Catherine and a BATB movie
t...@pclink.com
>? (no name given on copy post and can't remember who this was)
> >I opted for Kelly McGillis of Top Gun fame, or Gillian Anderson of X-files.
> >
> >What do you think? Who else?
>? (again, no name signed or shown in heading)
> Why not just start where the series left off???? Am I the only B&B fan who
> liked Jo Anderson?????
Judy:
My turn:
I have nothing personal against Jo Anderson, but if it had worked the
first time around, we wouldn't be talking about this right now. The
majority of fans did not accept Catherine's 'absence' then, and will not
accept it now. Beginning where the series left off would not work, and
I'd bet my LIFE on it! That's how sure I am, and I don't use that
phrase lightly.
tap: I bet my life on it too. Maybe this post falls into the catagory of
'what I'd like to see' (as opposed to the 'serious possibilities') option
as JoAnne suggested but I can't tell because I can't get into my normal
news program and am on a different one where the headings are absent. At
any rate, I agree with Judy. There may be some who liked it (not me) but
there was certainly not enough to put money down for a movie - Koslow and
Republic have made that very clear, as has RP, though I think his reasons
are more personal rather than economic.
Judy:
BTW, if Jo's character had been introduced earlier in the series (for
some OTHER reason), I would have liked her, but it was the whole
situation that I didn't like. I did not dislike her character.
Actually, I did like her, from what little I remember, but it was just
very difficult for me to watch that season, and most of it is erased
from my memory.
tap: Aside from JA the person (who I'm sure is very nice), I would be
happy never to see the Diana character again. She will never be more
than the female equivalent of Elliott to me, but her presence in
Catherine's absense - for whatever reason - is as unacceptable to me as
watching a Catherine/Elliott story without Vincent - completely
unacceptable even if there is no chemistry and no chance for either
Elliott or Diana.
This doesn't mean she won't be in any movie that Koslow does, but I doubt
she would be a main character, and in fact wouldn't be surprised if she
appeared only incidently, perhaps in flashback form, especially if a
dream scenario SND is used. If Koslow does the coma SND, she might be
there (though there's no assurance or necessity for her presence), and
I'd live with it under those circumstances, but again, that is far from
my preference.
Judy:
I don't know if I could accept a substitute for LH or not. I feel that
I would be sitting there wondering what it would be like with LH, and I
could not pay attention to the movie. How does everyone else feel about
a sub for Linda? Personally, I can see Teri's stories in action as I
read them, and I know the movie could not even begin to compete with
YPIMP -- for me, at least.
tap: I know I couldn't accept an LH substitute. I guess it's because for
me the story still exists, and in fact in a much broader way than it ever
did during the televised eps. I want a movie, but only because I would
love to see the chemistry of RP and LH bringing us that magical C&V
romance again on screen. It the absence of that, I'd prefer to keep my
fantasy image of the story on the broader zine level. Still, I'm hoping
that it will happen, and at least it seems like there is still the chance
for it based on what's been said by Koslow, Republic, RP and others.
Again, here's hoping :>
P.S. - re YPIMP, thanks Judy!
Teri
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Bergeron22
>? (no name given on copy post and can't remember who this was)
>> >I opted for Kelly McGillis of Top Gun fame, or Gillian Anderson of
>X-files.
>> >
>> >What do you think? Who else?
>
>>? (again, no name signed or shown in heading)
That would've been me, JoAnne. I'm still getting used to putting my name at
the bottom of my messages.
When the idea came up for a movie, and when Linda said categorically that she
was not interested in anything more to do with B&B, there were speculations
among fans and friends as to a possible new Catherine OR a possible new love
for Vincent. I opted for Kelly or Gillian because these two actresses have a
certain --I don't know how to describe it -- "richness" about them.
I don't know that there is a "substitute" for Catherine, per se, but I don't
think that the whole concept should be put on hold just because some actors
(and/or actresses) think they can hold it for ransom until they get their way.
>The
>majority of fans did not accept Catherine's 'absence' then, and will not
>accept it now.
I can't speak for the "majority of fans" then or now. I'm surprised anyone
does.
JoAnne
northsider
t...@pclink.com wrote:
> Beginning where the series left off would not work
I agree; in fact, mostly because of a thing which is sometimes lost
tract of in these
discussions. We are talking about a movie here and not a series. The
two have different requirements.
--
=Sandra=
Spend too much time with people of like mind and you will lose yours.
http://personal.jax.bellsouth.net/jax/b/m/bmoore3/
JChap0217
>when Linda said categorically that she
>was not interested in anything more to do with B&B, there were speculations
>among fans and friends as to a possible new Catherine
I'm still at odds with this; I have never heard her say this. I make a point
of watching everything I can find that features LH: inrterviews on TV and in
print, movies, old TV stuff.....everything. I have only heard her speak fondly
of her B&B work. I just don't buy the story of "I won't do it - no matter
what."
>I don't
>think that the whole concept should be put on hold just because some actors
>(and/or actresses) think they can hold it for ransom until they get their
>way.
You don't seem to be much of an LH fan! "Hold it for ransom?!" Oh, come on --
I cannot believe for one second that this is or would ever happen by LH!
I personally would rather not watch a B&B continuation that either involved
someone other than LH as Catherine or someone else as another love interest. I
prefer to keep the original storyline as it began. This is the story of the
miraculous love of a lifetime -- soulmates. Their relatonship goes much too
deep to simply be swept under the rug; Vincent's charater, as sensitive and
vulnerable as he is, could NEVER move on to another so easily!
Anyway, in my personal case, NO LINDA -- NO VIEWER (are you listening, Koslow
and Republic?!? :)
Teri
>>Judy:
>>The
>>majority of fans did not accept Catherine's 'absence' then, and will not
>>accept it now.
>JoAnne:
>I can't speak for the "majority of fans" then or now. I'm surprised anyone
>does.
tap:
I think it's fair to say that the production company who holds the rights
to this movie project certainly can speak to that issue. They've spent
time and money trying to determine what viewing audience exists in
sufficient numbers to make this an economically sucessfull project.
Though it's a very emotional issue to us in fandom, it's purely an
economic one to them, and I don't think they believe the numbers lied -
either the harris figures back in the 80's or anything they've done in the
interim to warrant the statements they've made re the movie scenario
they'd be willing to support (read that as 'give their money to').
Teri
Teri
>>JoAnne:
>>I don't
>>think that the whole concept should be put on hold just because some actors
>>(and/or actresses) think they can hold it for ransom until they get their
>>way.
>Julie:
>You don't seem to be much of an LH fan! "Hold it for ransom?!" Oh, come on --
>I cannot believe for one second that this is or would ever happen by LH! >
>I personally would rather not watch a B&B continuation that either involved
>someone other than LH as Catherine or someone else as another love interest. I
>prefer to keep the original storyline as it began. This is the story of the
>miraculous love of a lifetime -- soulmates. Their relatonship goes much too
>deep to simply be swept under the rug; Vincent's charater, as sensitive and
>vulnerable as he is, could NEVER move on to another so easily!
>
>
>Anyway, in my personal case, NO LINDA -- NO VIEWER (are you listening, Koslow
>and Republic?!? :)
tap:
I'm with you 100% Julie. I've kept close track on interviews and talks,
and though she's made many comments about the show, I don't think she's
ever said she wanted nothing more to do with it. And I too think this
story has absolutely no chance of being done in movie form without the
bonded soulmate concept, and only then between the originals - RP and LH
as Vincent and Catherine. I too am only interested in seeing that movie,
and I'm waiting patiently for it to come together. I absolutely do not
believe that LH is in any way holding this project ransom, any more than I
blamed her for wanting to take time off to have her child. If she chooses
to reprise this role, I will be eternally grateful, but if she doesn't, it
won't chance my vision of the fairytale one iota; it will always be
Vincent and Catherine, together forever.
Teri
Teri
>tap:
>> Beginning where the series left off would not work
>Sandra:
>I agree; in fact, mostly because of a thing which is sometimes lost
>tract of in these
>discussions. We are talking about a movie here and not a series. The
>two have different requirements.
tap:
I agree, Sandra. And they will have to do something to draw in a younger
audience who either doesn't recall the specific details or perhaps had
never seen them. They must easily be aware of the new interest in this
story by very young fans. I'd be shocked if they weren't keeping track of
these dynamics electronically in some way or another. This story, like
most of mythic origins, holds a universal fascination, and add to that the
amazing chemistry of RP and LH and wow! What a drama you've got.
I can't remember who mentioned it in a post earlier, but I personally hope
not to see too much humor here. I can envision a lightened mood as C&V
progress along their relationship, but I've also read some hideous fanfic
that essentially had Vincent, Father and the other tunnel dwellers
essentially acting like the three stooges, all in the name of adding a
little humor to the story. More is not always better, imo :>
Teri
Teri
Judy said:
> >The
> >majority of fans did not accept Catherine's 'absence' then, and will not
> >accept it now.
