Re: DC Comics' "Deadman" being adapted by CW
Duggy
> On Aug 25, 9:30 pm, David <dimla...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/cw-developing-deadman-proj...
> > CW Developing 'Deadman' Project With 'Supernatural' Creator Eric
> > Kripke
> > by Philiana Ng
>
> > The CW is getting back into business with Supernatural creator Eric
> > Kripke.
>
> > The network is developing an adaptation of DC Comics' Deadman, by
> > Arnold Drake and Carmine Infantino, with Kripke writing and executive
> > producing.
>
> > Deadman centers on the spirit of a trapeze artist, Boston Brand, who
> > is murdered, and continues to live on by inhabiting other people's
> > bodies and helping them resolve conflicts and issues in their lives.
> > He first appeared in October 1967. Deadman will be produced by Warner
> > Bros. TV.
>
> > Kripke exited his day-to-day duties as showrunner on Supernatural at
> > the end of the fifth season, with executive producer Sera Gamble
> > taking over. Supernatural is entering into Season 7 this fall.
>
> > Earlier this year at PaleyFest, Kripke told The Hollywood Reporter
> > that the TV adaptation of Neil Gaiman's comic book series The Sandman
> > was "not in the works, at least for this season" but he hoped that "we
> > can do it again in the future." In September 2010, WBTV named him its
> > top choice to develop the series.
>
> They better not screw this up.
Can't see any way they couldn't.
===
= DUG.
===
Lilith
Kinda seems to me that people are going to think of it more as Quantum
Leap maybe mixed with The Fugitive if they have him tracking down the
(oh, WOW) one armed man. If memory serves, the guy who shot Boston
Brand had a mechanical hook for a hand.
--
Lilith
Duggy
I don't doubt that they used that line to sell the idea.
I can't see the costume working and without that you might as well
just call it an original idea.
> If memory serves, the guy who shot Boston
> Brand had a mechanical hook for a hand.
Don't we all?
===
= DUG.
===
Duggy
> I'm amazed it took this long; Deadman is one of the few costumed comic
> characters that can reasonably translate to the screen.
The powers. The costume is explainable but a little silly looking.
===
= DUG.
===
syvyn11
You are correct. But the story branched out from there. Boston
Brand is also a ally of Batman (being a ghost helps). His fight to
reach Namba Parbat, his missions for Kama Rushnu. His time in hell
(where he met DB Cooper), there are a lot of good stories to be told.
Duggy
> You are correct. But the story branched out from there. Boston
> Brand is also a ally of Batman (being a ghost helps).
I doubt they'll keep that.
> His fight to
> reach Namba Parbat, his missions for Kama Rushnu. His time in hell
> (where he met DB Cooper),
Did he ask him who he really was?
===
= DUG.
===
grinningdemon
He's Adam West, isn't he?
Tom
+1
Tom
Tom
>
> - Show quoted text -
Nanda Parbat
Rama Kushna
Keep trying... you'll get something right someday.
Tom
Lilith
wrote:
So Rama Kushna fills the role of Al?
--
Lilith
Lilith
The costume could be modified to something less exotic. I'm wondering
if the mask would be part of the image if a series does develop.
--
Lilith
Captain Infinity
Lilith wrote:
>The costume could be modified to something less exotic. I'm wondering
>if the mask would be part of the image if a series does develop.
Mask? His head is pretty much a skull, he doesn't wear a mask.
**
Captain Infinity
Anim8rFSK
Lilith <lili...@gmail.com> wrote:
or do the emaciated Deadman as CGI; most of the time he's gonna be in
somebody else anyway.
--
"Please, I can't die, I've never kissed an Asian woman!"
Shego on "Shat My Dad Says"
grinningdemon
wrote:
>In article <ve2g57hm12g4urj71...@4ax.com>,
> Lilith <lili...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 26 Aug 2011 01:09:04 -0700 (PDT), Duggy
>> <p.allan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Aug 26, 2:23 pm, Anim8rFSK <ANIM8R...@cox.net> wrote:
>> >> I'm amazed it took this long; Deadman is one of the few costumed comic
>> >> characters that can reasonably translate to the screen.
