's more dollars in doing the reality show
with them. CBS might also see the Wonder Woman TV movie
coming out of the reality series as having significant ratings potential,
even if they didn't think a series would draw as well as they require.
Think what you will about my chances of success, but I'd probably
also stand to make a better buck if I could get one of the big three
networks interested in the concept. There's no reason I had
to conceive of it the way I have for the WB, and offer it to them
first. And I didn't because of the WB per se, it was because I
think it would be a great boost to Smallville in the process and
fit better there because of that.
>I'd watch SURVIVOR: PARADISE ISLAND.
They had a Survivor with that title didn't they, or something
very close? And there was a Paradise Island in the WW
story? There might be a good Copyright 101 and Trademark
101 example here -- i.e., of what rights are NOT conveyed
through a name like that.
I liked jayembee's (I think it was) quip -- "Amazonian Idol" -- better.
I bet the press might adopt that for the first incarnation of this show,
even though 'Who Wants to Be... [Wonder Woman or other role]" is
clearly the official form it should take. The Survivor and the Idol
shows, and Bachelor, and this Apprentice show (the latter probably
the closest to any I'd consider watching regularly in terms of the
concept) all have their own shtick for lack of a better one-word
description of it. And I think that conveys a certain amount of
rights protection to each of them.
The shtick I've described, the concept and the various details,
also convey rights in my view. It's distinct from all those other
shows in at least as much respect as they are from each other,
and also distinct from general Star Search or talent type shows.
The last point you made I plan to respond to in a separate post
later.
Kevin Robinson
> KalE...@scifipi.com wrote:
>
> >"Kevin Robinson" <kev...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> >news:3be3f335.04022...@posting.google.com...
> >
> >> "KalElFan" <KalE...@scifipi.com> wrote in message
> >news:<c13pue$1dsoo3$3...@ID-53145.news.uni-berlin.de>...
> >
> >> > It has to be fun with off-the-wall stuff like that lasso wielding,
> >> > and there'll have to be a bit of
> >>
> >> KANGA RACING! There Must be KANGA RACING!
>
>
> >No Kanga Racing. At least until it's explained to me what it is,
> >and why Wonder Woman needs to be skilled in it, as she must
> >be in lasso wielding. :-)
>
> like giant kangaroos, but without the long tails. Think they were mostly an
> element of the Golden Age, but may have lasted into the Silver Age.
"Wonder Woman and the Coming of the Kangas" (Wonder Woman)
/ by Charles Moulton ; H.G. Peter. 12 p. in Wonder Woman,
no. 23 (May/June 1947)
> As for "why"...if you have to ask...
>
> >>I'd watch SURVIVOR: PARADISE ISLAND.
> >
> >They had a Survivor with that title didn't they, or something
> >very close?
Fox TV did a cheesy "Paradise Island" show. Concept:
"Who wants to cheat on their sweetie?" Pure trash.
>> And there was a Paradise Island in the WW
> >story?
> You're kidding about asking if there was a Paradise Island, right? (Just say
> "Yes, I'm kidding" and move on...)
Perhaps he only knows the Amazons' home as Themyscira. Newbies! :)
The idea of a tournament to pick WW is right out
of the first Golden Age story, and was repeated in
subsequent stories through the decades. While using
this method to pick the lead actress of a film or series
is clever, it is also obvious to anyone who has read
enough of the old comics, and turned their TV on in the
last five years. [Yeah, obvious now that KAF has mentioned it...]
It certainly bears hell out of all the fanwanks about which
actress should play Diana. The first series did a good job
with a relative unknown. I'd be happy if they went that route
and got anywhere near the same results.
Kevin
KalElFan
> The idea of a tournament to pick WW is right out of the
> first Golden Age story...
I thought that's what you might be getting at and I'm pleased
you've confirmed it. The supposedly "plausible" ways to
arrive at something like this, after the fact, often emerge.
Thanks for the "obvious NOW" point, and saying later
that you wouldn't mind seeing this way of casting the role.
But on the old comic tournament, even if it wasn't shoulda
coulda and too late it still wouldn't work.
The context of "well, in issue X they had this competition
to see which Amazon became Wonder Woman" is very
different from the context of casting an actress for the
role. It'd be like reading a sports book of some sort that
had a competition, and jumping to the idea of casting in
a reality series to make the movie about it.