>
I can't speak for the "majority of fans" then or now. I'm surprised
anyone does.
Judy:......................
No problem, JoAnne,
Sorry I surprised you. If you don't like my choice of words, I
will
gladly revise my statement.
If ENOUGH fans had supported 3S, the show would not have been
cancelled. The 3S story did not have enough fans to keep it afloat.
The series died, not because the show was on in the wrong time slot. I
will bet that the fans stopped watching because they didn't like the
story line. I don't think it was because of the quality of the writing
(which many fans liked, some even better), the actors, or any other
reason. They just didn't like the story line, in my opinion.
Also, from what I have read, MANY fans agree with me. I accepted
it as
fact, perhaps mistakenly, when several AS/3S fans pointed out to me that
the Classic fans outnumbered them by more than two to one. They said it
as though they really knew what they were talking about, and most of
them have been here waaaaaay longer than me. Of course, they were
talking about on-line fans. Anyway, the fact that the series was
cancelled speaks for itself. A continuation of the failed (as I see it)
story line will not work -- not for me, and not for many fans
(unspecified number) who have said so.
I just wish 'they'd' keep us posted.
<Wondering if these words are better...>
<g>
Judy
P.S. I am enjoying reading your posts.
tap:
I agree with you, Judy. IMO the reason for the show's cancellation was
not the time slot or the lack of interest on Sagansky's part - it was the
turn to the storyline direction which caused the desertion of the viewing
audience - plain and simple. I think there are, however, different fan
dynamics in fandom than in the greater viewing world at large. At it's
peak, BATB had about 21 million viewers. We all know there are nowhere
near this many fans in organized fandom. Republic isn't using fandom
alone to guage the interest in a movie - that would be foolish of them.
The split in fandom on teh Classic/3S issue is different than in the
non-fandom fans (as in those who loved the show but never found fandom).
IN the non-fandom world, the viewers don't even know this rift exists, or
that this is an issue up for debate. They just know they hated what they
saw and turned it off. In fandom, it's become a personal thing, with
people taking sides, vocal discussion, a few small flame wars, yada yada
yada... (I love Seinfeld ;) Anyway, my point, I guess, is that the split
in fandom is heavily weighted to the classic story, but I would bet
dollars to donuts that that split is nothing compared to the millions of
viewers out there who would turn out in droves to see a V&C movie. I do
think Koslow and Republic think this is the case, and I think, considering
the industry they're in, they have good reason for thinking that.
Teri
Teri
Bergeron22
From "jcha...@aol.com":
>I'm still at odds with this; I have never heard her say this. I make >a
point of watching everything I can find that features LH: >inrterviews on TV
and in print, movies, old TV stuff..... >everything. I have only heard her
speak fondly
>of her B&B work. I just don't buy the story of "I won't do it - no >matter
what."
I haven't gotten used to the names yet, so I used the title from the header.
The late night show was either David Letterman or Jay Leno. She was promoting
"Terminator." She was asked by the host if she would ever consider another
B&B. She gave a shake of her head and an emphatic "No. Never again. That's
in the past." She then went on to talk about how much she had had to work out
for the role in Terminator. The subject of B&B did not come up again.
Some of the history of her statement can be found in the Starlog magazines via
the remarks from the other actors and from Koslow. Linda did not want to do
the third season. She was pregnant and was having grave difficulties with her
marriage. The producers promised her certain things, such as she would not
have to be involved in any violence. She signed the contract for the third
season, believing the producers and out of loyalty to Ron, who wanted to go on
with the series. Then they put her through hell. They had to do take after
take for the birth scene because they couldn't get the camera angle right. She
was exhausted, puffy from the pregnancy and still they made her do it over and
over. She left the series with bitter feelings.
Now, eight years later, it is certainly possible that she, under the right
conditions for her, might change her mind, or might have changed her mind. But
I'll bet, unless things are the way she wants, that the contract is precisely
what everyone will adhere to, she will balk. She is now, and wasn't before, in
a position to call her own shots.
And if the fans say NO LINDA - NO VIEWER, then she is in a position to hold the
film/series for ransom, IF Koslow capitulates. Let's not fool ourselvs. Linda
has never expressed the desire to jump at the chance to do another B&B series
or movie. Maybe you've heard her say, through various sources, that it was a
postive experience. Who has heard her say that she wants to do it again?
JoAnne
Bergeron22
Teri wrote:
>They've spent
>time and money trying to determine what viewing audience exists in
>sufficient numbers to make this an economically sucessfull project.
>Though it's a very emotional issue to us in fandom, it's purely an
>economic one to them, and I don't think they believe the numbers lied
Well, I'm curious as to
1) who "they" are
2) what are the "harris figures"
3) what "interim?" Between when the series was cancelled and now? Or between
their statements re the movie and now?
Numbers lie. Every time we turn around we are hit with a bunch of statistics
that are supposed to prove one point or another. However, numbers are most
often just arbitrarily thought up by the person or group who wants to pull
support their way, and try through numbers to convince the public that these
are therefore the majority. I am not interested in numbers. Give me proof,
then I will consider the issue.
JoAnne
Bergeron22
Judy wrote:
> Sorry I surprised you. If you don't like my choice of words, I
>will
>gladly revise my statement.
>
> If ENOUGH fans had supported 3S, the show would not have been
>cancelled. The 3S story did not have enough fans to keep it afloat.
It was something of a surprise :-) but I'll get over it. I agree, what
makes a series or movie or rock star is the fans. Without us, they'd be
nowhere. However, let's look at a series like Star Trek. The fans wanted that
series to continue. There was a letter- writing campaign that astonished the
producers and saved it for a third season.
The 3S series of B&B, IMO, did have enough to keep it afloat, fan-wise. We
clamored for it to come back. We fans are a mystic lot. We would have
accepted the "dream scenario." Sandra put up a great idea here. So did
Snoopy. So, too, have many of the writers who contribute here. We would have
accepted almost anything. What deep-sixed it was, and still might be, the
fervent, non-yielding demand for Linda.
So, the fans who want to see more, who are willing to be open minded enough to
consider that Vincent may love another, or the fans who refuse to accept
anything that does not include Linda, are stuck with nothing until the "powers
that be" or Koslow, or whoever, finally stop using the demand for Linda as an
excuse for not moving forward.
I don't know. Maybe the fan scism is part of the problem. Maybe the camps are
so far apart and so entrenched in their own ideas of what is an acceptable
scenario for B&B that the "powers that be" are terrified of moving off the mark
for fear of not making megabucks. If they can't make everyone happy, they'll
stay in their hideyholes.
JoAnne
Bergeron22
Teri wrote:
>I personally hope
>not to see too much humor here.
And I hope, if for no other reason than to balance out the series to date, that
there is a great deal of humor here. Let us not confuse the Three Stooges with
humor. 'Twas me who mentioned it in a post earlier and I stand by it, albiet
with some expansion on the term "humor."
For example, the time Mouse brought the grand piano to the tunnels. His
explanation was perfectly valid, for him. And yet the smile that came to my
face when Vincent lowered his head in complete exasperation... His subtle,
wordless nuance was priceless! That's what I mean by humor. Intelligent,
non-violent (like the Three Stooges), subtle, etc.
The characters Vincent and Catherine have such a plethora of opportunies to
laugh... I would like to see them laugh, oh, so much more!
JoAnne
Snoopy
I'd like to see Kate Winslet play Catherine.
Bergeron22 wrote in message
<19971220225...@ladder02.news.aol.com>...
>>? (no name given on copy post and can't remember who this was)
>>> >I opted for Kelly McGillis of Top Gun fame, or Gillian Anderson of
>>X-files.
>>> >
>>> >What do you think? Who else?
>>
>>>? (again, no name signed or shown in heading)
>
>That would've been me, JoAnne. I'm still getting used to putting my name
at
>the bottom of my messages.
>
she
>was not interested in anything more to do with B&B, there were speculations
love
>for Vincent. I opted for Kelly or Gillian because these two actresses have
a
>certain --I don't know how to describe it -- "richness" about them.
>
don't
>think that the whole concept should be put on hold just because some actors
>(and/or actresses) think they can hold it for ransom until they get their
way.
>
>>majority of fans did not accept Catherine's 'absence' then, and will not
>>accept it now.
>
>does.
>
Teri
>JoAnne:
<snip>
> And if the fans say NO LINDA - NO VIEWER, then she is in a position to
hold the
> film/series for ransom, IF Koslow capitulates. Let's not fool ourselvs.
Linda
> has never expressed the desire to jump at the chance to do another B&B
series
> or movie. Maybe you've heard her say, through various sources, that it
was a
> postive experience. Who has heard her say that she wants to do it again?
tap:
Being in a position to hold the viewers ransom and doing such a thing are
two very different things. It's true, at least for me, that her
involvement in any movie is necessary, as is Ron's, so from that standpoint
I could say they both control my ability to enjoy any possible movie.