>> >
>> >The powers. The costume is explainable but a little silly looking.
>>
>> The costume could be modified to something less exotic. I'm wondering
>> if the mask would be part of the image if a series does develop.
>
>or do the emaciated Deadman as CGI; most of the time he's gonna be in
>somebody else anyway.
True...and that could be cool...but I think it's unlikely they would
do the main character of a series that way...probably not even with a
mask unless it was something he didn't wear most of the time.
Lilith
I beg to differ. Boston Brand was a trapeze artist who performed
under the name of Deadman because he presented the fact that every
time he performed he was risking his life. His trapeze act included
the red costume with the high collar. And it also included him
wearing a mask designed to look like a skull. Because he was killed
while wearing the costume, complete with mask, it became his default
presentation. On the very rare occasions that he became corporeal he
was wont to remove the mask and expose his human face.
--
Lilith
grinningdemon
wrote:
You're right, of course, but there are times when he is shown as
basically a skeleton in the costume...I assume that's what he's
talking about.
Captain Infinity
Lilith wrote:
>On Fri, 26 Aug 2011 19:14:15 -0400, Captain Infinity
><Infi...@captaininfinity.us> wrote:
>
>>Once Upon A Time,
>>Lilith wrote:
>>
>>>The costume could be modified to something less exotic. I'm wondering
>>>if the mask would be part of the image if a series does develop.
>>
>>Mask? His head is pretty much a skull, he doesn't wear a mask.
>
>I beg to differ. Boston Brand was a trapeze artist who performed
>under the name of Deadman because he presented the fact that every
>time he performed he was risking his life. His trapeze act included
>the red costume with the high collar. And it also included him
>wearing a mask designed to look like a skull. Because he was killed
>while wearing the costume, complete with mask, it became his default
>presentation. On the very rare occasions that he became corporeal he
>was wont to remove the mask and expose his human face.
Cool, thank you for educating me.
**
Captain Infinity
Tim Turnip
That only came about in the late '80s with the Deadman: Love After
Death miniseries drawn by Kelley Jones. Jones was the first to draw
Boston as an emaciated skeleton man; for the two decades before then,
he was always depicted with normal human (or quasi-superheroic human)
musculature.
Also, I always saw the pre-Jones Deadman mask as being more like a
ghoulish undead type than a skull. But nontheless, Lilith's larger
point is correct, Boston's facial appearance as Deadman was originally
identical to that of the cloth mask he wore as a trapeze artist.
grinningdemon
wrote:
I was actually thinking more of Kingdom Come than the Kelley Jones
version.
>Also, I always saw the pre-Jones Deadman mask as being more like a
>ghoulish undead type than a skull. But nontheless, Lilith's larger
>point is correct, Boston's facial appearance as Deadman was originally
>identical to that of the cloth mask he wore as a trapeze artist.
Which is why I said she was right.
Tim Turnip
<grinni...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
>>That only came about in the late '80s with the Deadman: Love After
>>Death miniseries drawn by Kelley Jones. Jones was the first to draw
>>Boston as an emaciated skeleton man; for the two decades before then,
>>he was always depicted with normal human (or quasi-superheroic human)
>>musculature.
>
>I was actually thinking more of Kingdom Come than the Kelley Jones
>version.
Right -- Ross took the Jones interpretation all the way and made
Deadman an actual skeleton. I forgot about that.
>>Also, I always saw the pre-Jones Deadman mask as being more like a
>>ghoulish undead type than a skull. But nontheless, Lilith's larger
>>point is correct, Boston's facial appearance as Deadman was originally
>>identical to that of the cloth mask he wore as a trapeze artist.
>
>Which is why I said she was right.