A person's thought process just isn't wired that way. They
would have to break through the fourth wall to even START
to get from here to there. I think it might have to literally be
a crazy person who thinks there is or should be a real
Wonder Woman, for them to make that leap. It's easy
to see all kinds of comparisons like this afterwards, but
they wouldn't emerge beforehand.
Even if someone ever did make that astonishingly implausible
jump, they'd immediately and almost subconsciously dismiss
it with "well, that's just not the way casting is done... they do
casting calls and producers decide that... they're investing tens
or hundreds of millions of dollars so of course they decide
that..."
So the claim would not be credible, certainly not after the fact
of my posting it, and it still wouldn't explain the "coincidental"
built-in synergy and other elements that they'd need in their
proposal to make it most effective.
Producer types, same kind of problem but from the other
side. They can and have thought "Star Search" or the like,
or wannabe a pop star, rock star, porn star or whatever
generic thing you can think of. But they would never think
a specific character like this, because most don't own any.
Even if they owned an iconic character, as the big companies
own several, they'd be thinking "Okay, how can I promote
this character's movie or TV series that I'm making..." From
there they would not say "I know, I'll cast the lead in a reality
show!" They guard their casting authority like gold. It's part
of their power and it would be wrongthink for them to imagine
ways to give it up. They'd just never have made the connection
coming at it from that angle.
The way I came at it, combined with my hyperactive imagination
that can churn out things like that Governor Gorilla stuff I mention
in the next post, made it unique. I was thinking Smallville season
4 in January... they'll need something in that slot for the Fall... how
about a reality show that fit somehow and could support Smallville.
Combined with the WW guest spot thinking -- really a huge fluke
convergence of a lot of things here -- the casting show emerged.
I made the leap by simultaneously thinking about the reality show,
and the WW guest appearance that would draw ratings for Smallville.
Then I added in the other elements and synergy.
And so I assert, and I think I've demonstrated and staked claim
to, ownership of a distinct reality TV show proposal. Copyright
is automatic when you post. On to Governor Gorilla...
KalElFan
[snip Wonder Woman "Kanga" racing citation, which Kevin
added to Vartox's explanation]
Okay, you're a Wonder Woman expert, a comic expert,
and a comic history expert. :-) You might even know more
than Vartox!
As for "Paradise Island", I was 95%+ sure of it as the WW
reference, but the comic incarnations of these characters
change. For example the Diana secret ID was no longer
around back in 2001 according to an article I read the other
day. I'd want that ID in the casting series, e.g., to look at
acting ability as Diana as well as WW in the mock scenes.
I think the TV movie should have it too, but creatively the
movie's a completely separate issue from the reality casting
series.
As for "Themyscira", though I've run across that name in
posts talking about Wonder Woman I did not know it was
the Modern Age equivalent of Paradise Island I take it.
Feel free to correct that, but the main point is I'm not
particularly knowledgeable about WW as I said in the
earlier post(s). I know more than the average person
pulled off the street, but ridiculously less than a lot of
you guys and gals know.
Now, back to what I think are the more interesting parts
of the discussions on this, which relate to the reality show
concept and synergy, and the intellectual property issues.
KalElFan
even if they did like this thing, because they wouldn't want
to be seen as buying stuff off the Internet or more specifically
Usenet..."
Well, too late. Stuff has already been bought off the Internet,
like the Onion. (Usenet is on the web too, just like the Onion.)
Technically they aren't buying off the Internet anyway, if they
look at the proposal in the normal way. I just happen to have
posted it first. I'd argue posting on the Internet is an effective
way to even better protect something that's specific enough
and not easy to reverse engineer. An example...
If anyone here sends a letter or fax to any studio or producer,
saying "I have a great idea for an animated or CGI TV series --
it's about a talking monkey who becomes mayor of Minneapolis",
then whether they've posted it on Usenet or not a reply will
almost certainly come back something like "Your letter/fax has
been returned unopened/unread..."
Several years later you could find yourself staring at the
Fall schedule and seeing "Governor Gorilla" on it, wherein
a talking gorilla has been elected governor of Utah. They
wouldn't be able to do that either now that I've posted it.