However, I don't for a minute hold them responsible for this, purely
because it's my preference. Holding ransom indicates, at least in my mind,
a malicious manipulation of events using the interests of others involved.
I think she's definitely holding out for certain things in her best
interest, and I agree with you that she was bitter over the direction
Koslow took things and his unwillingness to be more flexible during her
pregnancy. But I don't see that as using the interest of the viewers to
manipulate.
I have heard her say many, many times, how much she loved the characters
and the story. I think her anger with Koslow and his direction is
sometimes reflected back on the story itself, and I don't believe that is
the case. I think she's been burned, as can sometimes happen when you've
done something you've really loved and it's gone in a bad direction, and is
just being careful now to ensure that won't happen again. At least that's
what I hope :>
Teri
Teri
>tap:
> >time and money trying to determine what viewing audience exists in
> >sufficient numbers to make this an economically sucessfull project.
> >Though it's a very emotional issue to us in fandom, it's purely an
> >economic one to them, and I don't think they believe the numbers lied
>JoAnne:
> Well, I'm curious as to
>
> 1) who "they" are
> 2) what are the "harris figures"
> 3) what "interim?" Between when the series was cancelled and now? Or
between
> their statements re the movie and now?
tap:
I'll try to clarify, though at least in item two, I think I sent a post
just recently with more specific details.
1. By 'they', I mean 'the powers that be', and in specific the people that
hold the movie rights to project at this time; Republic productions.
2. The polls shown for all major tv shows used to be published in USA
Today, once a week, on Wednesdays. This was true during the original
airing of the series so it was possible to track how each show was doing,
in it's relative time slot and compared to all the others in the field.
The specific data I quoted had to do with the trends over the course of the
3S eps:
21 million viewers tuned in at the start of the two hour tlbl movie. The
measured the numbers at the beginning of hour one, the beginning of hour
two and for each ep shown thereafter. At the start of the second hour of
tlbl, the ratings had fallen by half - to 11 million viewers. Over the
course of the next 12 eps, the ratings continued to drop at a very steady
rate - almost 1 million at each ep.
The math is pretty clear - there was no left watching at the end (from a
statistical standpoint). There may have been other good reasons for the
cancellation of the series, but they would have needed no others in light
of this data. No one in their right mind would have continued to support
this financially (from the standpoint of the industry - i.e. a production
company).
3. By 'interim' I meant during the time between the cancellation of the
series and now. Here is a copy of a letter sent to the people running a
con in Manchester:
Republic
ROBERT W SIGMAN
President/CEO
May 20, 1996
To the Loyal "BEAUTY & THE BEAST" Fandom Community:
First, I want to thank you all for your long, ardent, and loyal
support of "BEAUTY & THE BEAST". Your letters have flooded my office,
and the way that this series has touched and changed all of your
lives never ceases to amaze and gratify me. I am pleased that
Republic, through "BEAUTY & THE BEAST", has been able to touch so
many, and bring about such community and generosity through the
Fandom and Helper's Network.
It is unfortunate turn of events that Republic and Spelling are
having some Corporate meetings following the Cannes Film Festival, as
this makes a representative from Republic impossible at this year's
London* convention. I would like to say how sorry I am that our
schedules have conflicted. As you know, we are dedicated to keeping
Catherine, Vincent, and the Dream alive.
As such, later this year, we are hoping to have a special and
OFFICIAL "BEAUTY & THE BEAST" section on the Republic Pictures Web
Site, that will see its debut on the Web this June.* We will send out
information through the Fandom and the Helper's Network as soon as we
have worked out the final details.
Again, we at Republic thank you and appreciate all of the support you
give to keeping the "BEAUTY & THE BEAST" dream alive. It is sincerely
my hope that sometime in the future, we will be able to bring you
more in the love story of Vincent and Catherine that is "BEAUTY & THE
BEAST".
Best regards,
signed
Robert W. Sigman,
President/CEO
RWS/bsb
======================================================
*should read Manchester. >>
*http://www.picpal.com/picpal/bandb3.html
***************************************************************************
***********
Later they sent a letter with similar wording re the movie to the group
running the '96 con in Virginia Beach. Before this, Sigman and his V.P. of
Marketing (?) attended many of the events of the '95 con in LA, staying for
many of the social events and mingling with the fans to ask their views for
a future movie. I spoke with them, as did many, many others, and from my
own personal perspective, I can say that they seemed very eager to know
what the audience wanted to see in such a project. They also seemed to
very much understand the dynamics of what had occured earlier on in the
original airing, and were attempting to find a way to regain the success
they'd had.
No doubt the PTB at Republic may have shifted (they don't stay stable in
that business for long). But they still hold the rights to the movie, and
that is very important. I know of at least one other person in this
industry who has actively sought to obtain these rights, and for all I know
still wants them, and he has not been able to get them - Republic is
holding firm. Why? Well, I'd have to guess because they still think there
is some viability in this project and they want to be the ones that benefit
from it. That's my read on it, anyway.
The last item relates to Koslow, and what he's said and done since the
original airings of the show. I won't go into a lot of detail here,
because I think we've kicked it around a lot in recent posts, but he also
attended the LA con, and was very open in discussing what would be done if
a movie project was funded.
>JoAnne:
> Numbers lie. Every time we turn around we are hit with a bunch of
statistics
> that are supposed to prove one point or another. However, numbers are
most
> often just arbitrarily thought up by the person or group who wants to
pull
> support their way, and try through numbers to convince the public that
these
> are therefore the majority. I am not interested in numbers. Give me
proof,
> then I will consider the issue.
tap:
Yes, numbers can lie, but if you want proof with no numbers, I don't think
you'll find much but verbage - words in interviews, talk shows, articles,
etc. You may not find numbers to equal proof, but it is the primary source
of data taken seriously in any business, and it's by far more important to
Republic than any verbage they find. They have to go by statistics, and
statistics are all numbers. It's the only way to generate a picture of
what interest there is on a large scale - or more correctly, it's the only
way to assess the large scale interests, with a high degree of certainty.
They won't simply poll the fans in fandom, because people who join fandoms
are not statistically representative of the populations at large. They
will, however, use fandom as a sounding board to watch the trends there,
making adjustments for the larger population using, yes again, statistical
methods.
And re the Neilson ratings, and any others (Harris, Price-Waterhouse,
etc.), these are commissioned at a very large price on an on-going basis in
the industry. We as the viewing audience may or may not accept their
validity, but the industry most certainly does, hence their continued use.
Teri
Teri
> >tap:
> >I personally hope
> >not to see too much humor here.
> JoAnne:
tap:
By your definition of humor, I agree with you. I've just seen some really
odd interpretations of humor that have really brought this story down many
notches in my estimation. I, too, loved the lighter moments when Vincent
and Catherine could smile and yes, even laugh together, or when Vincent was
shown in those lighter moments with Father or the others. I think there is
a great potential here and I'd like to see it too.
Teri
Teri
>JoAnne:
camps are
> so far apart and so entrenched in their own ideas of what is an
acceptable
> scenario for B&B that the "powers that be" are terrified of moving off
the mark
> for fear of not making megabucks. If they can't make everyone happy,
they'll
> stay in their hideyholes.
tap:
I really don't think this is the issue, JoAnne. It's a huge issue to us in
fandom, but we're small potatoes in numbers. What they want to replicate
is the viewing audience they had initially - those numbers are something
they can appreciate. They know now why that audience was there, and they
know why it left. It wouldn't matter if all of us in fandom stood up with
one voice now and said 'we'll take whatever you give us, just give us
Vincent back'. They wouldn't be fooled by that. They would know they're
getting all the fandom fans (well, they probably would know they weren't,
even if we said so) but they would also know they wouldn't be able to draw
back all those fans that left initially. It isn't fandom that's the issue,
it's that they know what will be successful (and yes, it includes LH) and
they aren't willing to do the project without those elements. I think
Carla had it dead right in her post (or was it Julie?). There are three
key elements they need to have to do the movie, all else (yes, even Father,
perhaps) can be maneuvered around (though that's a tough one):
1. RP as Vincent
2. LH as Catherine
3. A C&V romance
Teri
Aurea Andino
Snoopy wrote:
> I'd like to see Kate Winslet play Catherine.
No.
> Bergeron22 wrote in message
> <19971220225...@ladder02.news.aol.com>...
> >>? (no name given on copy post and can't remember who this was)
> >>> >I opted for Kelly McGillis of Top Gun fame, or Gillian Anderson of
> >>X-files.
> >>> >
> >>> >What do you think? Who else?
Nobody.
> >>
> >>>? (again, no name signed or shown in heading)
> >
> >That would've been me, JoAnne. I'm still getting used to putting my name
> at
> >the bottom of my messages.