Which would make you right too -- that was more for the poster who
insisted that Deadman did not wear a mask. (Not only did he wear a
real mask before dying, he called himself Deadman and wore the D even
as a mortal trapeze artist!) But I guess the actual point is how they
will depict him in this new TV series if it ever gets off the ground,
and that could go in almost any direction. However, I think they will
try to make him look as human as possible, to boost audience
identification, while still getting across that he is a ghost. I
personally prefer the Bronze Age "superhero" look for Boston
(especially when drawn by Neal Adams or Matt Wagner) but that's just
me.
Pat O'Neill
> On Sat, 27 Aug 2011 23:12:09 -0500, grinningdemon
>
My guess...if they go with him dieing while doing his act, he'll be
wearing his aerialist costume--which probably won't look like the one
in the comics.
Duggy
> That only came about in the late '80s with the Deadman: Love After
> Death miniseries drawn by Kelley Jones. Jones was the first to draw
> Boston as an emaciated skeleton man; for the two decades before then,
> he was always depicted with normal human (or quasi-superheroic human)
> musculature.
To be fair, Jones makes all his characters look that way.
===
= DUG.
===
tomcervo
his fortune to a relative on the condition that he rehabilitate the
dead man's reputation. So the guy dresses up the corpse in a superhero
costume and drops it onto ongoing robberies and other crimes to break
them up.
Kind of like a mix between "Batman", "Weekend at Bernie's" and the end
of "El Cid".
Lilith
wrote:
I'm wondering also if the actor would have trouble with wearing a full
face mask, much like Toby Maguirre did as Spider-Man. Not much screen
time for the actor to be recognized and associated with the part let
alone potential future professional hires.
--
Lilith
grinningdemon
wrote:
I agree...and I pretty much already said that too.
Anim8rFSK
Lilith <lili...@gmail.com> wrote:
Even though it's presented as a rubber mask when he pulls it off, it's
really more like white greasepaint. And don't forget, Deadman always
had lots of flashbacks to living Boston. And there's always Cleveland.
Lilith
wrote:
I do remember the panel where Boston is sitting at a vanity while
prepping for his act just before he was killed. There *was* a stick
that he was applying to his face gut I always assumed that that was
just him either gluing down the eye edges of the mask or filling in
with black on his real flesh to blend in with the black-ringed eye
holes of the mask.
--
Lilith
Jim G.
> On Sun, 28 Aug 2011 05:24:48 -0500, Tim Turnip<timt...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 27 Aug 2011 23:12:09 -0500, grinningdemon
>> <grinni...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I was actually thinking more of Kingdom Come than the Kelley Jones
>>> version.
>>
>> Right -- Ross took the Jones interpretation all the way and made
>> Deadman an actual skeleton. I forgot about that.
>>
>>
>> Which would make you right too -- that was more for the poster who
>> insisted that Deadman did not wear a mask. (Not only did he wear a
>> real mask before dying, he called himself Deadman and wore the D even
>> as a mortal trapeze artist!) But I guess the actual point is how they
>> will depict him in this new TV series if it ever gets off the ground,
>> and that could go in almost any direction. However, I think they will
>> try to make him look as human as possible, to boost audience
>> identification, while still getting across that he is a ghost. I
>> personally prefer the Bronze Age "superhero" look for Boston
>> (especially when drawn by Neal Adams or Matt Wagner) but that's just
>> me.
>
> I'm wondering also if the actor would have trouble with wearing a full
> face mask, much like Toby Maguirre did as Spider-Man. Not much screen
> time for the actor to be recognized and associated with the part let
> alone potential future professional hires.
Do you really believe that there was anyone in Hollywood who mattered in
this context who was unaware that it was Maguire beneath the mask?
--
Jim G.
Waukesha, WI
Anim8rFSK
Lilith <lili...@gmail.com> wrote:
Yeah. I always thought it was a baldcap over the hair and ears and
greasepaint, but I'm sure we've seen him pull it off as one big over the
head rubber mask (apparently reusable) in later issues. Hmm. Maybe he
only did that after he was dead when it didn't count. :D
Lilith
wrote:
Maguire's concern was that we wouldn't be able to see his facial
expressions under the mask. Of course, Peter Parker got more face
time than Spider-Man got mask time in any of the movies. Not the Emo
Parker was great acting.