In my posting to protect the original material, I've been
able to effectively broaden it and pre-empt effective reverse
engineering attempts.
They could have some other animal take public office, but
Governor Gorilla has a ring to it and after I dreamed it up
I checked to see if I could find any Google references on
the web or Usenet. I couldn't. So I'll stop there. In fact
I'll specifically grant "President Porcupine" to the public
domain. :-) Governor Gorilla is mine.
If Matt Groening pitched them Governor Gorilla as his next
animated project after the Simpsons, using it to lampoon
politics and government among other things, it would sell.
Even if he'd posted it first on the Internet someplace. In
fact he could probably start a bidding war if he wanted to.
Anthony Michael Walsh aka KalElFan... well, not so
much. :-) But I'm a published writer in the business
field and I've had material read by them before, and I
didn't just dump the proposal on them (which always
gets it returned). I requested permission to submit an
unspecified proposal to the WB that I believe will be
very valuable to them, offering to sign a release or do
so through an agent.
All the WB has to do is say "sure, we'll take a look" like
Warner Bros. has in the past. "Officially" <nudge nudge
wink wink>, they don't know anything about this yet. Then
when they see it, and if they buy it, the way that I've done
it here will almost certainly become news. "Internet geek
sells 'Who Wants to Be Wonder Woman' reality TV series
pitch designed to involve fandom in the casting process yada
yada'. And I'll write up some quotes they can pull off my
website so they don't have to bother me repeatedly. :-)
But if they say no, I'll take the concept to the wider market.
Helen of Troy and Hercules. Public domain characters, the
mythical most beautiful woman in the world, and the Superman
of Greek Mythology. Helen's already cast in Troy this summer
but any network could do a Greek Mythology TV movie. A
"re-imagining" as they say, and who wouldn't watch that reality
series on... let's say CBS... that cast Hercules? Or Helen of
Troy, for the big TV mini coming the following year. Maybe
new actors only apply for those.
Any network can do a Hercules movie, but this reality show
casting proposal, which would provide great synergy and
support for it, would cause them problems now that it's out
here. So this has value, especially when you consider that the
concept works for more than one iconic character, some of
which are public domain.
I'd be willing to sell this proposal to the WB for a whole lot
less than the mega-millions it's worth. In fact, I'll commit
right here -- but only to the WB, and only if they use best
efforts to have the first incarnation of this used in the way
I've described, to support Smallville -- that their total cost,
through all future iterations of this reality show, no matter
how high the ratings are and how much dough they're raking
in, will be less than 7 figures to me (though that is US! :-)).
So that the communications or negotiations I might have
with them, or any future parties who might be interested,
don't play out in a Usenet thread after they start, I'm
going to limit it to the general discussions from here.
DomDawes
<< If anyone here sends a letter or fax to any studio or producer, saying "I
have a great idea for an animated or CGI TV series -- it's about a talking
monkey who becomes mayor of Minneapolis",
then whether they've posted it on Usenet or not a reply will almost certainly
come back something like "Your letter/fax has been returned unopened/unread..."
Several years later you could find yourself staring at the Fall schedule and
seeing "Governor Gorilla" on it, wherein a talking gorilla has been elected
governor of Utah. They wouldn't be able to do that either now that I've posted
it. In my posting to protect the original material, I've been able to
effectively broaden it and pre-empt effective reverse
engineering attempts.
They could have some other animal take public office, but Governor Gorilla has
a ring to it and after I dreamed it up I checked to see if I could find any
Google references on
the web or Usenet. I couldn't. So I'll stop there. In fact I'll specifically
grant "President Porcupine" to the public domain. :-) Governor Gorilla is
mine.>>
"Governor Gorilla" is a variation on a theme already explored in the comic
strip "Rudy Park", wherein, several months ago, a chimpanzee entered the
California Govenors' race...and won!
Didn't Google THAT up?
Obviously using the wrong search words. ;-)
And, the lawyers for the creator of Rudy Park want a word with you for
plagurism.
Note: just because it's not on the Internet doesn't mean it doesn't already
exist!
Less than 10% of the Library of Congress is digitized. Does that mean the other
90% doesn't exist?
And I'm sure a search thru DC comics stories would come up with something
similar (Remember the "Gorilla Crime Boss of Gotham City"?) DC was BIG on
gorillas in the 50s-60s! There's got to be a mayor or governor somewhere in
there!