You can put together a signature file that can be appended to all your
messages. Don't know how you might do that on your service though. You could
try help on "signature" or ".sig" files.
> >
> >When the idea came up for a movie, and when Linda said categorically that
> she
> >was not interested in anything more to do with B&B, there were speculations
> >among fans and friends as to a possible new Catherine OR a possible new
> love
> >for Vincent. I opted for Kelly or Gillian because these two actresses have
> a
> >certain --I don't know how to describe it -- "richness" about them.
Last seen, McGillis was hissed off the stage at the Roundabout production of
Doll's House. She was dreadful. Fortunately, it was a limited run.
> >
> >I don't know that there is a "substitute" for Catherine, per se, but I
> don't
> >think that the whole concept should be put on hold just because some actors
> >(and/or actresses) think they can hold it for ransom until they get their
> way.
> >
If the issue is getting "her way" she could simply buy Republic Pictures and a
dozen or so Koslow's.
> >>The
> >>majority of fans did not accept Catherine's 'absence' then, and will not
> >>accept it now.
> >
> >I can't speak for the "majority of fans" then or now. I'm surprised anyone
> >does.
> >
> > JoAnne
No audience. No advertising revenue. No show. Simple.
Sandra
Bergeron22 wrote:
>
> Teri wrote:
>
> >I personally hope
> >not to see too much humor here.
>
> there is a great deal of humor here. Let us not confuse the Three Stooges with
> humor. 'Twas me who mentioned it in a post earlier and I stand by it, albiet
> with some expansion on the term "humor."
>
> For example, the time Mouse brought the grand piano to the tunnels. His
> explanation was perfectly valid, for him. And yet the smile that came to my
> face when Vincent lowered his head in complete exasperation... His subtle,
> wordless nuance was priceless! That's what I mean by humor. Intelligent,
> non-violent (like the Three Stooges), subtle, etc.
>
> The characters Vincent and Catherine have such a plethora of opportunies to
> laugh... I would like to see them laugh, oh, so much more!
>
I agree with your definition of humor! :)
Sandra
Bergeron22 wrote:
> And if the fans say NO LINDA - NO VIEWER, then she is in a position to hold the
> film/series for ransom, IF Koslow capitulates. Let's not fool ourselvs. Linda
> has never expressed the desire to jump at the chance to do another B&B series
> or movie. Maybe you've heard her say, through various sources, that it was a
> postive experience. Who has heard her say that she wants to do it again?
>
JoAnne
Basically what GRRM said on GEnie was that Linda would not do another
BATB project
without a good script. In other words, she is insisting on script
approval which does
mean she is at least considering it.
But Republic won't give the go ahead, IOW they won't pay, for Koslow to
write a script
without a guarantee that LH will appear in it.
Koslow won't write a script without being paid for it. GRRM said, and
this is something of a paraphrase since I do not have the exact words
right here, "Look at
it from Ron's (ie RK's) point of view. He spends a year of his life,
passing up other
projects, to write a BATB script; then Linda turns it down."
So we have a "chicken and egg" kind of thing. Let us hope they can get
together some
day.
Sandra
Teri wrote:
> tap:
> I really don't think this is the issue, JoAnne. It's a huge issue to us in
> fandom, but we're small potatoes in numbers. What they want to replicate
> is the viewing audience they had initially -
> Teri
Yes, we are small potatoes in numbers, always have been. The truth is
any BATB project needs to draw in viewers that never watched BATB.
Northsider
Teri wrote:
>
> >tap:
> >> Beginning where the series left off would not work
>
> >Sandra:
> >I agree; in fact, mostly because of a thing which is sometimes lost
> >tract of in these
> >discussions. We are talking about a movie here and not a series. The
> >two have different requirements.
>
> tap:
> I agree, Sandra. And they will have to do something to draw in a younger
> audience who either doesn't recall the specific details or perhaps had
> never seen them. They must easily be aware of the new interest in this
> story by very young fans. I'd be shocked if they weren't keeping track of
> these dynamics electronically in some way or another. This story, like
> most of mythic origins, holds a universal fascination, and add to that the
> amazing chemistry of RP and LH and wow! What a drama you've got.
>
> not to see too much humor here. I can envision a lightened mood as C&V
> progress along their relationship, but I've also read some hideous fanfic
> that essentially had Vincent, Father and the other tunnel dwellers
> essentially acting like the three stooges, all in the name of adding a
> little humor to the story. More is not always better, imo :>
>
> Teri
Here we are in agreement too.
This is one reason why I think all those fans who can should trying
posting to
the newsgroup instead of the mailing list. I don't see them subscribing
to
the mailing list; but, I do imagine they look in on the newsgroup,
although
they might not read all the posts. That is one reason why it might not
hurt to post under different names, just so long as you remember to sign
your posts so we know who it is.
OTOH, someone making a guick glance at the newsgroup would see more
people
than there really are!
TO POST UNDER ANOTHER NAME WITH NETSCAPE, GO TO "OPTIONS," THEN "MAIL
AND
NEWS PREFERENCES," THEN "IDENTITY." IT DOESN'T TAKE LONG! :)
Northsider
Bergeron22 wrote:
> Well, I'm curious as to
>
> 1) who "they" are
> 2) what are the "harris figures"
> 3) what "interim?" Between when the series was cancelled and now? Or between
> their statements re the movie and now?
>
> Numbers lie. Every time we turn around we are hit with a bunch of statistics
> that are supposed to prove one point or another. However, numbers are most
> often just arbitrarily thought up by the person or group who wants to pull
> support their way, and try through numbers to convince the public that these
> are therefore the majority. I am not interested in numbers. Give me proof,
> then I will consider the issue.
>
> JoAnne
Yes, numbers do lie; and, whenever considering any kind of statistics,
it is
necessary to consider their source!
Northsider
> tap:
> Yes, numbers can lie, but if you want proof with no numbers, I don't think
> you'll find much but verbage - words in interviews, talk shows, articles,
> etc. You may not find numbers to equal proof, but it is the primary source
> of data taken seriously in any business, and it's by far more important to
> Republic than any verbage they find. They have to go by statistics, and
> statistics are all numbers. It's the only way to generate a picture of
> what interest there is on a large scale - or more correctly, it's the only
> way to assess the large scale interests, with a high degree of certainty.
>
I watched those numbers every week too; and, I remember them
differently.
We are probably both right, but somewhat prejudiced. :)
> They won't simply poll the fans in fandom, because people who join fandoms
> are not statistically representative of the populations at large. They
> will, however, use fandom as a sounding board to watch the trends there,
> making adjustments for the larger population using, yes again, statistical
> methods.
No we are not representative. That is why I tell my third season
friends
that I am yet to meet a viewer of BATB, outside of the fandom, who does
not
favor the return of Catherine. Besides the return of Catherine and LH
would
make for a great publicity campaign. A continuation of the story with
Diana would not.
OTOH there are many people who never watched BATB who still might, under
the right set of conditions; and they do not give a damn if Catherine
returns.
TPTB want to pull in those people as well.
> And re the Neilson ratings, and any others (Harris, Price-Waterhouse,
> etc.), these are commissioned at a very large price on an on-going basis in
> the industry. We as the viewing audience may or may not accept their
> validity, but the industry most certainly does, hence their continued use.
Maybe he is a bit prejudice too :); but GRRM did not seem to think the
ratings
the problem. :)
Northsider
Bergeron22 wrote:
> I agree, what
> makes a series or movie or rock star is the fans. Without us, they'd be
> nowhere. However, let's look at a series like Star Trek. The fans wanted that
> series to continue. There was a letter- writing campaign that astonished the
> producers and saved it for a third season.
Back then letter writing campaigns were a lot rarer; so therefore more
effective.
> The 3S series of B&B, IMO, did have enough to keep it afloat, fan-wise. We
> clamored for it to come back. We fans are a mystic lot. We would have
> accepted the "dream scenario." Sandra put up a great idea here. So did
> Snoopy. So, too, have many of the writers who contribute here. We would have
> accepted almost anything. What deep-sixed it was, and still might be, the
> fervent, non-yielding demand for Linda.
>
> So, the fans who want to see more, who are willing to be open minded enough to
> consider that Vincent may love another, or the fans who refuse to accept
> anything that does not include Linda, are stuck with nothing until the "powers
> that be" or Koslow, or whoever, finally stop using the demand for Linda as an
> excuse for not moving forward.
>
> I don't know. Maybe the fan scism is part of the problem. Maybe the camps are
> so far apart and so entrenched in their own ideas of what is an acceptable
> scenario for B&B that the "powers that be" are terrified of moving off the mark
> for fear of not making megabucks. If they can't make everyone happy, they'll
> stay in their hideyholes.
I AGREE. I am been in this fandom long enough to know how deep the
schism is
and how many fans there are, on both sides, who will accept only their
scenario.