--
Lilith
grinningdemon
wrote:
Maguire has facial expressions? I must have missed that part.
Duggy
> I'm wondering also if the actor would have trouble with wearing a full
> face mask, much like Toby Maguirre did as Spider-Man. Not much screen
> time for the actor to be recognized and associated with the part let
> alone potential future professional hires.
Depends.
If they go the Quantum Leap way and have the Boston actor playing the
person he's in then it's a big role for the actor... if not it's a
smaller role than the normal lead anyway.
===
= DUG.
===
Jim G.
Gift horse ... mouth ...
> Of course, Peter Parker got more face
> time than Spider-Man got mask time in any of the movies. Not the Emo
> Parker was great acting.
IMO, the reason his career didn't take off after Spidey was precisely
because there weren't a lot of other roles that would allow him to mask
his various shortcomings.
Lilith
True. Then again, IMS, most of what Boston did was to research things
from the spirit world and usually took over someone's body for a
relatively brief amount of time, either to get them out of trouble,
get someone else out of trouble or get information in a more expedient
manner. He seldom occupied a body for too long. Of course, a TV
series doesn't need to be written to the same formula.
--
Lilith
Duggy
> On Mon, 29 Aug 2011 03:39:47 -0700 (PDT), Duggy
>
True... but I thought about it if you were doing the QL thing he'd
still be in costume or white/mask faced at least.
And for a TV show you'd want to reduce costs... FX skull face would
cost a lot more than white face/mask.
===
= DUG.
===
kensi
> I'm wondering also if the actor would have trouble with wearing a full
> face mask, much like Toby Maguirre did as Spider-Man. Not much screen
> time for the actor to be recognized and associated with the part let
> alone potential future professional hires.
There were a lot of scenes with Toby as Peter Parker (no costume on) in
each Spider-Man film.
kensi
They did in Quantum Leap -- but they showed the somebody-else as Sam
Beckett while Beckett was in them...
Dragon Lady
"kensi" <kensi_ke...@zoonoses.de> wrote in message
news:j3kk30$lu9$2...@speranza.aioe.org...
Only when he saw his reflection. Everyone else saw him as the other person.
The audience saw him as Sam Beckett, and only saw the other person in the
mirror, or if they did a scene back in the "present".
kensi
> "kensi" <kensi_ke...@zoonoses.de> wrote in message
> news:j3kk30$lu9$2...@speranza.aioe.org...
>> Beckett while Beckett was in them...
>
> Only when he saw his reflection. Everyone else saw him as the other
> person. The audience saw him as Sam Beckett, and only saw the other
> person in the mirror, or if they did a scene back in the "present".
That's what I said -- the audience saw him as Beckett.
Dragon Lady
If that's what you were saying, all I can say is, your sentence structure is
confusing. Rereading it, I see you were talking about back in the "present"
when you said they showed "somebody-else as Sam Beckett while Beckett was in
them..."?
kensi
> If that's what you were saying, all I can say is, your sentence
> structure is confusing. Rereading it, I see you were talking about back
> in the "present" when you said they showed "somebody-else as Sam Beckett
> while Beckett was in them..."?
???
No, in the past, obviously, is when Beckett is in somebody else, who is
shown as Beckett ...
Dragon Lady
Well, that just makes your sentence structure more confusing.
Duggy
> On 31/08/2011 1:49 PM, Dragon Lady wrote:
>
> >news:j3kk30$lu9$2...@speranza.aioe.org...
> >> They did in Quantum Leap -- but they showed the somebody-else as Sam
> >> Beckett while Beckett was in them...
>
> > Only when he saw his reflection. Everyone else saw him as the other
> > person. The audience saw him as Sam Beckett, and only saw the other
> > person in the mirror, or if they did a scene back in the "present".
