"Dead Like Me" - what happened to the original premise???
Muttstain
drab version of herself that everyone else saw? The actress was even credited
as "un-George". Now, even though they still sort of keep up the "Millie"
pretense at Happy Time (though I still have a vague recollection that Daisy
came by looking for "George" in an episode near the end of last season), it
seems to have been lost everywhere else. Everyone seems to know Mason, and
Daisy apparently kept her name as well. And it seems that people really are
seeing "George" instead of "un-George" (or at least from the interactions, they
are not seeing "un-George" as I remember her from those first few eps.)
I know that Bryan Fuller left to do Wonderfalls, but it seemd to me that the
continuity people have fallen asleep big time.
Am I wrong here????
-Matt
jayembee
It's unnecessary. It was obviously a conceit created so that George
could try (and fail) to interact with her family without them knowing
it was her. Now that she's given up trying to interact with them,
there's no need to complicate everything by maintaining the
"un-George" illusion.
-- jayembee
kathryn
"jayembee" <jayembe...@snurcher.com> wrote in message
news:pm95j0dit91rrugfk...@4ax.com...
You could maybe argue that it only applied to people who new the original
George?
kathryn
Quiet Desperation
SINCE he became a reaper. He's been dead since the 1960's, right? Seems
to be, like, drug contacts and bar buddies.
As for questioning whether people would be attracted to "Millie", well,
so far it's been the IT geek, the schizophrenic and the slacker. ;-)
And on the DLM message boards, some people think Laura Boddington is
very pretty. So... there you go, or something.
Also, it's hardly uncommon for a premise to get slightly modified from
a pilot.
Paul Vader
>seems to have been lost everywhere else. Everyone seems to know Mason, and
>Daisy apparently kept her name as well. And it seems that people really are
I think "Millie" exists because we're still in George's era. Daisy died 60
years ago, and Mason around 30. There's no reason for them to adopt an
alias.
>seeing "George" instead of "un-George" (or at least from the interactions, they
>are not seeing "un-George" as I remember her from those first few eps.)
How could you tell that? I think it's just an unnecessary gimmick that
dropped. Should it ever become important (such as George being near Joy or
Reggie), I'm sure it will be established again.
>
>I know that Bryan Fuller left to do Wonderfalls, but it seemd to me that the
>continuity people have fallen asleep big time.
It's not the same show he created, but it's still a pretty good one. *
--
* PV something like badgers--something like lizards--and something
like corkscrews.
Sean Eric Fagan
Paul Vader <pv+u...@pobox.com> wrote:
>It's not the same show he created, but it's still a pretty good one. *
And yet, I'm about to give up on it, because Showtime thinks it's pretty
frickin' keen to annoy their customers by flashing a damned annoying logo on
during programming.
I tolerate this -- barely -- on stations I don't explicitly pay for. But I
pay quite a bit of money for Showtime, and that's about to stop.
(I have called Showtime several times to complain. They quite literrally
don't care, and admitted this to me.)
Paul Vader
>And yet, I'm about to give up on it, because Showtime thinks it's pretty
>frickin' keen to annoy their customers by flashing a damned annoying logo on
>during programming.
Is it in the letterboxed area? Because I don't remember seeing it.
>I tolerate this -- barely -- on stations I don't explicitly pay for. But I
>pay quite a bit of money for Showtime, and that's about to stop.
I see your point, but if you're trying to ignore "the stain" as on friend
calls station bugs, you're going to end up with nothing to watch. *
Sean Eric Fagan
Paul Vader <pv+u...@pobox.com> wrote:
>Is it in the letterboxed area? Because I don't remember seeing it.
Halfway. My new tv is widescreen, and lets me zoom in (it over-zooms,
actually, so when I watch that way, I lose the top and bottom a bit -- so far,
it's been worth it), and it's still there. For about three minutes starting
at 30 minutes, and about the same at the beginning I assume. (Most of that
was credits, so I fast fowarded through it.)