You do minimal research and proclaim "NO one's ever done ANYTHING like this
before!"
And then I present a refutation in less than one minute.
Imagine what a large studio with a research staff and in-house lawyers will
come up with!
Ideas are a dime a dozen. Especially one taking an existing idea (the Amazon
competition) and grafting another, already existing element (Reality tv talent
competition), onto it.
-D
KalElFan
> "Governor Gorilla" is a variation on a theme...
A variation on a theme??? That's not what you said in your thread
title. You said Governor Gorilla had been done! Until you can
prove it, he's mine.
> already explored in the comic strip "Rudy Park", wherein,
> several months ago, a chimpanzee entered the California
> Govenors' race...and won!
Well, that's was a chimp not a gorilla, and he was running for
California not already the (three-term!) Governor of Utah,
and my Governor Gorilla is nothing like him I'm sure.
> Didn't Google THAT up?
Google what up? Your irrelevant citations? The string "variations
on a theme"?
> Obviously using the wrong search words. ;-)
No, obviously just understanding what I was searching for. :-)
> And, the lawyers for the creator of Rudy Park want a word with
> you for plagurism.
Bring 'em on! :-) Because they skewered Arnie and California, they
have a copyright monopoly on every simian Governor of every state,
no matter how otherwise dissimilar? You misunderstand copyright.
Rudy Park's lawyers would not. (Not to mention your point later
about DC.)
> Note: just because it's not on the Internet doesn't mean it doesn't already
> exist!
Of course not, and if I was actually contemplating using the title I'd
do a more thorough search. But you miss a logic point here:
> Less than 10% of the Library of Congress is digitized. Does that
> mean the other 90% doesn't exist?
No, but a character named Governor Gorilla, if he existed, would
be much more likely to have at last one mention on the web or
Usenet, than the "10% chance" suggested in the above statistic.
He wouldn't have to have his whole story published, just a
mention.
> And I'm sure a search thru DC comics stories would come up with something
> similar (Remember the "Gorilla Crime Boss of Gotham City"?) DC was BIG on
> gorillas in the 50s-60s! There's got to be a mayor or governor somewhere in
> there!
If there was a Governor Gorilla in there, I think it likely would have appeared
somewhere on the web, but sure that could be. Maybe one of the distinguished
denizens of racdcu can tell us. And then by your argument Rudy Park would
be in trouble (hint: they wouldn't).
> You do minimal research and proclaim "NO one's ever done ANYTHING
> like this before!"
No, that's you completely making up what I proclaimed. I might
name Governor Gorilla's chief political advisor Dom, if it weren't
for my personal ethics prohibiting that kind of bad writer behavior. :-)
> And then I present a refutation in less than one minute.
You've refuted nothing, and it took me less than a minute to come
up with the concept for illustration purposes, fully aware of the
prevalence of talking gorillas. I half expected someone who didn't
understand copyright to claim "you can't do that -- it rips off
Planet of the Apes!"
> Imagine what a large studio with a research staff and in-house lawyers will
> come up with!
They'd have to come up with GOVERNOR GORILLA for starters
Dom. Of course the "might makes right" approach is a factor. They
could have done MAYOR SASQUATCH and sue anybody they like.
But without Governor Gorilla, and absent other copyright violations,
they're sunk. Nobody owns the concept of talking animals, nor
animals in political office. It's just not specific or fleshed out enough.
> Ideas are a dime a dozen.
A favorite saying of some, but false even with respect to simple, good
ideas alone. It's ridiculously false with respect to sufficiently specific
and fleshed out "ideas".
> Especially one taking an existing idea (the Amazon competition)
> and grafting another, already existing element (Reality tv talent
> competition), onto it.
That simple graft would land you in the loony bin as I explained,
because Wonder Woman is not real. Someone would have to
have jumped the fourth wall just for starters, and even then face
a host of problems. Not to mention the other elements and synergy
I described, and personal experience alone suggesting it's never
been done (i.e., we don't have to exhaustively search for reality
TV shows casting specific iconic roles in a synergistic way, by
sifting through the Library of Congress or 50s comic books.)
Anders Tomilsson
> (Was "Re: [SV+] Smallville Solution for the WB!" and note crossposts)
> WHO WANTS TO BE WONDER WOMAN?