>
> That's what I said -- the audience saw him as Beckett.
Because he was Beckett... but there image of the real person that he
and everyone else could see. Except small children, the mentally ill
and animals.
This means he could swim as a monkey and walk with no legs.
Of course that didn't make much sense and all the problems that would
have occured because of that weren't shown.
===
= DUG.
===
kensi
>
> "kensi" <kensi_ke...@zoonoses.de> wrote in message
> news:j3pe72$o9i$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>>
>> No, in the past, obviously, is when Beckett is in somebody else, who
>> is shown as Beckett ...
>
> Well, that just makes your sentence structure more confusing.
And I should care about your opinion because ... ?
Dragon Lady
*grin* Didn't say you should. Any more than I should care about yours. As
far as I can tell, you don't generally have any trouble communicating.
kensi
>
> "kensi" <kensi_ke...@zoonoses.de> wrote in message
> news:j42psk$g5g$2...@speranza.aioe.org...
>> On 04/09/2011 1:19 PM, Dragon Lady wrote:
>>> Well, that just makes your sentence structure more confusing.
>>
>> And I should care about your opinion because ... ?
>
> *grin* Didn't say you should. Any more than I should care about yours.
> As far as I can tell, you don't generally have any trouble communicating.
As compared to ... ?
Anim8rFSK
<eed7be0a-b681-4d31...@v16g2000prb.googlegroups.com>,
Duggy <Paul....@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
> On Sep 1, 5:12�am, kensi <kensi kensing...@zoonoses.de> wrote:
> > On 31/08/2011 1:49 PM, Dragon Lady wrote:
> >
> > > "kensi" <kensi kensing...@zoonoses.de> wrote in message
> > >news:j3kk30$lu9$2...@speranza.aioe.org...
> > >> They did in Quantum Leap -- but they showed the somebody-else as Sam
> > >> Beckett while Beckett was in them...
> >
> > > Only when he saw his reflection. Everyone else saw him as the other
> > > person. The audience saw him as Sam Beckett, and only saw the other
> > > person in the mirror, or if they did a scene back in the "present".
> >
> > That's what I said -- the audience saw him as Beckett.
>
> Because he was Beckett... but there image of the real person that he
> and everyone else could see. Except small children, the mentally ill
> and animals.
>
> This means he could swim as a monkey and walk with no legs.
>
> Of course that didn't make much sense and all the problems that would
> have occured because of that weren't shown.
>
> ===
> = DUG.
> ===
Of course, different writers had different takes on this. Some of the
writers thought Sam was really in the future chamber and some thought he
was really taking the other person's place (hence the walking without
legs). There were two women that wrote the tie in novels and each based
them on a different theory.
Adam H. Kerman
>Of course, different writers [of Quantum Leap] had different takes
>chamber and some thought he was really taking the other person's place
>(hence the walking without legs). There were two women that wrote the
>tie in novels and each based them on a different theory.
very exciting. His body, her baby, birth didn't tear out his guts,
baby just appears in the chamber.
Duggy
> In article
> <eed7be0a-b681-4d31-a461-3ee3a521c...@v16g2000prb.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Duggy <Paul.Dug...@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
> > On Sep 1, 5:12 am, kensi <kensi kensing...@zoonoses.de> wrote:
> > > On 31/08/2011 1:49 PM, Dragon Lady wrote:
>
> > > > "kensi" <kensi kensing...@zoonoses.de> wrote in message
> > > >news:j3kk30$lu9$2...@speranza.aioe.org...
> > > >> They did in Quantum Leap -- but they showed the somebody-else as Sam
> > > >> Beckett while Beckett was in them...
>
> > > > Only when he saw his reflection. Everyone else saw him as the other
> > > > person. The audience saw him as Sam Beckett, and only saw the other
> > > > person in the mirror, or if they did a scene back in the "present".
>
> > > That's what I said -- the audience saw him as Beckett.