>I see your point, but if you're trying to ignore "the stain" as on friend
>calls station bugs, you're going to end up with nothing to watch. *
As I said: I tolerate it (barel) for stations I don't pay for. But Showtime
costs a chunk of change each month, and bills itself as a premium,
commercial-free, unedited channel.
And at some point, they suddenly decided this was okay.
It's not, not in my book.
The phone number, btw, is (212) 708-1600. If anyone else wants to call and
find out how little they care what their paying customers think.
kathryn
"Sean Eric Fagan" <s...@kithrup.com> wrote in message
news:I39sJ...@kithrup.com...
Whats the point of it exactly? Surely you know what channel you are
watching without having to be force fed a logo.
Kathryn
Ian J. Ball
pv+u...@pobox.com (Paul Vader) wrote:
> s...@kithrup.com (Sean Eric Fagan) writes:
>
> >I tolerate this -- barely -- on stations I don't explicitly pay for. But I
> >pay quite a bit of money for Showtime, and that's about to stop.
>
> I see your point, but if you're trying to ignore "the stain" as on friend
> calls station bugs, you're going to end up with nothing to watch. *
Not if enough people cancel Pay TV because of it.
Two things will result if enough people do that: 1) either channels like
Showtime will stop doing it, or 2) a new Pay channel that, by policy,
*never* airs bugs will come along and steal market share.
--
Ian J. Ball | "So long, you miserable hypocrites!"
TV lover, and | - Barbara Ryan, ATWT, 08/27/04
Usenet slacker |
ijball@macDOTcom | http://homepage.mac.com/ijball/TV.html
jayembee
> And yet, I'm about to give up on it, because Showtime thinks it's
> pretty frickin' keen to annoy their customers by flashing a damned
> annoying logo on during programming.
>
> I tolerate this -- barely -- on stations I don't explicitly pay for. But I
> pay quite a bit of money for Showtime, and that's about to stop.
Oddly enough, Showtime was the first network to actually sport a
corner bug. At the time (late 80s), a lot of people used "HBO" as a
generic term for "premium cable movie channel". Showtime started
using the bug to attempt to drill into its viewers minds that they
weren't actually watching HBO. If memory serves. they put it up
for about 10 seconds every 45 minutes. I can't recall who was the
next to follow suit, but it was either Disney or Bravo.
Personally, I'm less peeved by the bug than I am that Showtime will
often scrunch the closing credits (thought they don't do it with DLM).
-- jayembee
jayembee
> Whats the point of it exactly? Surely you know what channel you are
> watching without having to be force fed a logo.
You'd be surprised at how many people don't know. I had a housemate
years back who was a constant channel surfer. Probably 80-90% of the
time, he had no idea what he was watching, let alone what channel it
was on.
-- jayembee
jayembee
>> I see your point, but if you're trying to ignore "the stain" as on friend
>> calls station bugs, you're going to end up with nothing to watch. *
>
> Not if enough people cancel Pay TV because of it.
>
> Two things will result if enough people do that: 1) either channels like
> Showtime will stop doing it, or 2) a new Pay channel that, by policy,
> *never* airs bugs will come along and steal market share.
HBO already doesn't use bugs. But they are a lone exception, of the
channels I watch with any regularity. Even Turner Classic Movies
flashes a bug on the screen for about 10 seconds every 20 minutes
or thereabouts.
-- jayembee
Captain Infinity
jayembee is about to speak:
That's exactly the way TV is meant to be watched.
**
Captain Infinity
ANIM8Rfsk
<< Oddly enough, Showtime was the first network to actually sport a
corner bug. >>
First premium network more likely. The first I ever saw was on A&E. On 'Day
of the Triffids' Huge freaking thing, filled a quarter of the screen. Came
back on every 5 or 6 minutes, got so we were sitting there gritting our teeth
waiting, and booed when it came up.
_____
"It wasn't CPR from Mr. Kerry.
It . .
It was kissing.
Can a hamster-kisser fight terrorists?
Let the liberal media report THAT!!"
