pre-post crisis...pre-post death superman....
Jen
Although I am a avid fan of Lois & Clark, the Superman Movies (at least the
first two) and even the old Superman Show of the 50's, I have never read any
Superman comics. Although I knew Superman had died, I have no idea how they
managed to bring him back, or what the heck the 'crisis' that everyone keeps
refering to was. Could anyone give me a reader's digest condensed version of
what happened with the 'crisis' and the death of Superman, and how Superman
apparently was revamped/changed by these events?
BTW...I wouldn't object to a brief summary of this Matrix/Supergirl thing
either! :)
Len Leshin
By 1987, DC Comics had decided that it's time-stream was fairly messed up
and there were too many alternate universes. It decided to launch a
project called "Crisis on Infinite Worlds" in which (to make a very long
story short) all the alternate universes were destroyed and some great
changes were made to the existing one. Superman was one of the greatest
affected. His origin story was changed in that, in the new remaining
universe, he had not gained his superpowers till high school, so there is
no more "Superboy: The Adventures of Sumerman as a Boy." (There is a new
Superboy in the DC Universe, but is no relation to Superman nor is he
Kryptonian.) One of the things DC did was to make sure Superman was the
Last Son of Krypton, so everything else Kryptonian had to go. Supergirl
was declared dead in battle, and no one in the present DC Universe
remembers her. Krypto is gone with Superboy, alas. And the new writers
of Superman comics decided to emphasize the story that Superman was a
vocation but Clark Kent was the real person, not the other way around.
There is no more Fortress of Solitude, for example; when Clark rests, he
does so at this apartment.
Other changes: Lana Lang was in love with Clark and planned to marry him,
until he revealed to her his super-powers and he decided to move to
Metropolis. Lex Luthor changed from being an outlaw scientific genius to
a multimillionaire who ruled Metropolis economically and had a vicious,
evil side.
The current Supergirl is called Matrix, who was created as sentient
protoplasm, with the ability to morph (isn't that a verb yet?) forms, by
an alternate, good, Lex Luthor in a pocket of time (another real long
story) but who made it to our universe. She first took the form of
Supergirl to enlist Superman's help on her own world. She has decided to
keep the form of Supergirl as a tribute to Superman.
Whew!
--
Len L.
lle...@davlin.net
36, father of 2 and still reading comics....
KalElFan
wrote:
[A really good summary of the pre/post-crisis Superman universe, and of
Supergirl/Matrix.]
Thanks, Len. Now, two more questions:
1. Which do you prefer? (pre/post-crisis, Kara/Matrix)
2. Which do you think most comic readers (exposed to both) would prefer?
My own opinion from what I understand of the changes in 1986-87 is that
they resulted in an unnecessarily limited Superman universe. At the time
they may not have cared, because I suspect the whole Superman franchise
was on the verge of imploding for a number of reasons. They probably
figured they had to do something to shake things up.
Today, the franchise seems to be back on the upswing, partly due to the
success of L&C. I've seen posts in the comics group talking about
expanding the comic line, bringing back Kara for something or other, and
things like that. It seems to me it's time for another major overhaul, one
that enables them to use the best elements of the Superman universe
from all sources, in a more flexible way. Also one that addresses the
multi-media nature of Superman (TV series, movies, comics, video
games, etc.)
My choice, if I had to make one, would be pre-crisis and Kara. But there
are ways you can have your cake and eat it too, because this is
fantasy.
Jennifer D. Polley
<lots of info on crisis and supergirl>
Thank you soooo much. I was just about to ask what crisis was when Jen beat
me to the punch. All of those discussions had been going right over my head,
because I'm not a fan of the comics, just LnC.
Jennifer
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Prayers are always answered. It's just that
sometimes the answer is 'no,' and sometimes
the answer is 'not yet.' But sometimes, the
answer is 'yes.'
- author unknown
"The trouble with being in the rat race is that
even if you win, you're still a rat."
- Lily Tomlin
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Richard K Bethell
I think you're right about the "cake & eat it too" scenario. Perhaps if
Kara was a Kryptonian genetic experiment (there is a precendent for this
that allows Clark to still be the last son - Doomsday was a Kryptonian
experiment gone awry) she could have Matrix's distinct powers.
My reasoning for thinking this is that having another hero with EXACTLY
the same powers would be a little boring.