If TPTB consider us somehow representative of potential BATB
viewers.....I mean
you never know for sure what crazy idea some network exec might have!
Northsider
Teri wrote:
>
> >JoAnne:
> > I don't know. Maybe the fan scism is part of the problem.
>
> I really don't think this is the issue, JoAnne. It's a huge issue to us in
> fandom, but we're small potatoes in numbers. What they want to replicate
> they can appreciate.
They were never all that great to begin with; and, a lot of the viewers
were
the kind who were simply watching something at 8:00 p.m. fridays against
weak competition. When "Perfect Strangers" was moved up against BATB,
that
is when the ratings decline began.
Teri
> Sandra:
> I watched those numbers every week too; and, I remember them
> differently.
> We are probably both right, but somewhat prejudiced. :)
tap:
Those are the exact numbers, Sandra, not simply my recollection of them.
My bias for the story (and I freely admit I have one :) has nothing to do
with them, I'm simply quoting here.
> > They won't simply poll the fans in fandom, because people who join
fandoms
> > are not statistically representative of the populations at large. They
> > will, however, use fandom as a sounding board to watch the trends
there,
> > making adjustments for the larger population using, yes again,
statistical
> > methods.
> Sandra:
> No we are not representative. That is why I tell my third season
> friends
> that I am yet to meet a viewer of BATB, outside of the fandom, who does
> not
> favor the return of Catherine. Besides the return of Catherine and LH
> would
> make for a great publicity campaign. A continuation of the story with
> Diana would not.
>
> OTOH there are many people who never watched BATB who still might, under
> the right set of conditions; and they do not give a damn if Catherine
> returns.
> TPTB want to pull in those people as well.
tap:
That could be true, but then Republic would loose the ability to really
promote and sell, in large numbers, the original televised episodes, both
as video tapes and as a a syndication package. That's where the real money
lies for them, since there is only limited potential in any additional
works, like a movie.
> > And re the Neilson ratings, and any others (Harris, Price-Waterhouse,
> > etc.), these are commissioned at a very large price on an on-going
basis in
> > the industry. We as the viewing audience may or may not accept their
> > validity, but the industry most certainly does, hence their continued
use.
>
> Maybe he is a bit prejudice too :); but GRRM did not seem to think the
> ratings
> the problem. :)
tap:
I think GRRM was too personally involved to want to admit that he too had a
part in misreading the interests in the viewing audience. Like Koslow, he
went through an interesting evolution in loudly defending the new story
they did, which in time shifted to a defense of the 'dramatic quality' of
the work (i.e. acting, staging, scripting, etc.) then finally to an
admission that they had misunderstood what the audience had really been
there for. He wrote many of the scripts, and it is much easier to claim
there was an error anywhere else - misinterpreted ratings, disloyalty from
the viewers, etc. - than to admit that it was the script itself that was
the problem. That's my opinion, at any rate.
I personally was offended that they or anyone else should suggest we watch
it anyway, despite our feelings over it, as if we owed some personal
loyalty to Koslow, no matter what sort of material he gave us. This is not
the producer/consumer contract, and I don't think we owe him this
exclusive, non-ending loyalty. I know that some do think this - you can
see it in their hopes that Roar and anything else he touches will be a hit.
I'm not sure if that's a hope that somehow something of BATB will be
reborn in those works or that if Koslow stays on top we'll have a better
chance of getting a BATB movie, or if it's simply blinding following
someone who once gave us something great.
I guess I just don't feel that anyone should be followed, sort of blindly,
imo, to such an extent. If he does a good job (and that's obviously a
personal judgement among us all) I'll give him my gratitude and respect.
RP and LH have that for the amazing characters they created which still
live on. Koslow still has a lot of that from me, for the wonderful classic
fairytale he created which still lives on. But for me it doesn't translate
over to anything he touches. No resting on laurels ;>
Teri
Teri
Bergeron22 <berge...@aol.com> wrote in article
<01bd0e70$02be64c0$5d010bce@tap>...
> Teri wrote:
>
> >They've spent
> >time and money trying to determine what viewing audience exists in
> >sufficient numbers to make this an economically sucessfull project.
> >Though it's a very emotional issue to us in fandom, it's purely an
> >economic one to them, and I don't think they believe the numbers lied
>
> Well, I'm curious as to
>
> 1) who "they" are
> 2) what are the "harris figures"
> 3) what "interim?" Between when the series was cancelled and now? Or
> between
> their statements re the movie and now?
>
Geniepiper
Teri wrote:
> That could be true, but then Republic would loose the ability to really
> promote and sell, in large numbers, the original televised episodes, both
> as video tapes and as a a syndication package. That's where the real money
> lies for them, since there is only limited potential in any additional
> works, like a movie.
And that is IMO the real reason why they would prefer for LH to return.
It is
also mine for I have trouble enjoying the first two seasons if I believe
Catherine
is going to die.
> tap:
> I think GRRM was too personally involved to want to admit that he too had a
> part in misreading the interests in the viewing audience. Like Koslow, he
> went through an interesting evolution in loudly defending the new story
> they did, which in time shifted to a defense of the 'dramatic quality' of
> the work (i.e. acting, staging, scripting, etc.) then finally to an
> admission that they had misunderstood what the audience had really been
> there for. He wrote many of the scripts, and it is much easier to claim
> there was an error anywhere else - misinterpreted ratings, disloyalty from
> the viewers, etc. - than to admit that it was the script itself that was
> the problem. That's my opinion, at any rate.
Still the facts are that GRRM knows better what went on with BATB than
either
you are me. He was there. We were not.
>
> I personally was offended that they or anyone else should suggest we watch
> it anyway, despite our feelings over it, as if we owed some personal
> loyalty to Koslow, no matter what sort of material he gave us.
I felt I owed it to myself to watch the third season and see if I could
get into
it. There were things about it I liked. I just did not take to Diana
as a potential
love interest; and I find I have difficulty enjoying the first two
seasons if I accept
Catherine's death.
Teri
> Sandra:
> Still the facts are that GRRM knows better what went on with BATB than
> either
> you are me. He was there. We were not.
tap:
We were there. We were the reason the show existed in the first place -
the fans always are. I can't take that out of the equation or allow the
writer's interest to supercede my own. A writer doesn't write in a vacuum.
They write for an audience, and if they want to be read or watched by an
audience, they have to offer them what they like.
Teri
Geniepiper
Not the point. :)
Teri
> > > Sandra:
> > > Still the facts are that GRRM knows better what went on with BATB
than
> > > either
> > > you are me. He was there. We were not.
> > tap:
> > We were there. We were the reason the show existed in the first place
-
> > the fans always are. I can't take that out of the equation or allow
the
> > writer's interest to supercede my own. A writer doesn't write in a
vacuum.
> > They write for an audience, and if they want to be read or watched by
an
> > audience, they have to offer them what they like.
> Sandra:
> Not the point. :)
tap2:
Not *your* point ;>
Teri
AdamsGreg&Judy
Judy:
The majority of fans did not accept Catherine's 'absence' then, and will
not
>accept it now.
JoAnne:
I can't speak for the "majority of fans" then or now. I'm surprised
anyone
does.
.................
JoAnne:
Numbers lie. Every time we turn around we are hit with a bunch of
statistics
> that are supposed to prove one point or another. However, numbers are most
> often just arbitrarily thought up by the person or group who wants to pull
> support their way, and try through numbers to convince the public that these
> are therefore the majority. I am not interested in numbers. Give me proof,
> then I will consider the issue.
...........
Judy:
JoAnne, now it's my turn to nitpick re: your words "most often". What
is your PROOF that this is true: "numbers are most often just
arbitrarily thought up by the person or group who wants to pull
support their way, and try through numbers to convince the public that
these are therefore the majority."
I will agree that some people manipulate numbers sometimes, but where is
your PROOF that this happens "most often" and "every time we turn
around"?
If you're going to pick at people's words, then you have to be really
careful with the words that you use yourself. <g>
BTW, did I tell you that I am really enjoying these discussions? I will
have to go back to comment when I have more time, but some of you, with
whom I disagree, have made some really interesting points in other areas
(in which I agree either somewhat or wholeheartedly).
northsider
I don't imagine it is so much "proof" as personal experience. How many
of
the "studies" you hear about do you trust?
Teri
> > > JoAnne:
> > > Numbers lie. Every time we turn around we are hit with a bunch of
> > > statistics
> > > that are supposed to prove one point or another. However, numbers
are most
> > > often just arbitrarily thought up by the person or group who wants to
pull
> > > support their way, and try through numbers to convince the public
that these
> > > are therefore the majority. I am not interested in numbers. Give me
proof,
> > > then I will consider the issue.
> > Judy:
> > JoAnne, now it's my turn to nitpick re: your words "most often". What
> > is your PROOF that this is true: "numbers are most often just
> > arbitrarily thought up by the person or group who wants to pull
> > support their way, and try through numbers to convince the public that
> > these are therefore the majority."