Barry Margolin
jayembee <jayembe...@snurcher.com> wrote:
I appreciate them when I'm out of town, watching TV in a hotel room or a
relative's house.
Although these days many TVs display the name of the channel (and
sometimes program info) when you switch to the channel, so channel
surfers don't need it on the screen continuously.
--
Barry Margolin, bar...@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
Ken Patterson
station, of which - at certain parts of the region -you can receive 5 of us.
The bug/stain/branding is handy for the viewer to know who they are
watching. Even if you have various devices to tell you who you are
watching, most people don't bother to pay attention.
Why it is done is mostly for ratings. Even a non-commercial/pay station
pays attention to the ratings, and in most markets the major sweeps are
handled by hand written diaries which rely on the viewer knowing what
channel they are on. My market (SF/Oak/SJ) is moving to people meters -
which I think is great, because the box reporting viewing will know what
channel you are on.
When you only had 3 Networks + PBS + a couple of independents, it was not a
problem. Now you have the proverbial 500 channels with nothing on. While
Showtime will not pull a series half-way through it's run, it will check to
see if people are actually watching. Why waste subscriber's money on things
then they are not watching.
I'm done for now...
"jayembee" <jayembe...@snurcher.com> wrote in message
news:c2l7j0d7gun2csc6s...@4ax.com...
Paul Vader
>Whats the point of it exactly? Surely you know what channel you are
>watching without having to be force fed a logo.
There's no point, of course. On a pay station especially. But they do it
because everybody does it. Gotta keep those brands burining into your
retina and burning into the corner of the screen. *
Brian Henderson
wrote:
>I think Mason and Daisy kept their names because they either died long
>enough ago or in another country, so nobody in this city would
>recognize them. As for un-George, notice that George seems to have
>really cleaned up this season, with dressier clothing and a car, so we
>can assume people are treating her differently because she looks more
>grown up and professional. Of course, even a cleaned up un-George
>probably isn't as cute as perky George, but we may never see what she
>"looks" like again so that's just a guess.
I watched 2x02 again tonight and the scene where the shopkeeper shows
Daisy the mirror, it was Daisy's face that was reflected, not an
"un-Daisy". I just wish they'd keep their mythology straight like
they did in the first season.
Barry Margolin
Brian Henderson <BrianL.H...@NOSPAM.verizon.net> wrote:
> I watched 2x02 again tonight and the scene where the shopkeeper shows
> Daisy the mirror, it was Daisy's face that was reflected, not an
> "un-Daisy". I just wish they'd keep their mythology straight like
> they did in the first season.
Did anyone other than George ever have a "un" in the first season? As
others have posted, the reason there's an un-George is because she still
interacts with people who knew her when she was alive, and we don't want
them to recognize her. None of the other reapers have this problem.
Jerry Brown
Even in the first season, George sees herself reflected as George at
the end of the title sequence (we are definitely seeing her reflected
face, as the shower head is on the same side as in the preceding
medium shot while she still has her hood up).
However, since we haven't seen any reapers with robes and scythes
other that in the title sequence, it can probably be discounted as a
bit of whimsy.
Jerry Brown
--
A cat may look at a king
(but probably won't bother)
The Babaloughesian
"Barry Margolin" <bar...@alum.mit.edu> wrote in message
news:barmar-4E15DE....@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
> In article <riqaj01cr1ka74mn7...@4ax.com>,
> Brian Henderson <BrianL.H...@NOSPAM.verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > I watched 2x02 again tonight and the scene where the shopkeeper shows
> > Daisy the mirror, it was Daisy's face that was reflected, not an
> > "un-Daisy". I just wish they'd keep their mythology straight like
> > they did in the first season.
>
> Did anyone other than George ever have a "un" in the first season?
Yes. Mason did, but only in the series premiere.
jayembee
> Did anyone other than George ever have a "un" in the first
> season?
In the pilot, when George first sees her un-self, Mason is
standing next to her, and if memory serves, he had an un-self
as well.