--
Richard Bethell * cj...@freenet.carleton.ca * rbet...@magi.com
"I'll assimilate you, * http://www.ncf.carleton.ca/~cj434
you'll assimilate me, happiness is irrelevant." Barney of Borg
**** T H E P R I N T I N G H O U S E ****
VARTOX
writes:
>My own opinion from what I understand of the changes in 1986-87 is that
>they resulted in an unnecessarily limited Superman universe. At the time
>they may not have cared, because I suspect the whole Superman franchise
>was on the verge of imploding for a number of reasons. They probably
>figured they had to do something to shake things up.
>
>Today, the franchise seems to be back on the upswing, partly due to the
>success of L&C. I've seen posts in the comics group talking about
>expanding the comic line, bringing back Kara for something or other, and
>things like that. It seems to me it's time for another major overhaul,
one
>that enables them to use the best elements of the Superman universe
>from all sources, in a more flexible way. Also one that addresses the
>multi-media nature of Superman (TV series, movies, comics, video
>games, etc.)
Yes, DC comics in general and the Superman line in particular were
definitely in trouble back then. Too many years of the characters
entrenched in the same stories (most notable example, the old
keeping-the-identity-secret routine).
Though controversial at the time, John Byrne's revamp in which everything
old became new again brought back fan interest in the comics, which IMHO
led to the possibility of L&C's debut.
As to the thought that the changes were somehow unnecesssarily limiting, I
have to most heartily disagree. There are only about two characters that
haven't yet been revived that I'd think would be of interest in the new
climate. One is Sally Selwyn (and just to tease, I'm not going to tell
you who she is - at least not now), but she is no longer viable - I
hope!!! The other, who I desparately hope would have a better costume on
a second go-round, is...oh, what the heck, might as well leave you
guessing on this one too. One hint, though...I'm the hint. ;)
On a personal note, and please don't take this as an attack, KalElFan,
because it is truly not meant to be in any way, but I have a real problem
with the idea of a "Superman franchise", as you often refer to.
Nothing wrong with franchises, or even the idea of comics as a business.
But Paramount's franchising of Star Trek has completely ruined my
enthusiasm for even the original shows, which I can remember vividly
watching as a six-year-old during its original NBC run. ST:TNG, to be
certain, came close in its first year to ruining the ST experience for me,
but rebounded magnificiently. DS9 and Voyager, however, just seem to me
lifeless exercises in milking the cash cow, which routinely ignore
fundamentals laid out in the 1960s. I find nothing special in them, and
that saddens me.
That said, I hope that Superman never becomes a "franchise" in the Star
Trek mold. I can't remember ever not knowing Superman during my nearly 36
years, and though I appreciate and feel fondly toward many of the
live-action and animated Superman projects (including L&C, of course -
with the exception of a certain 5-episode arc), my Superman starts with
the comics. Anyother medium which utilizes these characters, should bend
to their needs, not adapt the characters arbitrarily to theirs. (See also
almost every Marvel project on tv, film and
unexpectedly-straaight-to-video - with the exception of The Incredible
Hulk).
Having now vented, it's only fair for me to say that I don't for a minute
think what I described is what you envision as a "Superman franchise".
I'm sure as an accountant (you are the accountant, and not KalElJr, aren't
you? - I always mix you two up) you use "franchise" differently than I,
with nary an interest in things fiscal, do. What probably truly inspired
this diatribe, rather than anything you said, is developments in the
business side of comics, which I think is going to kill that form in a few
short years, and my perception that L&C (as much as I enjoy it, with the
above exception) is the "tail" wagging the "dog" of the comics. And quite
often not favorably, as the comics seem to wait for the tv couple to unite
before going ahead with their nuptials (yeah, I know what's been said
lately that that isn't the case, but it definitely WAS the original plan).
Basically, a trend of business superceding art, which I abhor.
And so my venting now ends. My apologies if I unfairly picked on you,
KalElFan, it certainly wasn't my intent. I'll be going back to
mostly-lurk-mode now.
Vartox
(who just gave you the hint again as to the identity of character #2
above)
;)
Len Leshin
>In article <4k0rg2$n...@news2.cais.com>, Len Leshin <lle...@davlin.net>
>wrote:
>
>[A really good summary of the pre/post-crisis Superman universe, and of
>Supergirl/Matrix.]