> >
> > I will agree that some people manipulate numbers sometimes, but where
is
> > your PROOF that this happens "most often" and "every time we turn
> > around"?
> Sandra:
> I don't imagine it is so much "proof" as personal experience. How many
> of
> the "studies" you hear about do you trust?
tap:
Someone not trusting a study is no indication of the validity (or lack
thereof) of that study. Ludites didn't approve of or trust technology. It
doesn't change the fact that toasters toast, steamers steam and computers
compute. If your argument is that you don't trust the surveys and studies
done, then that's one thing, and an altogether different discussion.
Teri
northsider
As a rule, I do trust technology although not always man's wisdom to use
it.
I learned long ago never to trust a poll, a survey, or anything like
that until I have a very good idea of who conducted the poll, who paid
for it, etc.
For example, I am very suspicious of studies which say that alcohol is
good for me. Way back there used to be "studies" which touted the
benefits of tobacco!
--
TCramer124
Sandra writes:
>Basically what GRRM said on GEnie was that Linda would not do another>BATB
project without a good script. In other words, she is insisting on script
approval which doesmean she is at least considering it.
>
>But Republic won't give the go ahead, IOW they won't pay, for Koslow to write
a script without a guarantee that LH will appear in it. Koslow won't write a
script without being paid for it. GRRM said, and this is something of a
paraphrase since I do not have the exact words right here, "Look at it from
Ron's (ie RK's) point of view. He spends a year of his life, passing up other
>projects, to write a BATB script; then Linda turns it down."
>
>So we have a "chicken and egg" kind of thing. Let us hope they can get
together some day.
Tina:
I know exactly how to get this to work! <G> Let's have Ron K., LH and RP all
three sit down and write it together. I can live with anything they give me.
If the 3 most important people involved in the continuation of this wonderful
fairytale can't make it work, then it shouldn't be done. I can live with my
memories, my videotapes and hey, there's always fanfic.
I can't say I'd blame LH for wanting script approval for a movie venture.
When you've been burned once, you don't want to get burned again. I think LH
stood up for her character. She wanted to see the relationship go forward as
much as we all did. She wanted the fairytale to come true for all of us. I
did too! I admire her for that.
You'd want to insure that your character is protected after all the crap she
was put through in TLBL!!!
For me, Beauty and The Beast is about two people and two people only. Vincent
and Catherine and their eternal love.
I would dearly love to see LH & RP light up our TV screens again with that
magic chemistry of theirs.
But I think LH has to have assurances that the movie will allow more in the way
of their relationship than the TV series did. I think she'd just like to see,
as we all would, that their happy life gets fulfilled.
You have the opportunity to do that with a TV movie/mini-series more so than
you do a regular weekly show. It can stand alone by itself which it is
intended to do. It is a stand alone vehicle.
Time will tell....but I hope it happens soon because these characters ain't
gettin' younger! <G> I'm not sure I want to see a reunion movie of Vincent and
Catherine at 60. Seven years have already passed since the show went off the
air.
I would hope in the next few years that Republic, RK, and LH all come to their
senses. I think RP is ready and willing once the other players are in place.
Let's hope.
Tina
It
alt.tv.lois-n-clark.fanfic
northsider
TCramer124 wrote:
>
> Sandra writes:
>
> >Basically what GRRM said on GEnie was that Linda would not do another>BATB
> project without a good script. In other words, she is insisting on script
> approval which doesmean she is at least considering it.
> >
> >But Republic won't give the go ahead, IOW they won't pay, for Koslow to write
> a script without a guarantee that LH will appear in it. Koslow won't write a
> script without being paid for it.
> >
> together some day.
>
> Tina:
>
> I know exactly how to get this to work! <G> Let's have Ron K., LH and RP all
> three sit down and write it together.
I can live with that.
> I can't say I'd blame LH for wanting script approval for a movie venture.
Neither do I.
Teri
> Tina:
> I know exactly how to get this to work! <G> Let's have Ron K., LH and RP
all
me.
> If the 3 most important people involved in the continuation of this
wonderful
> fairytale can't make it work, then it shouldn't be done. I can live with
my
> memories, my videotapes and hey, there's always fanfic.
>
tap:
Oh, my - we are in complete agreement on every single point! :>
I don't know if a collarborative script would ever be done between these
three, but I would think that a broad outline from Koslow might be
sufficient to confirm in LH's mind whether or not he's pulling the right
stuff together. I know I could tell with a simple checklist:
1. C&V both alive? [Y]
[N]
2. C&V together by end of movie? [Y] [N]
3. Bond intact? [Y]
[N]
4. Significant relationship evolutions? [Y] [N]
5. At least one real kiss (between C&V of course :)? [Y] [N]
6. A happily ever-after ending (implied if not seen)? [Y] [N]
If all of the above are YES, go for it! Well, of course I'd like a real
quality work in the details, but I trust Koslow to do that IF he gets the
main elements in place at the start.
Teri
northsider
And if just one of those things were missing, say the intact bond, would
you then boycott the movie?
Bergeron22
Teri writes:
>Holding ransom indicates, at least in my mind,
>a malicious manipulation of events using the interests of others involved.
With the caveat, "at least in my mind," I agree. However, in MY mind,
'malicious' does not apply in terms of the word 'ransom'. I don't think Linda
is being malicious, I think (talk about pure speculation!) she might consider
what she went through, what she will accept to go through what she went through
before, (because she has no guarantee that they will not treat her the same),
and what, if any, benefits she might receive as a result of coming back into
the fray. Three things come to mind:
1) She reprises her role as Catherine and all that the plot might entail;
2) The media comes down like a thundering mass on her personal life.
3) Fandom overwhelms her.
I think she is very cogniznant of a "blast from the past." I think she now has
a life apart from B&B and is extremely reluctant to delve into it again.
Having said that, I will say what I have thought all along about Koslow and the
production company and their promises: They can say anything, promise
anything, since they know they can use her reluctance not to deliver.
JoAnne
Bergeron22
Teri writes:
>I trust Koslow to do that IF he gets the
>main elements in place at the start.
Why oh why does it HAVE to be Koslow?
He's not the only gifted writer in the world. I've seen more gifted writers on
this web. Let's not limit creativity of an idea to only one person.
JoAnne
Bergeron22
Teri writes:
>and it's by far more important to
>Republic than any verbage they find.
Tell me about "Republic." I want to be told that what I've heard is dead
wrong... that it has not been discontinued.
JoAnne
TCramer124
Teri writes:
Oh, my - we are in complete agreement on every single point! :>
I don't know if a collarborative script would ever be done between these
three, but I would think that a broad outline from Koslow might be sufficient
to confirm in LH's mind whether or not he's pulling the right stuff together.
I know I could tell with a simple checklist:
>>
>> 1. C&V both alive? [Y]
>> [N]
>> 2. C&V together by end of movie? [Y] [N]
>> 3. Bond intact? [Y]
>> [N]
>> 4. Significant relationship evolutions? [Y] [N]
>> 5. At least one real kiss (between C&V of course :)? [Y] [N]
>> 6. A happily ever-after ending (implied if not seen)? [Y] [N]
>>
>> If all of the above are YES, go for it! Well, of course I'd like a real
quality work in the details, but I trust Koslow to do that IF he gets the main
elements in place at the start.
Tina responses:
All I can say is that the checklist would be a good place to start. I truly
believe that LH has wanted what we the fans have wanted all along. And that is
V & C together, in love, and the relationship moving forward. I think RP has
wanted that too. LH just understood her viewing audience much better than RK
did. That's one of the reasons I believe there were disagreements between
them.
Sandra writes:
>
>And if just one of those things were missing, say the intact bond, would you
then boycott the movie?
Tina responses:
Hmmm, Sandra, that's a tough question. I think the bond is such an essential
part of V & C's relationship that it almost has to be there. Especially if you
reset everything back to the way it was prior to TLBL.
The only reason Catherine loses the bond in TLBL is because it has been passed
on to their child. If you do a TV movie that explains the reasons for TLBL as
a nightmare, then you almost have to say the bond is intact as it should be.
I'm a fan of their bond so I must say that I would miss it if it wasn't there
because it allows for such a deepening of their relationship through the bond.
I'd like to see the TV movie pick up where Catherine goes into that cave and
rescues Vincent but no pro-creation <G> happens between them. Read that as no
lava and roses! <G> She goes in there and he collapses just as his "dark side"
is about to attack her as it was shown. She holds him for dear life and just
as she fears he is slipping away from her (read that as no heartbeat), she then
kisses him. A true, on the mouth, real kiss!!!! :-) (NOTE: This is how I
feel it should have been done the first time around!!! <G>)
Only Vincent will not remember this kiss! All he will remember is that he
believes he hurt her in that cave.