>
> > Because he was Beckett... but there image of the real person that he
> > and everyone else could see. Except small children, the mentally ill
> > and animals.
>
> > This means he could swim as a monkey and walk with no legs.
>
> > Of course that didn't make much sense and all the problems that would
> > have occured because of that weren't shown.
> writers thought Sam was really in the future chamber and some thought he
> was really taking the other person's place (hence the walking without
> legs). There were two women that wrote the tie in novels and each based
> them on a different theory.
powers.
It clearly works one way, except no one told all the writers.
===
= DUG.
===
Anim8rFSK
past nor the chamber. :)
Adam H. Kerman
>"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> sprachen:
>>I thought the episode in which Sam was pregnant and gave birth was
>>very exciting. His body, her baby, birth didn't tear out his guts,
>>baby just appears in the chamber.
>The baby appeared in the "future" / "present" chamber?
Yes.
>As in, Al could pick it up, and carry it round the Quantum Leap lab?
Yes.
>That doesn't make sense! If a baby's being carried round in it's mother's
>womb in, say, 1965 (dunno when it was in the series), then surely his
>next move is to appear out the front later on that year? Otherwise the
>baby would have physically time-travelled.
Yes, twice.
>I always thought it was Sam's "spirit" inhabiting the person he leapt
>into. His actual body I thought had sortof disappeared into nothing,
No, the spirit that used to inhabit the body he lept into in the past
ended up in his body lab in the present. At least on episodes in which
that was the mechanism. As Anim pointed out, the writers were inconsistent
from week to week.
>and would come back when he did his final leap home.
In the series finale, he started leaping around without any concern for
keeping his body alive without a consciousness in it, so they never got
around to mentioning what became of it.
>So does that mean some people thought Sam's body was lying there in
>the QL lab, lifeless? Waiting for Sam to leap back in? I'm not sure
>how that'd explain Al appearing. Hopefully QL fans are as obsessive as
>I am, and there's a really good FAQ somewhere.
In the lab, Al interacted with the displaced spirit but saw Sam's body.
Al could communicate with Sam's spirit in the past because their brain
waves were synchronized. I think it was the same chamber, but they never
explained what the displaced spirit in Sam's body thought Al was doing
when he was communicating with Sam's spirit in the past.
>Also, I wonder what happened to the people while Sam was leaping into
>them. Did they remember what had happened?
I think they were told to pretend it never happened and the changes that
Sam made in the past so they could attempt to resume their lives without
being locked up in the looney bin. Of course, Al wouldn't have had time
to explain much of anything to them as Sam lept into another body almost
immediately. Saved the writers from having a wrap-up scene.
Jerry Brown
<a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>In the lab, Al interacted with the displaced spirit but saw Sam's body.
>Al could communicate with Sam's spirit in the past because their brain
>waves were synchronized. I think it was the same chamber,
(e.g. the facility doctor), interact with Sam in the past, and the
waiting room where the leapee occupies Sam's body.
>but they never
>explained what the displaced spirit in Sam's body thought Al was doing
>when he was communicating with Sam's spirit in the past.
Jerry Brown
A cat may look at a king
(but probably won't bother)
Duggy
> On Sun, 28 Aug 2011 12:32:27 -0500, Lilith <lilith...@gmail.com>
> sprachen:
>
> >I'm wondering also if the actor would have trouble with wearing a full
> >face mask, much like Toby Maguirre did as Spider-Man. Not much screen
> >time for the actor to be recognized and associated with the part let
> >alone potential future professional hires.
>
> Spiderman, nothing.
Yeah... he was in Seabiscuit and... um... yeah he was quite big after.
===
= DUG.
===
Tim Turnip
(The Ice Storm, Pleasantville, Cider House Rules, Wonder Boys). That's
"nothing" compared to Spider-Man, though, of course.
Dragon Lady
"greenaum" <gree...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4e7b07d...@news.eternal-september.org...