>
>Thanks, Len. Now, two more questions:
>
>1. Which do you prefer? (pre/post-crisis, Kara/Matrix)
I have come to thik of the pre-Crisis and post-Crisis as almost
two different characters, and each has their own merit. Being
36, I had lost interest in the old Superman until the Death of
Superman caught my eye a few years ago. I then went back and
got caught up to date. I greatly enjoyed the Superman of 1987
to 1992, but the comics have been lacking decent story-telling
lately; I'm rather peeved that the dis-engagement of Lois and
Clark in the comics appear to be long-term; that's why I no
longer think that there will be a connected comics-TV wedding.
I miss Kara. Clark is much more of a lonely figure, more
tragic than he was before the Crisis.
>2. Which do you think most comic readers (exposed to both) would prefer?
>
>My own opinion from what I understand of the changes in 1986-87 is that
>they resulted in an unnecessarily limited Superman universe. At the time
>they may not have cared, because I suspect the whole Superman franchise
>was on the verge of imploding for a number of reasons. They probably
>figured they had to do something to shake things up.
The next time you're in a comic book store or a regular book
store that collects Trade Paperbacks (paperback collections of
individual comics), look for John Byrne's _Man of Steel_, the
reprint of the retelling of the story from 1987. Not only does
it humanize Clark, but the foreword by John Byrne as to why he
changed the legend is intriguing. In a nutshell, DC had run
out of stories dealing with a man who could push planets around
with one finger. I mean, how many stories can you write
involving magic and kryptonite?
>Today, the franchise seems to be back on the upswing, partly due to the
>success of L&C. I've seen posts in the comics group talking about
>expanding the comic line, bringing back Kara for something or other, and
>things like that.
Here's the scoop on the new Kara: Superman met her in a recent
miniseries called _Superman Vs Aliens_ (yes, the Sigourney
Weaver aliens). The new Kara looks like the old Supergirl, but
is not Kryptonian.
--
Len L.
lle...@davlin.net
Carter Lupton
Comics), not 1987, and the John Byrne re-vamp of Superman came about 6 months
later, in mid 1986.
KalElFan
writes:
[last paragraph, before getting back to the others]
>And so my venting now ends. My apologies if I unfairly picked
>on you, KalElFan, it certainly wasn't my intent. I'll be going back
>to mostly-lurk-mode now.
Picked on me? I've been through the obnoid school of flame
endurance! I enjoyed reading your post, Vartox, and took no
offense. You expressed your opinions very well. Many I agreed
with, a few I disagreed with, and on others I can't really tell. You're
one of the few people I know of that seem to have *way* more raw
knowledge than I do about everything Superman (I think I have a
fair bit, but it's like I'm in triple A and you're playing in the big
leagues. Before I entered cyberspace, I didn't know many
professionals in the Major League of Raw Superman Knowledge.)
But knowledge does not mean wisdom <g>. Wisdom is a somewhat
different game. On the wisdom point, I will not concede defeat. Not
yet anyway. ;)
>Yes, DC comics in general and the Superman line in particular
>were definitely in trouble back then. Too many years of the
>characters entrenched in the same stories (most notable example,
>the old keeping-the-identity-secret routine).
It looks like my impression that they were in trouble back in 1986-
87 was right, and we agree there. I also don't disagree with your
second sentence being one of the factors, although I'd be sorry to
see the secret identity thing go completely. I agree it can get very
tired if they go to the well with it too often, though.
The impression I had was based on several things: population
demographics weren't working in their favor, technology wasn't
working in their favor (video games at the time, even more
examples now but we're looking at 1986), the Superman movie
franchise had gone into the tank with Superman III and Supergirl,
competition from Marvel (my God! Spiderman seemed to be more
popular.) There was a brief time there when I thought I might end
up talking to my future grandkids about Superman, say 30 years
from now, and they'd smile at me the same way I smile at my father
when he talks about Flash Gordon or the Lone Ranger or The
Shadow.
>Though controversial at the time, John Byrne's revamp in which
>everything old became new again brought back fan interest in the
>comics, which IMHO led to the possibility of L&C's debut.
You may be right. And for that he deserves to be in the Superman
Hall of Fame (is there one?). But so may Deborah Joy Levine for
her first-year work on L&C, because she laid the groundwork for
what eventually became a much better season two, a great season
three (except for the arc, we agree there, too), and what may yet go
down in Superman history as a great series. For creating it, I think
she would deserve to be in the Hall.
What I'm saying is, it doesn't mean that what Byrne created around
1986 is necessarily an appropriate framework now, much less the
optimum one.