Then she gets him out of that cave but Vincent remains in a coma. Some time can
pass. Two weeks. A month, whatever. Catherine is by his side constantly and
trying to nurse him back to health. Then we have a scene where Catherine is
sitting with him, holding his hand and he still is in a coma and she is reading
to him (take your pick on what it could be) and we see his hand move and then
his eyes open and he comes out of the coma.
Then once he is out of the coma, we can have him having the reoccuring
nightmare of believing that his "dark side" may have hurt Catherine in that
cave. This was always an issue I wanted to see them deal with.
Catherine could even catch him in the middle of one of these reoccuring
nightmares and she wakes him up out of it. And then Catherine makes Vincent
confront those fears and together they move the relationship forward. Now you
can interrupt that anyway you like! <EG> :->
There were so many issues between them that I wanted to see discussed but RK
was always so wishy-washy on having a real discussion between them. And I'll
agree with Teri here and say that I believe the woman writers were much more in
tune with the relationship than the men writers were.
Viriginia Allerdice, I believe, wrote Remember Love and it is one of my
favorite episodes.
Tina (climbing down off her soapbox now.....but hey, having the episodes rerun
on WGN will do that to a person! I'm so excited that I can hardly stand it!!!!
I just get a chill watching it happen all over again!)
alt.tv.lois-n-clark.fanfic
northsider
Bergeron22 wrote:
>
> Teri writes:
>
> >I trust Koslow to do that IF he gets the
> >main elements in place at the start.
>
>
> He's not the only gifted writer in the world. I've seen more gifted writers on
> this web. Let's not limit creativity of an idea to only one person.
>
> JoAnne
Its a legal thing. Koslow must be offered the option to do a script
first. Then, if he turns it down, they can take it somewhere else.
So far I do not think he has exactly turned it down; and, I don't think
TPTB are inclined to take it anywhere else. And that's the way it is!
:)
Bergeron22
Judy writes:
>JoAnne, now it's my turn to nitpick
Sorry, Judy, if it appeared I was "nitpicking." However, everyone gets their
turn.
Judy continues:
>What
>is your PROOF that this is true: "numbers are most often just
>arbitrarily thought up by the person or group who wants to pull
>support their way, and try through numbers to convince the public that
>these are therefore the majority."
What kind of proof do you want, Judy?
Judy continues:
>If you're going to pick at people's words, then you have to be really
>careful with the words that you use yourself. <g>
I am not picking at people's words. I am questioning, as you are, their
premises. What proof do you want from me? My word? Documentation? Proof
that what you see on TV when they tell you that 1 out of 10 women will die from
breast cancer? Or 4 out of 5 children are abused? Or that 100% of the
population will die before the year 2050? Do YOU believe those statistics? If
so, there's my proof, because they are erroneous.
You will agree "some people manipulate numbers sometimes"? Then you already
have proof and need none from me. Are we talking percentages? As in Abe
Lincoln and his axiom? "You can fool all of the people some of the time and
you can fool some of the people all of the time, but you can't fool all of the
people all of the time."? So far as that goes, he was correct. However, when
people want to be fooled, they will accept anything.
JoAnne
Teri
> Tina:
> All I can say is that the checklist would be a good place to start. I
truly
> believe that LH has wanted what we the fans have wanted all along. And
that is
> V & C together, in love, and the relationship moving forward. I think RP
has
> wanted that too. LH just understood her viewing audience much better
than RK
> did. That's one of the reasons I believe there were disagreements
between
> them.
tap:
I'm positive that LH wanted what most of the female fans wanted by
everything she's said in the past. I'm also pretty confident that the V&C
romance is the story that RP is interested in doing.
> Sandra writes:
> >And if just one of those things were missing, say the intact bond, would
you
> then boycott the movie?
tap:
Well, you may be interested in this from an academic standpoint, but I
think there is virtually no chance of the bond being absent in any V&C
story Koslow would do. He developed it, it worked very well, and there's
not a chance in hell he wouldn't employ it again - any more than he
wouldn't employ the 'rambo kitty', as you call him - I agree with that,
btw.
>Tina:
> The only reason Catherine loses the bond in TLBL is because it has been
passed
> on to their child. If you do a TV movie that explains the reasons for
TLBL as
> a nightmare, then you almost have to say the bond is intact as it should
be.
tap:
And that, imo, was only the surface excuse. Koslow was obviously trying to
eliminate the emotional ties the audience had for Catherine as quickly as
he could - he just had no idea how impossible that was. And of course he
needed a dramatic device that would allow Vincent *not* to be able to
rescue C in this case. In the infamous words of my good friend Aurea -
yech blech ptooi!
>Tina:
tap:
Works for me!
Teri
Teri
> >Judy:
> >is your PROOF that this is true: "numbers are most often just
> >arbitrarily thought up by the person or group who wants to pull
> >support their way, and try through numbers to convince the public that
> >these are therefore the majority."
> JoAnne:
> What kind of proof do you want, Judy?
> I am not picking at people's words. I am questioning, as you are, their
> premises. What proof do you want from me? My word? Documentation?
Proof
> that what you see on TV when they tell you that 1 out of 10 women will
die from
> breast cancer? Or 4 out of 5 children are abused? Or that 100% of the
> population will die before the year 2050? Do YOU believe those
statistics? If
> so, there's my proof, because they are erroneous.
>
> You will agree "some people manipulate numbers sometimes"? Then you
already
> have proof and need none from me. Are we talking percentages? As in Abe
> Lincoln and his axiom? "You can fool all of the people some of the time
and
> you can fool some of the people all of the time, but you can't fool all
of the
> people all of the time."? So far as that goes, he was correct. However,
when
> people want to be fooled, they will accept anything.
tap:
Is the way you feel about statistics, polls, surveys, etc., the way you
perceive Republic does? What I mean by that is, what methods do you think
they will choose to employ to ensure the lowest risk for the highest gain
is taken? What sort of 'proof' will they require to place their bet on
this movie project? As fans we can discuss the touchy/feel soft fuzzy
issues, but that's not what they'll do. I'd think they were fools if they
did - wouldn't you? They're not fans, they're in it for the business. But
if they guess right, and put out the show large (very large) numbers of
viewers want to see, then many many more people will be happy than if they
employ less scientific methods and make the wrong choice. Yes, polls and
surveys can be manipulate - political pollsters do it quite often, but not
when they *really* want inside information that they need to make important
decisions for their campaign. That's the difference. Republic has
absolutely no motivation for wanting twisted and manipulated data, but they
have a huge stake in getting correct data. It's not black magic, it's
simple math, and a good polling firm knows it's statistical methodology
inside and out.
I have to question whether or not this is really a case of not believing
the data, as opposed to a case of not liking it.
Teri
Teri
> > tap:
> >and it's by far more important to
> >Republic than any verbage they find.
> JoAnne:
> Tell me about "Republic." I want to be told that what I've heard is dead
> wrong... that it has not been discontinued.
tap2:
What you've heard is dead wrong. ; >
Teri
Teri
> >tap:
> >Holding ransom indicates, at least in my mind,
> >a malicious manipulation of events using the interests of others
involved.
> JoAnne:
> With the caveat, "at least in my mind," I agree. However, in MY mind,
> 'malicious' does not apply in terms of the word 'ransom'. I don't think
Linda
> is being malicious, I think (talk about pure speculation!) she might
consider
> what she went through, what she will accept to go through what she went
through
> before, (because she has no guarantee that they will not treat her the
same),
> and what, if any, benefits she might receive as a result of coming back
into
> the fray.<snip>
tap:
According to American Heritage (a thin hardcopy, so there's not much here),
Ransom is the release of a captive(s) for a demanded price. I think you
can use this definition if you stretch things because we are indeed held
captive to what LH wants if we want to see a movie. However, then we would
also have to say that RP can and is holding the project 'ransom' because he
says that LH's involvement is a must for him reprising the role.
Everyone on the batb team has their requirements for doing the movie, some
small and easily overcome, some larger. RP brings the focal point back to
LH, but she can't be held responsible for RP's preference any more than she
is for the fans who want her there as well.
I guess you'd have to say that those of us who need LH in the movie are
willing captives to her demands, just as those of who need RP in the movie
are willing captives to his demands. Personally, I agree with both of
them, so I guess it's only fair to say I'm both captive to and dependent on
my own demands. I can live with that.
> JoAnne:
> Having said that, I will say what I have thought all along about Koslow
and the
> production company and their promises: They can say anything, promise
> anything, since they know they can use her reluctance not to deliver.
tap:
It's true that they could do the things you say, but why would they? If
they have no intention of doing anything and never did (i.e. thought there
was no money to be made here or thought it was impossible) why would they
bother to placate such a small group of people? (and batb *fandom* is
small compared to the overall viewing population or a fandom of the size of
say, Star Trek). I believe people always act with some motivation, and
that motivation is always driven by self-interest - even when it's
altruistic. I don't kid myself in this case, though. I don't think there
is any altruistic motivation behind Republic's interest. I think they're
easy to interpret because they're motivation is first and last economic,
and that's a simple one to read.