> On Sun, 4 Sep 2011 11:19:45 -0600, "Dragon Lady" <sgt...@comcast.net>
> sprachen:
>
>>Well, that just makes your sentence structure more confusing.
>
>
> Have you seen Quantum Leap? Beckett always appears as Beckett. Where
> "appear" refers to us, the viewers. Unless otherwise specified, then
> when talking about people "appearing" on TV, we mean they appear to
> us, the viewers.
I note that you 1. waited almost 20 days to answer this and 2. deleted the
part that I would have used to explain why I couldn't parse the sentence.
Yes, I've seen Quantum Leap. That has nothing to do with whether or not I
could understand what the original poster (who was not you, I remember that
much) was saying.
Dragon Lady
> On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 07:25:25 +0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
> <a...@chinet.com> sprachen:
>
>>I thought the episode in which Sam was pregnant and gave birth was
>>very exciting. His body, her baby, birth didn't tear out his guts,
>>baby just appears in the chamber.
>
>
> pick it up, and carry it round the Quantum Leap lab? That doesn't make
> sense! If a baby's being carried round in it's mother's womb in, say,
> 1965 (dunno when it was in the series), then surely his next move is
> to appear out the front later on that year? Otherwise the baby would
> have physically time-travelled.
>
> into. His actual body I thought had sortof disappeared into nothing,
That actually makes no sense at all. Either the bodies were exchanged, or
the spirits were exchanged. In either case, Sam did not disappear, and his
body was not lifeless. His place was taken by whoever he exchanged with, so
either that person's body was in the chamber, or that person's spirit was
inhabiting Sam's body in the chamber.
>
> So does that mean some people thought Sam's body was lying there in
> the QL lab, lifeless? Waiting for Sam to leap back in? I'm not sure
> how that'd explain Al appearing. Hopefully QL fans are as obsessive as
> I am, and there's a really good FAQ somewhere.
>
> Also, I wonder what happened to the people while Sam was leaping into
> them. Did they remember what had happened?
>
> --
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> "There's nothing like eating hay when you're faint," the White King
> remarked to Alice, as he munched away.
> "I should think throwing cold water over you would be better," Alice
> suggested: "--or some sal-volatile."
> "I didn't say there was nothing better," the King replied. "I said there
> was nothing like it."
> Which Alice did not venture to deny.
>
>
Dragon Lady
"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote in message
news:j5frmr$mp8$1...@news.albasani.net...
> gree...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
>>"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> sprachen:
>
>>>I thought the episode in which Sam was pregnant and gave birth was
>>>very exciting. His body, her baby, birth didn't tear out his guts,
>>>baby just appears in the chamber.
>
>>I must've missed that one.
>
>>The baby appeared in the "future" / "present" chamber?
>
> Yes.
>
>>As in, Al could pick it up, and carry it round the Quantum Leap lab?
>
> Yes.
That's not the way I remember it. How did they get the baby back to the
past once it was separated from the mother? I could have sword the baby
appeared in the delivery room.
grinningdemon
wrote:
And those all came BEFORE Spiderman, didn't they? He's talking about
afterwards.
Duggy
> On Thu, 22 Sep 2011 15:06:11 -0700 (PDT), Duggy
>
That was all before Spider-man, though.
===
= DUG.
===
Tim Turnip
OK. I guess that was more for greenaum who said "before Spiderman,
nothing".
(although it warms my heart to see you and grinningdemon in accord on
something)
grinningdemon
freakin' me out.
Duggy
> OK. I guess that was more for greenaum who said "before Spiderman,
> nothing".
> (although it warms my heart to see you and grinningdemon in accord on
> something)
accepting opinions will be different or in at least one case me
accepting I'm probably wrong) in the "LOEG" thread. Although it's
mostly about The X-Men and other films.
It probably looks like it's an argument, but it isn't.
===
= DUG.
===
grinningdemon
Duggy
> I'm sure we'll find something else to argue about before too long.
===
= DUG.