>As to the thought that the changes were somehow unnecessarily
>limiting, I have to most heartily disagree. There are only about two
>characters that haven't yet been revived...
Well, I'm not just talking about characters, of course. In one of my
earliest posts, I mentioned a whole bunch of things or characters I
remembered from the comics, listing just a few: the Fortress of
Solitude, the Phantom Zone, General Zod, Mon-El, and Supergirl
(Kara, my guess for your second character, only because for some
reason I have the vague impression that Vartox has something to do
with Matrix). There's also the issue of "Kal-El" and to what extent
the kryptonian heritage thing has been disowned in favor of Clark
Kent. Let's be frank. This is not the Clark Kent legend, it's the
Superman legend. Talk about the tail wagging the dog.
Then there's the issue of Superman's strength and invulnerability.
My Superman could fly into a dense star and bring out a handful of
material. (A few weeks later he might get into the ring with Ali, so
there was always plenty of flexibility pre-crisis. Maybe even too
much at times. But that's another story <g>). There's the red sun /
yellow sun effect on his powers (maybe that's still here post-crisis
for all I know). It just seems to me that there are a whole bunch of
potentially good things that have disappeared from common use
here. And the *impression* people have is "Oh, you can't do that
because it doesn't exist post-crisis." You apparently can't even bring
back Krypto the Superdog without having Mr. Mxyzptlk conjure
him up as a prank (no emotional attachment to Krypto, here, just
another example.) A framework that presents these kinds of "no-
can-do" obstacles needs fixing, IMHO. If you're right that it
*hasn't* been unnecessarily limiting (and I don't think you are),
then they've failed in selling that fact. And they've made
themselves jump through difficult hoops to use pre-crisis stuff,
when the framework should ideally make that easy. (again MHO.)
>On a personal note, and please don't take this as an attack,
>KalElFan, because it is truly not meant to be in any way, but I have
>a real problem with the idea of a "Superman franchise", as you
>often refer to.
As I said, no offense taken. You point out later that until you know
exactly what I mean by that, you really can't say whether you
disagree with it or not. I think you might love my framework for the
Superman franchise. Right now, I'm hoping it's on Singer's desk,
with glowing reviews from the readers on his staff so he'll be eager
to look at it after the show goes on hiatus. Realistically, it's
probably just been rejected by the hairdresser of his executive
assistant's secretary. Anyway, once it's formally rejected (there's
optimism for you!), I'll post it everywhere in cyberspace so you can
judge for yourself.
>Nothing wrong with franchises, or even the idea of comics as a
>business. But Paramount's franchising of Star Trek has completely
>ruined my enthusiasm for even the original shows, which I can
>remember vividly watching as a six-year-old during its original
>NBC run.
I would have been 8 going on 9 at that time. And I didn't see the
first episode. I was in the schoolyard the next day and my friends
were talking about this show and I didn't know what the big deal
was. Who'd athunkit then, eh?
Agree with some of what you said about Star Trek, disagree with
other parts of it. My parents watch the Regis show and they taped it
for me sometime this week when Shatner and Nimoy were on. The
other day I dragged myself away from Microsoft Word and took a
few minutes to sit down and watch the tape. I was smiling through
the whole thing. It's like all those good memories of watching Star
Trek come back all at once. Sure, Nimoy's talking about the play
he's directing and Shatner's plugging a new Star Trek book or
something, but it's great to see them. Regis asks if there might ever
be another movie with the old guys in it. Nimoy says, yeah, there
probably will be again someday. I think to myself, wouldn't that be
great. (I'm still steamed that they "killed" Kirk in Generations.
There's no reason why he can't still be floating around in that
nirvana-ribbon-thing having a good time on the old ranch, ready to
come back if need be <g>).
Moral: Star Trek is a good thing! Has been for thirty years. It's had
its share of "Spock's Brain" valleys, but it's also had its "City on the
Edge of Forever" peaks, and a lot in between. I think DSN has been
excellent this year, with a few episodes that might even challenge
for my All Time Top Ten. That one where Jake ages is an absolute
classic, IMHO. Voyager is another kettle of fish right now.
Probably like you, I fear turning on Voyager and watching Janeway
roll around barking "Chakotay, Report!" while the ship gets the shit
kicked out of it every other week. But I'm hoping things will get
better. There's always hope. If it gets too painful, try thinking
Gilligan's Island and matching up the various characters. Humor
might help pull you through this still early stage of the series.