> The hoopla surrounding it will be bigger than anything the WB
> has ever had. Perhaps Lynda Carter's one of the judges, along with the
> director who'll be doing the movie and a couple of cast members from
> Smallville.
I'm prepared to be shouted down, but I actually preferred Cathy Lee
Crosby as Wonder Woman (ca. 1974?), even if it was only for a one-time
made for tv movie. Being only twelve at the time, she stirred my
lusty urges. The successor (Ms. Carter) never really did it for me.
DomDawes
>>"Governor Gorilla" is a variation on a theme already explored in the comic
strip "Rudy Park", wherein, several months ago, a chimpanzee entered the
California Govenors' race...and won!
KalE...@scifipi.com hastly proclaims...
<<A variation on a theme??? That's not what you said in your thread title.
You said Governor Gorilla had been done! Until you can
prove it, he's mine.<<
Simian wins goverorship. Subspecies irrelelvant. Basic idea already used...
KalE...@scifipi.com sez...
<<Well, that's was a chimp not a gorilla, and he was running for California not
already the (three-term!) Governor of Utah,
and my Governor Gorilla is nothing like him I'm sure.>>
If you didn't even know he exists, how can you say that?
DomDawes sez...
> Didn't Google THAT up?
KalE...@scifipi.com sez...
>Google what up? Your irrelevant citations? The string "variations on a
theme"?<
Try "ape", "simian", or "monkey" & "governor".
DomDawes sez...
> Obviously using the wrong search words. ;-)
KalE...@scifipi.com sez...
>No, obviously just understanding what I was searching for. :-) <
And trying to avoid, claiming ignorance.
KalE...@scifipi.com sez...
> And, the lawyers for the creator of Rudy Park want a word with you for
plagurism.<
KalE...@scifipi.com sez...
>Bring 'em on! :-) Because they skewered Arnie and California, they have a
copyright monopoly on every simian Governor of every state, no matter how
otherwise dissimilar?<
1) Are you saying that the authors of RUDY PARK are calling Arnie an ape?
2) How many simian governors are there? Face it, son, the "innovative" idea was
already used!
KalE...@scifipi.com sez...
>>You misunderstand copyright.
Rudy Park's lawyers would not. (Not to mention your point later about DC.) <<
If you're referring to the title alone, then you're talking about trademark.
If you're talking about the concept and execution of it, THEN you're talking
about copyright.
Who's misunderstanding now?
KalE...@scifipi.com sez...
>Several years later you could find yourself staring at the Fall schedule and
seeing "Governor Gorilla" on it, wherein a talking gorilla has been elected
governor of Utah. They wouldn't be able to do that either now that I've posted
it. In my posting to protect the original material, I've been able to
effectively broaden it and pre-empt effective reverse engineering attempts.
They could have some other animal take public office, but Governor Gorilla has
a ring to it and after I dreamed it up I checked to see if I could find any
Google references on the web or Usenet. I couldn't. So I'll stop there. In
fact I'll specifically
grant "President Porcupine" to the public domain. :-) Governor Gorilla is
mine.<
Since someone has already done the idea of a simian governor of a US State,
what "reverse engineering could someone do to the concept? It is no longer
original.
All you've done is look for two words together. So all you're looking for is a
trademark, not a copyright.
If you were loking for usage of the concept (which is copyrightable), you'd do
a variety of word combinations.
KalE...@scifipi.com sez...
>Of course not, and if I was actually contemplating using the title I'd do a
more thorough search. But you miss a logic point here:<
And where would you do the search, son?
DomDawes sez...
> Less than 10% of the Library of Congress is digitized. Does that mean the
other 90% doesn't exist?<
KalE...@scifipi.com sez...
>No, but a character named Governor Gorilla, if he existed, would be much more
likely to have at last one mention on the web or Usenet, than the "10% chance"
suggested in the above statistic.
He wouldn't have to have his whole story published, just a mention.<
"Much more likely" doesn't count in a court of law.
DomDawes sez...
> And I'm sure a search thru DC comics stories would come up with something
similar (Remember the "Gorilla Crime Boss of Gotham City"?) DC was BIG on
gorillas in the 50s-60s! There's got to be a mayor or governor somewhere in
there!<
KalE...@scifipi.com sez...