(I just double-checked the guide at TV Tome, and yes, there's
a credit for "UnMason" in the pilot.)
-- jayembee
Ken from Chicago
jayembe...@snurcher.com says...
1) Cable providers like to arbitrarily switch around channels.
2) Different providers in different regions have different numbers
(e.g., Chicago, West Suburban Chicago, Southern Chicago, Northern
Chicago, Far West Suburbs, etc.)
3) Cable has different numbers than satellite (e.g., on my cable, CNN is
on 36, it used to be on another channel before I moved, at work its on
202.)
4) And when travelling out of town, the station bugs are beneficial
(altho with digital cable, they have a pop-up guide that lists the
channels).
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
anim...@aol.comNOSPAM says...
Nice visual image.
-- Ken from Chicago (who imagines Anim and wife booing the tv screen
while the kids roll their eyes at parents wigging out)
Ken from Chicago
says...
> "kathryn" <b...@bob.com> writes:
> >Whats the point of it exactly? Surely you know what channel you are
> >watching without having to be force fed a logo.
>
> There's no point, of course. On a pay station especially. But they do it
> because everybody does it. Gotta keep those brands burining into your
> retina and burning into the corner of the screen. *
>
With 1000 channels available on digital cable, it can be hard to know
what channel you're on even if you know the number.
-- Ken from Chicago
Paul Vader
>With 1000 channels available on digital cable, it can be hard to know
>what channel you're on even if you know the number.
Other than the channel operator and neilsen families filling in diaries,
who gives a crap what station you're watching? In the situation where you
do want to know, on a tivo or a digital cable box the information is one
buttonpress away anyway. *
Ken from Chicago
says...
> Still doesn't clip boy, Ken from Chicago <kwicker...@amertech.net> writes:
> >With 1000 channels available on digital cable, it can be hard to know
> >what channel you're on even if you know the number.
>
> Other than the channel operator and neilsen families filling in diaries,
> who gives a crap what station you're watching? In the situation where you
> do want to know, on a tivo or a digital cable box the information is one
> buttonpress away anyway. *
>
If you wanna record. Not everyone has a dvr--yet.
-- Ken from Chicago
James Stewart
"Straker" <sky....@moonbase.alpha> wrote in message
news:300820040013164504%sky....@moonbase.alpha...
> In article <20040829230925...@mb-m01.aol.com>, Muttstain
> <mutt...@aol.com> wrote:
> grown up and professional. Of course, even a cleaned up un-George
> probably isn't as cute as perky George, but we may never see what she
> "looks" like again so that's just a guess.
Millie was drab and dull and older and not at all attractive. But guys who
see George are reacting to - well, George, a very cute looking young woman.
I don't think they'd be reacting the same way to Millie.
sussmanbern
was complicated by the latest episode (Sept 26th), where Rube visits
the Vital Records office in another city. Going through old old
records the clerk came up with a Wanted poster from before World War
One (the exact date is not stated), with a picture of the fugitive
that's positively Rube -- a new wrinkle in the plot. And the clerk
says to Rube, "this guy looks exactly like you" - knowing of course
that a wanted poster from 80 or 90 years ago couldn't possibly be the
guy in front of him - which means that the clerk sees Rube as we do,
and not as in the reflection in the first episode of the first season.
Additionally, of course, Daisy is gorgeous - but that presumably was
her original, movie starlet, body - yet living people react to her as
if she was still gorgeous (also the latest episode). We haven't been
shown a reflection of her but what are the chances she went from one
gorgeous body to another gorgeous body.
But, at the same time, it is necessary to believe that Reapers look
different to the living than they did before they died; Delores
Herbig didn't recognize Millie as the person she had interviewed as
George, George's mom didn't recognize her, etc. It is possible that
a Reaper has changed appearances ONLY to people who knew him/her when
alive, so that George appears different to her own family and friends
but looks like the old George to entirely new people - but that would
be an unnecessary complication.
I expect in the near future some episode where George has to reap her
own grandma.