>That said, I hope that Superman never becomes a "franchise" in
>the Star Trek mold. Having now vented, it's only fair for me to say
>that I don't for a minute think what I described is what you envision
>as a "Superman franchise". I'm sure as an accountant (you are the
>accountant, and not KalElJr, aren't you? - I always mix you two up)
>you use "franchise" differently than I, with nary an interest in things
>fiscal, do.
Didn't know KalElJr existed until about two weeks ago. Then
again, I didn't know that KalElFan existed until I asked AOL for the
screen name some time ago, and I was surprised to find it wasn't
already taken. I suppose I have that crisis business to thank <g>
Kal-El is a more obscure word than it used to be, I guess. Who
knows, maybe when they fix that crisis thing and bring things back
to the way they *should* be ;), Kal-El's stock will go up 3 7/8 and
I'll be sitting on a gold mine.
[BTW, brief bio of an accountant who now considers himself a
writer: Worked for Big Accounting Firm 1979-86. Disliked
auditing, 1979-1982. Didn't care much for Business Investigations,
1982-1985. Detested Tax, January-February 1985. Liked National
Education, 1985-1986. Left the firm as a Manager in June, 1986
and became a writer (mainly of business books, manuals, training
materials, etc.) Still like doing that, but would like being the John
Grisham of the accounting world even more (for the money <g>,
not the fame). Dabbled in creative writing, including spec
Superman script around 1986-88 (got read by WB and CAA).
Recently created spec "Superman framework" panacea solution
to everything, as previously mentioned.]
Maybe because of my career path, I view the business and creative
sides as being equal in importance. Creative people think it up,
perform it, etc., and business people deliver it to the largest
possible audience. Like you, I hate it when the business side
dominates and there isn't anything good underlying it creatively.
But I also never got this idea of art for art's sake. I often refer to it
as "artsy fartsy". To me, there isn't much point to art unless it's
delivered to as many people as possible who might appreciate it. At
least that should be the goal. I don't even mind Superman lunch
boxes, if it helps enhance that goal. Profit isn't against my religion,
and I won't begrudge Time Warner/WB/DC/ABC/Anybody Else if
they all end up gorging themselves on a multi-billion-dollar
Superman pie. As long as the creative side is also doing their job,
then more power to all of them, because a bigger pie means more
people are enjoying Superman.
>What probably truly inspired this diatribe, rather than anything
>you said, is developments in the business side of comics, which I
>think is going to kill that form in a few short years, and my
>perception that L&C (as much as I enjoy it, with the above
>exception) is the "tail" wagging the "dog" of the comics.
My prediction would be that the comics will survive, but that ten
years from now people will mainly be downloading them over their
cable modems and viewing them on-screen. Or we may even have
hand-held electronic tablets, like the ones Picard uses <g>, for
downloading things and more conveniently reading them. Hard
copy will be available, too, but will become more expensive.
Whatever happens to the newspaper business - and you'll notice
they're falling all over themselves to go online - something similar
will probably happen to the comics.
The tail wagging the dog issue is an interesting one. I may be
completely wrong on this, but the impression I have is that the
comics are a drop in the bucket compared to the big prize:
blockbuster movies and everything that generates. There was a
piece in Variety a while back talking about how TV series have
become a poor second choice to movie franchises. If it's possible to
go the movie route, they do. You see so many examples of this,
even of old TV series becoming movies, that I don't think there's
any doubt that the dog is the movie. I just hope the movie isn't a
dog.
Of course, in KalElFan's universe, you don't have to make choices.
Everything fits together and enhances everything else. The comics
will support the TV series, which will pave the way for the movie,
which will support the continuing TV series and spinoff series,
which will enhance the comics and everything else, which will
grow the pie even more. People will have their cake and eat it too.
Len Leshin
Quite true, I seem to have fixated on 1987 for some odd reason.
BTW, KalElFan, Vartox was the name of a villain in the pre-Crisis
Universe and has not reappeared yet. YOu'd think they'd bring him back
since they brought back the terra-guy....
VARTOX
writes:
(quite a bit of stuff that I won't be copying here)
KalElFan, my thanks for taking what I said so gracefully. Thanks also for
your compliment on my "knowledge" of things Superman, but I have to tell
you, there's a lot of folks out there who can blow me away in that
department, despite my maybe 25 years of following the legend. (I won't
claim greater wisdom here, but since you brought it up, might I suggest
time is as equally important as knowledge? <G>)
With the back-issue comics market currently in a lull, you may well find
that now would be a good time to start your own "coursework". You might
find that the more you know about the history of the characters, the more
your thoughts on the franchise and those who affect it might change.