===
grinningdemon
Duggy
> On Fri, 23 Sep 2011 17:24:32 -0700 (PDT), Duggy
>
> >On Sep 24, 9:39 am, grinningdemon <grinningde...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
> >> I'm sure we'll find something else to argue about before too long.
>
> >No we won't.
Where did I say we won't? I dare you to find a post in which I made
any such claim.
===
= DUG.
===
grinningdemon
Lilith
<Paul....@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
>On Sep 24, 9:39 am, grinningdemon <grinningde...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
>> I'm sure we'll find something else to argue about before too long.
>
>No we won't.
--
Lilith
grinningdemon
wrote:
Duggy
> On Fri, 23 Sep 2011 17:24:32 -0700 (PDT), Duggy
>
> >On Sep 24, 9:39 am, grinningdemon <grinningde...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
> >> I'm sure we'll find something else to argue about before too long.
>
> >No we won't.
>
> That's not an arugment. That's contradiction.
===
= DUG.
===
Duggy
> On Fri, 23 Sep 2011 20:21:35 -0700 (PDT), Duggy
>
> >On Sep 24, 1:16 pm, grinningdemon <grinningde...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 23 Sep 2011 17:24:32 -0700 (PDT), Duggy
>
> >> <Paul.Dug...@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
> >> >On Sep 24, 9:39 am, grinningdemon <grinningde...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
> >> >> I'm sure we'll find something else to argue about before too long.
>
> >> >No we won't.
>
> >> See...told ya.
>
> >Where did I say we won't? I dare you to find a post in which I made
> >any such claim.
>
> Why are you lying, you lying liar you?
===
= DUG.
===
Duggy
> On Fri, 23 Sep 2011 22:56:35 -0500, Lilith <lilith...@gmail.com>
> >On Fri, 23 Sep 2011 17:24:32 -0700 (PDT), Duggy
> ><Paul.Dug...@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
> >>On Sep 24, 9:39 am, grinningdemon <grinningde...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
> >>> I'm sure we'll find something else to argue about before too long.
> >>No we won't.
> >That's not an arugment. That's contradiction.
> It's an argument if I say it's an argument.
automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes."
===
= DUG.
===
grinningdemon
Duggy
> On Fri, 23 Sep 2011 21:53:55 -0700 (PDT), Duggy
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Sep 24, 1:45 pm, grinningdemon <grinningde...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 23 Sep 2011 20:21:35 -0700 (PDT), Duggy
>
> >> <Paul.Dug...@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
> >> >On Sep 24, 1:16 pm, grinningdemon <grinningde...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
> >> >> On Fri, 23 Sep 2011 17:24:32 -0700 (PDT), Duggy
>
> >> >> <Paul.Dug...@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
> >> >> >On Sep 24, 9:39 am, grinningdemon <grinningde...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> I'm sure we'll find something else to argue about before too long.
>
> >> >> >No we won't.
>
> >> >> See...told ya.
>
> >> >Where did I say we won't? I dare you to find a post in which I made
> >> >any such claim.
>
> >> Why are you lying, you lying liar you?
>
> >I know you are, but what am I?
===
= DUG.
===
Lilith
Gawds am I going to have to get my tape of that episode out and quote
from it?
--
Lilith
Duggy
> On Fri, 23 Sep 2011 21:52:40 -0700 (PDT), Duggy
>
> >On Sep 24, 1:56 pm, Lilith <lilith...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 23 Sep 2011 17:24:32 -0700 (PDT), Duggy
>
> >> <Paul.Dug...@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
> >> >On Sep 24, 9:39 am, grinningdemon <grinningde...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
> >> >> I'm sure we'll find something else to argue about before too long.
>
> >> >No we won't.
>
> >> That's not an arugment. That's contradiction.
>
> >"Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position."
>
> Gawds am I going to have to get my tape of that episode out and quote
> from it?
===
= DUG.
===
Dragon Lady
"grinningdemon" <grinni...@austin.rr.com> wrote in message
news:scrq779osc3cllh9b...@4ax.com...