>If there was a Governor Gorilla in there, I think it likely would have
appeared somewhere on the web, but sure that could be. Maybe one of the
distinguished denizens of racdcu can tell us. And then by your argument Rudy
Park would
be in trouble (hint: they wouldn't).<
N
DomDawes sez...
> You do minimal research and proclaim "NO one's ever done ANYTHING like this
before!"<
KalE...@scifipi.com sez...
>No, that's you completely making up what I proclaimed. I might name Governor
Gorilla's chief political advisor Dom, if it weren't for my personal ethics
prohibiting that kind of bad writer behavior. :-)
Actually you said...
>>If anyone here sends a letter or fax to any studio or producer, saying "I
have a great idea for an animated or CGI TV series --it's about a talking
monkey who becomes mayor of Minneapolis",
then whether they've posted it on Usenet or not a reply will almost certainly
come back something like "Your letter/fax has
been returned unopened/unread..."
Several years later you could find yourself staring at the Fall schedule and
seeing "Governor Gorilla" on it, wherein a talking gorilla has been elected
governor of Utah. They wouldn't be able to do that either now that I've posted
it. In my posting to protect the original material, I've been
able to effectively broaden it and pre-empt effective reverse engineering
attempts.<<
Your indication is that the "Governor Gorilla" name AND idea is SO innovative
that any attempt to steal the "idea" from you without due credit will meet with
failure, since the obviously-innovative idea is SO unique that no one could
possibly come up with it.
As to the name "Governor Gorilla", the ONLY way to protect it is to register a
trademark, and see if a legal search turns up any previously-registered claim.
You DID do that, didn't you? ;-)
DomDawes sez...
> And then I present a refutation in less than one minute.<
KalE...@scifipi.com sez...
>You've refuted nothing, and it took me less than a minute to come up with the
concept for illustration purposes, fully aware of the prevalence of talking
gorillas. I half expected someone who didn't
understand copyright to claim "you can't do that -- it rips off Planet of the
Apes!"<
Only someone with no imagination and/or fairly large comics library. ;-)
Since PLANET OF THE APES is not set on present-day Earth, with a single simian
ruling a human-based society, the example is meaningless.
-D
Kevin Robinson
> "Kevin Robinson" <kev...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:3be3f335.04022...@posting.google.com...
>
> [snip Wonder Woman "Kanga" racing citation, which Kevin
> added to Vartox's explanation]
>
> Okay, you're a Wonder Woman expert,
Hardly! While I have read stacks of WW comics, there are
fans WAY more knowledgeable about the Amazon than I am.
I do know where to look this stuff up, though. Just
consider what Michael Fleischer* must have stuck in his
brain.
> a comic expert, and a comic history expert. :-)
Thanks, but again, while I have asepth of knowledge
on these subjects, I am a piker when compared to some.
I don't even have a pony-tail! :)
> You might even know more than Vartox!
Conceivable, but I'd expect he's about the same.
> As for "Paradise Island", I was 95%+ sure of it as the WW
> reference, but the comic incarnations of these characters
> change. For example the Diana secret ID was no longer
> around back in 2001 according to an article I read the other
> day.
> I'd want that ID in the casting series, e.g., to look at
> acting ability as Diana as well as WW in the mock scenes.
> I think the TV movie should have it too, but creatively the
> movie's a completely separate issue from the reality casting
> series.
Today's WW is still "Diana, Princess of Themyscira,"
and has had stories where, for one reason or another,
she worked regular jobs in "Man's World." I don't recall
if the "Diana Prince" name has been used, other than as
an informal alias. Even if the new show or movie doesn't
use a secret ID, WW would sometimes have to work undercover,
so having scenes of the actresses in civilian clothes -
but not too many of them! - and keeping their "true nature"
secret would be apt.
> As for "Themyscira", though I've run across that name in
> posts talking about Wonder Woman I did not know it was
> the Modern Age equivalent of Paradise Island I take it.
When DC relaunched their Wonder Woman comic after the
company-wide crossover called "Crisis On Infinite Earths,"
the new creative staff tried to introduce a few more elements
of classical Greek legend into the stories, such as referring
to the ancient Gods by their Greek, rather than Roman names.