Ditto the current state of the comics industry, which has even
professionals worried about the future.
(Just a friendly suggestion, not another diatribe.) ;)
The only other thing I'm going to mention here is yes, there was a
character named Vartox to whom I was referring as one who I'd like to see
come back. Matrix did not exist pre-Crisis, and so Vartox has nothing to
do with her, as you thought. (Lana Lang, onl the other hand...) BTW,
Kara is back - sort of - via the recent Superman Vs. Aliens mini-series,
which surprised me as being much better than I'd thought possible. And to
think I almost let it go by unread...
Vartox, then, was the second character; to reiterate, the first was Sally
Selwyn.. Just to keep the option of a guessing game going, I still won't
say who she was right now, except to say that she was part of an unusually
good Red Kryptonite story.
(Back to lurk-mode - for now...)
Kal El Jr
<a pretty good article on the Crisis>
Not bad, Len. You told it pretty well. I e-mailed Jen a copy of a post I
put up in another newsgroup that answered the same question. I also sent
her an article about Matrix. I know everything about his death and
return, so I'm also going to send her what I know. I hope it won't be too
much. ;)
Brian "Kal El Jr" Wilson
"Love is the most powerful force in the entire universe. If you hold it
in your heart, you can achieve the impossible. And if you have enough
loved ones, then you have an unbeatable army that can overcome all
obstacles." -Myself
KalElFan
writes:
>KalElFan, my thanks for taking what I said so gracefully.
Your welcome.
>Thanks also for your compliment on my "knowledge" of things
>Superman, but I have to tell you, there's a lot of folks out there
>who can blow me away in that department...
You're being too modest. Besides, my ego couldn't take playing in
the AA League of Raw Superman Knowledge. So as far as I'm
concerned, you're a pro and I'm in AAA. Those other folks are
the Wayne Gretzkys and the Ken Griffeys and the Michael Jordans.
>I won't claim greater wisdom here, but since you brought it up,
>might I suggest time is as equally important as knowledge? <G>
That's getting way too deep for me. Is there an alt.philosophy or
something that might help me out on this one? On second thought,
forget that. I haven't allocated any time for it. <g>
>With the back-issue comics market currently in a lull, you may
>well find that now would be a good time to start your own
>"coursework".
There's only so much this brain of mine can absorb. My Superman
Comics Lobe was nearly overloaded between 1965-72 or thereabouts.
(And there are still microscopic residues of comic ink on my fingers.)
So there aren't many brain cells left in that lobe anymore, and I don't
want to borrow from others. Not right now anyway.
>You might find that the more you know about the history of the
>characters, the more your thoughts on the franchise and those
>who affect it might change. Ditto the current state of the comics
>industry, which has even professionals worried about the future.
Thanks, but I'm quite content playing in the triple AAA League of
Raw Superman Knowledge. At least for now. If they want to call
me up, I always have an open mind. <g>
And far be it for me to question those highly skilled professionals,
but you know, sometimes us minor leaguers can have an even greater
appreciation and love for the game, as well as for those fan masses
out there who aren't really in your league or even mine, but who pay
all those pro salaries. ;)
>(Just a friendly suggestion, not another diatribe.) ;)
Likewise.
>The only other thing I'm going to mention here is yes, there was
>a character named Vartox to whom I was referring as one who I'd
>like to see come back.
So you're still going to keep us in suspense as to who Vartox is, eh?
>Matrix did not exist pre-Crisis, and so Vartox has nothing to do
>with her, as you thought.
I knew Matrix didn't exist pre-crisis. And I deduce that Vartox is
pre-crisis from this little hint. So I guess that's why I vaguely
remember the Vartox name.
(Lana Lang, on the other hand...)
Yeah, I understand she was kind of fodder for Matrix. So now it's
like the old Supergirl is Superman's cousin, but the new one is
his ex-girlfriend. But not really. Let me tell ya, I just wouldn't
want to have to explain all this to those 16-20 million L&C viewers
out there in the U.S. alone. I think I'll leave that to others. Maybe
they could bring back the pros who brought us Superman III and IV
and Supergirl in between there to help us out with all this. <g>
Or maybe we should just leave it in the professional, capable
hands of those ABC execs who are allegedly responsible for the
recent arc. <G>
>BTW, Kara is back - sort of - via the recent Superman Vs. Aliens
>mini-series...