Teri
northsider
TCramer124 wrote:
>
> Sandra writes:
> >
> >And if just one of those things were missing, say the intact bond, would you
> then boycott the movie?
>
> Tina responses:
>
> Hmmm, Sandra, that's a tough question. I think the bond is such an essential
> part of V & C's relationship that it almost has to be there. Especially if you
> reset everything back to the way it was prior to TLBL.
>
> The only reason Catherine loses the bond in TLBL is because it has been passed
> on to their child. If you do a TV movie that explains the reasons for TLBL as
> a nightmare, then you almost have to say the bond is intact as it should be.
>
> I'm a fan of their bond so I must say that I would miss it if it wasn't there
> because it allows for such a deepening of their relationship through the bond.
See I don't much care for the bond; but, not because of what we are
calling here
the rescue/protect scenario. I just like the greater uncertainly of not
knowing how
the other feels.
In "And the Rest is Silence" Vincent goes Above looking for Catherine
even though
she is Below talking to Father. The bond appears to be already gone
even before
Jacob was conceived.
northsider
Teri wrote:
>
> >Tina:
> > The only reason Catherine loses the bond in TLBL is because it has been
> passed
> > on to their child. If you do a TV movie that explains the reasons for
> TLBL as
> > a nightmare, then you almost have to say the bond is intact as it should
> be.
>
> And that, imo, was only the surface excuse. Koslow was obviously trying to
> eliminate the emotional ties the audience had for Catherine as quickly as
> he could -
I don't think the idea that eliminating the bond would somehow eliminate
fan's
attachment to Catherine even occurred to Koslow!
> And of course he
> needed a dramatic device that would allow Vincent *not* to be able to
> rescue C in this case.
Of course, when he needed Catherine to be rescued the bond came into
existence.
When he needed Catherine not to be rescued it disappeared.
It was a device.
northsider
Bergeron22 wrote:
>
> Judy writes:
>
> >JoAnne, now it's my turn to nitpick
>
> Sorry, Judy, if it appeared I was "nitpicking." However, everyone gets their
> turn.
>
> Judy continues:
>
> >is your PROOF that this is true: "numbers are most often just
> >arbitrarily thought up by the person or group who wants to pull
> >support their way, and try through numbers to convince the public that
> >these are therefore the majority."
>
>
>
> >If you're going to pick at people's words, then you have to be really
> >careful with the words that you use yourself. <g>
>
> premises. What proof do you want from me? My word? Documentation? Proof
> that what you see on TV when they tell you that 1 out of 10 women will die from
> breast cancer? Or 4 out of 5 children are abused? Or that 100% of the
> population will die before the year 2050? Do YOU believe those statistics? If
> so, there's my proof, because they are erroneous.
>
> You will agree "some people manipulate numbers sometimes"? Then you already
> have proof and need none from me. Are we talking percentages? As in Abe
> Lincoln and his axiom? "You can fool all of the people some of the time and
> you can fool some of the people all of the time, but you can't fool all of the
> people all of the time."? So far as that goes, he was correct. However, when
> people want to be fooled, they will accept anything.
>
About this we will agree 100%.
northsider
Teri wrote:
>
> > >Judy:
> > >What
> > >is your PROOF that this is true: "numbers are most often just
> > >arbitrarily thought up by the person or group who wants to pull
> > >support their way, and try through numbers to convince the public that
> > >these are therefore the majority."
>
> > What kind of proof do you want, Judy?
> > premises. What proof do you want from me? My word? Documentation?
> Proof
> > that what you see on TV when they tell you that 1 out of 10 women will
> die from
> > breast cancer? Or 4 out of 5 children are abused? Or that 100% of the
> > population will die before the year 2050? Do YOU believe those
> statistics? If
> > so, there's my proof, because they are erroneous.
> >
> > You will agree "some people manipulate numbers sometimes"? Then you
> already
> > have proof and need none from me. Are we talking percentages? As in Abe
> > Lincoln and his axiom? "You can fool all of the people some of the time
> and
> > you can fool some of the people all of the time, but you can't fool all
> of the
> > people all of the time."? So far as that goes, he was correct. However,
> when
> > people want to be fooled, they will accept anything.
>
> Is the way you feel about statistics, polls, surveys, etc., the way you
> perceive Republic does? What I mean by that is, what methods do you think
> they will choose to employ to ensure the lowest risk for the highest gain
> is taken? What sort of 'proof' will they require to place their bet on
> this movie project? As fans we can discuss the touchy/feel soft fuzzy
> issues, but that's not what they'll do. I'd think they were fools if they
> did - wouldn't you? They're not fans, they're in it for the business. But
> if they guess right, and put out the show large (very large) numbers of
> viewers want to see, then many many more people will be happy than if they
> employ less scientific methods and make the wrong choice. Yes, polls and
> surveys can be manipulate - political pollsters do it quite often, but not
> when they *really* want inside information that they need to make important
> decisions for their campaign. That's the difference. Republic has
> absolutely no motivation for wanting twisted and manipulated data, but they
> have a huge stake in getting correct data. It's not black magic, it's
> simple math, and a good polling firm knows it's statistical methodology
> inside and out.
>
> I have to question whether or not this is really a case of not believing
> the data, as opposed to a case of not liking it.
>
> Teri
Teri I don't even know that such data or polls exist. I am not accusing
you of lying; but, I have only your word for it!
I do know that corporations are sometimes influenced by things other
than money. All
it takes is some bigwig with a bee in his bonnet! :)
Like the commercial, I have done my own research - talking with people;
and, I would say that most of them want Catherine back; but, are not as
exacting about the details as you are. :)
Bergeron22
>Works for me!
>
>Teri
Me too! As to the "bond" I'm pretty ambivalent about that. If it is handled
with care (and we still can't get a telephone or computer Below) then okay.
But when it becomes the solution to a story line, it's like using the Star Trek
transporter to get everyone out of danger. To me, there must be some
restrictions in order to make it believable.
JoAnne
Bergeron22
>'s true that they could do the things you say, but why would they? If
>they have no intention of doing anything and never did (i.e. thought there
>was no money to be made here or thought it was impossible) why would they
>bother to placate such a small group of people?
Pretty large group, Teri, when you consider the merchandising that has been
kept alive. Just a thought. I guess I have an inherent distrust of the
network types.
JoAnne
Bergeron22
>It's not black magic, it's
>simple math, and a good polling firm knows it's statistical methodology
>inside and out.
>
>I have to question whether or not this is really a case of not believing
>the data, as opposed to a case of not liking it.
>
>Teri
>
>
Fair question. It's a case of not believing the data. I would like it to be
true, but don't think it is. No, it's not black magic, and it IS simple math,
creative math, designed to appeal to those who have no other anchor to hang on
to.
> What I mean by that is, what methods do you think
>they will choose to employ to ensure the lowest risk for the highest gain
>is taken? What sort of 'proof' will they require to place their bet on
>this movie project?
What methods have they chosen so far? They are busy keeping the possibility
alive so as to cover their butts and keep the fans interested. Unless and
until they decide TO make a series or movie, they will continue to hang out the
carrot. As long as the carrot continues to work, they are safe.
JoAnne
Teri
> > tap:
> > I have to question whether or not this is really a case of not
believing
> > the data, as opposed to a case of not liking it.
> Sandra:
> Teri I don't even know that such data or polls exist. I am not accusing
> you of lying; but, I have only your word for it!
tap2:
But Sandra, just two days ago you said you saw those same polls but
remembered the numbers differently - so you do know they exist. I'll
concede that a discussion of polls published in USA Today 8 years ago is
not in itself any verification that it was a 'good' poll, but it was the
poll data used by the entertainment industry at large - all the numbers for
all prime time shows were there, and it occupied a huge place in the
entertainment section of the only 'national' paper this country has. I'm
the first to admit that USA Today is rightly nicknamed 'McNews', but those
things alone lead me to believe that those polls were industry sanctioned
and therefore considered viable data to the end-users. It's an assumption,
but given that data, I think it's a pretty reasonable one.
> Sandra:
> I do know that corporations are sometimes influenced by things other
> than money. All
> it takes is some bigwig with a bee in his bonnet! :)
tap2:
There are exceptions to every rule, true, but I'm trying to touch on the
likliest scenarios, not the outliers.
> Sandra:
> Like the commercial, I have done my own research - talking with people;
> and, I would say that most of them want Catherine back; but, are not as
> exacting about the details as you are. :)
tap2:
Well, as JoAnne said, there is the serious movie proposal and then there is
the fun one. My serious one is based on what I think the industry will do
- based on their economic motivators. My fun one is the same story, but I
have a lot more details of what I'd like that I in no way feel confident
about getting from an industry standpoint.
Teri