Themyscira is just "Island Paradise" rendered in Greek.
http://www.dcuguide.com/WW/WW_001.htm
Kevin
*author of the 1976 work,
Encyclopedia of Comic Book Heroes: Wonder Woman
which is out-of-print
Kevin Robinson
> "KalElFan" <KalE...@scifipi.com> wrote in message news:<c0s1n3$1au142$1...@ID-53145.news.uni-berlin.de>...
> > (Was "Re: [SV+] Smallville Solution for the WB!" and note crossposts)
>
> > WHO WANTS TO BE WONDER WOMAN?
>
> > The hoopla surrounding it will be bigger than anything the WB
> > has ever had. Perhaps Lynda Carter's one of the judges, along with the
> > director who'll be doing the movie and a couple of cast members from
> > Smallville.
>
> I'm prepared to be shouted down, but I actually preferred Cathy Lee
> Crosby as Wonder Woman (ca. 1974?), even if it was only for a one-time
> made for tv movie.
BOO! HISS!
> Being only twelve at the time, she stirred my lusty urges.
I guess I can forgive you. When I was 12 it was Diana
Rigg as Mrs. Steele, Yvonne Craig as Batgirl and Julie
Newmar as Catwoman.
CLC was cute, but very non-Diana. She might've have been
OK as Supergirl, though.
> The successor (Ms. Carter) never really did it for me.
Curious.
Kevin
Clell Harmon
ATomi...@hotmail.com (Anders Tomilsson) wrote:
!
You may be the only being in creation that like that show.
Some consider it worse than Hasselhoff's horrid Nick Fury flick. (as
if that was possible)
Xerxes
>
> Why do you think it wouldn't not only work, but be every bit
> as successful as I said? And are you saying you wouldn't even take a
peek?
Actually the idea is kind of brilliant. I would even watch such a show, if
it was well done. However do you really think it's likely that you can get
WB to start signing paperwork before they know anything about the idea? I
know nothing about Hollywood, but that sure seems unlikely!
- Xerxes
Raymond Speer
Kal-El-Fan, I agree 100% that a person ought to be able to create and
promote a series about the first talking gorilla elected Gov. of Utah,
but so much litigation over intellectual property is bogus from the
start. I safely predict that you would get the following lawsuits
within a week of your show being greenlighted.
**** The production company and distributor of "Planet of the Apes."
The only similarity between your concept and their concept is a talking
ape, but why shouldn't they sweeten their accounts receivable by
$300,000 to a million dollars? That is what they'll settle for after a
month of litigation, because you figure it is worth that money to
deep-six their distraction.
**** DC Comics will argue that you're ripping off Gorilla Grood. They'll
depose you for six days on whether you've watched the Justice League
cartoon, and did you catch Grood's appearence in Peter David's
_Supergirl_ run?
**** You need an influx of cash from another production company to meet
payroll. That subsidy will be given, you're told, if you have a document
signed by the makers of _Spin City_ and the makers of _Benson_
guaranteeing that they will never sue you for plagarism. Try to obtain
that _sine qua non_ without paying anything.
**** Mormons across the world denounce your hateful blasphemy against
the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. Every talk show has a
commentator weeping about how portrayal of a simian Governor of Utah is
hatespeak against an entire faith. Your only positive feedback is a call
from Mel Gibson, advising you to keep your chin up.
**** Rick Baker sues you for mimicking his makeup designs in the remake.
John Chamber's nieces and nephews sue you for ripping off Chamber's
designs in the original movies.
**** And everyone on rec.arts.sf.tv will sue you for writing credit on
the theory that we helped you hone the concept by particpating in these
threads. Speaking only for myself, I want an executive producer's
credit and acknowledgement as a primary creative consultant in the
opening credits each episode. Screw with me, Kal-El-Fan, and reject my
peace offering and I'll whip you in court. I bet I can get a judge to
order that the title of your show must be ---
RAYMOND SPEER'S
GOVERNOR GORILLA
Podkayne Fries
wrote:
>Do I think -- in
>fact am I absolutely certain -- that this reality series would draw
>as huge as I've said for the WB? Yes.
Didn't you make the same predictions for the Lee Majors stunt casting
on JAKE 2.0, which has gone 404? Didn't you make a number of similar
predictions about ENTERPRISE, which is in danger of cancellation? I
don't read your posts that often because you write about shows that I
rarely ever watch, but IIRC, you don't seem to have an actual clue as
to what the general public wants to watch.
>
>1. Your question suggests incredulity, which is great.
No, it means that I'm rolling my eyes and snickering.
>It just reinforces that what I've proposed couldn't be easily
> conceived of.
No, it means that I think the idea is stupid. It really isn't that
different from most of the drivel on TV today. You've taken ideas
from several different shows and cobbled them together under a Wonder
Woman umbrella. Color me underwhelmed.
>Anyway, beyond "That's the stupidest thing I've ever
>heard!" and personal slams and the like, why do you think it
>wouldn't not only work, but be as successful as I've said?
It's dull. Reality shows are on the edge of becoming yesterday's
news.
How many real actresses would sign up for something like this? You
would end up casting a bunch of silicone-inflated Playboy rejects who
want their 15 minutes of fame. The odds that you would find someone
who can actually act and stand the rigors of a full-time TV gig are
low.
How many people who've appeared on some type of 'star search' program
have actually made it into the Big Time? According to my teen-ager,
William Hung of AMERICAN IDOL is getting more attention than the
minimally talented people who are on the show. IIRC, weren't there a
couple of reality shows that were cancelled or whose runs were
drastically shortened because of viewer apathy? Your idea doesn't
havwe the 'legs' to run for four episodes, let alone a full season.
>2. The specific question -- would you personally watch or not?
Odds are that I watch less TV per week than most of you watch in a
day. This doesn't sound like something that's worth giving up an hour
of my time.
>Can you see the appeal here, and how the psychology of it will
>work? The show itself is important. It has to be fun with off-the-
>wall stuff like that lasso wielding, and there'll have to be a bit of
>the Acerbic Judges thing going on with virtually scripted jokes.
In other words, you're going to rip off ideas from the established
reality and 'star search'-type shows. The only thing that sets your
idea apart from the pack is the Wonder Woman name; everything else
you've mentioned are ideas that I recognize, and the only reality show
I've ever watched is SURVIVOR.
Super-Menace
<fr...@fairfieldi.com> wrote:
> According to my teen-ager, William Hung of AMERICAN IDOL is getting
> more attention than the minimally talented people who are on the
> show.
Women love him. He can't sing, but he's Will Hung.
Kevin Robinson
> On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 20:58:17 -0500, "KalElFan" <KalE...@scifipi.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Do I think -- in
> >fact am I absolutely certain -- that this reality series would draw
> >as huge as I've said for the WB? Yes.
> No, it means that I'm rolling my eyes and snickering.
> How many real actresses would sign up for something like this? You
> would end up casting a bunch of silicone-inflated Playboy rejects who
> want their 15 minutes of fame.
You say that as if that were a BAD Thing! :) [or(.)(.)]
Obviously, one of the Aspiring Amazons' challenges will
be (*shudder*) The Dread Chamber of Magnetic Resonance!
> How many people who've appeared on some type of 'star search' program
> have actually made it into the Big Time?
Star Search gave us Rosie O'Donnell, Sinbad, Sawyer Brown, Britney
Spears, Justin Timberlake, Alanis Morissette, LeAnn Rimes, etc.
OK, some of these acts are crap, but they are POPULAR crap.
Talent contests have a long radio/TV tradition.
http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/O/htmlO/originalamat/originalamat.htm
Re: The Original Amateur Hour, MC'd by Major Bowes, and later Ted
Mack.
"Stars who first appeared on television's Original Amateur Hour
included ventriloquist Paul Winchell and pop singers Teresa Brewer,
Gladys Knight, and Pat Boone."
http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/A/htmlA/arthurgodfre/arthurgodfre.htm
Re: Arthur Godfrey's Talent Scouts
"In his day [Arthur] Godfrey significantly assisted the careers of Pat
Boone, Tony Bennett, Eddie Fisher, Connie Francis, Leslie Uggams,
Lenny Bruce, Steve Lawrence, Connie Francis, Roy Clark, and Patsy
Cline. His "discovery" of Patsy Cline on 21 January 1957 was typical.
..... Yet Godfrey proved fallible. He turned down both Elvis Presley
and Buddy Holly!"
Kevin