Noticed that over in the comics group. There go those professionals
again, wowing us with their post-crisis, hoop-jumping prowess.
Imagine how great the stories would be if they didn't have to use
so much creative energy jumping through those hoops. ;)
>Vartox, then, was the second character; to reiterate, the first
>was Sally Selwyn.. Just to keep the option of a guessing game
>going, I still won't say who she was right now, except to say
>that she was part of an unusually good Red Kryptonite story.
Well, that's not really fair. If it involves red kryptonite then we
know it doesn't count. It's like those imaginary stories where they
got married and had kids.
But if I was guessing, the double-S in her name is probably a key
of some sort. Maybe she ties in to the double-Ls in some way. I'd
hate to think it was something kinky like Superman becoming a
she and taking Sally Selwyn as his... er, her secret identity. ;)
>(Back to lurk-mode - for now...)
Not for long, I hope.
KalElFan
writes:
>I miss Kara. Clark is much more of a lonely figure, more
>tragic than he was before the Crisis.
This is an excellent point. Completely cutting him off from his
Kryptonian heritage is kind of sad. (I know, Vartox, they can
still get around it by jumping through those hoops. But this
"Last Son of Krypton" business is another problem in my view.
Sure, it makes him special, but at what cost in terms of the
various elements that were readily available pre-crisis? And
unlike Batman, lonely and tragic is something you never heard
in the same sentence as Superman, at least pre-crisis. There
ought to be ways those professionals <g> can improve upon
the situation.)
>The next time you're in a comic book store or a regular book
>store that collects Trade Paperbacks (paperback collections of
>individual comics), look for John Byrne's _Man of Steel_, the
>reprint of the retelling of the story from 1987. Not only does
>it humanize Clark, but the foreword by John Byrne as to why he
>changed the legend is intriguing. In a nutshell, DC had run
>out of stories dealing with a man who could push planets around
>with one finger. I mean, how many stories can you write
>involving magic and kryptonite?
Good points, and I may check that book out if I can find it. I'm not
against all the changes. I'm against the ones that close the door to
things. There are always ways you can have your cake and eat it
too. I think my opinion on this really hardened when someone sent
me an e-mail early on saying, more or less, that the reason they
didn't use the Fortress of Solitude anymore was because it basically
didn't exist post-crisis. In my view, there's no reason anything needs
to cease to exist. The more things that exist, the less likely it is that
you run out of stories.
For example, bringing back Ma and Pa Kent was a great idea. It adds
story possibilities.
Kal El Jr
>I'm sure as an accountant (you are the accountant, and not KalElJr,
aren't
>you? - I always mix you two up)
KalElFan is most definitely the accountant. The name is Kal El Jr and I
don't even have a summer job lined up yet. I'm only 15 and hate working
with numbers, so I doubt I'd ever even become an accountant.
VARTOX
writes:
>In article <4k1po3$7...@news2.cais.com>, Len Leshin <lle...@davlin.net>
>writes:
>
>>I miss Kara. Clark is much more of a lonely figure, more
>>tragic than he was before the Crisis.
>
>This is an excellent point. Completely cutting him off from his
>Kryptonian heritage is kind of sad. (I know, Vartox, they can
>still get around it by jumping through those hoops. But this
>"Last Son of Krypton" business is another problem in my view.
>Sure, it makes him special, but at what cost in terms of the
>various elements that were readily available pre-crisis? And
>unlike Batman, lonely and tragic is something you never heard
>in the same sentence as Superman, at least pre-crisis.
De-lurking again (sigh)...
Check out the last page of the Man of Steel TPB - you both might find that
Clark isn't _that_ lonely about the loss of Krypton, at least as much as
the pre-Crisis Superman was - and he had much less reason to mourn.
The best line I ever heard about Krypton's explosion pre-Crisis was to the
effect that "...only the Science Council ever really died." Between Argo
City, Kandor, the Phantom Zoners and even Jor-El and Lara, sort of (in one
best-forgotten Superboy tale, in which they were discovered - and left -
in a suspended animation rocket), there were enough surviving Kryptonians
to populate a New Krypton.
In fact, they _did_. In the early 80's. The planet was called Rokyn, in
honor of the Kryptonian deity Rao. (Of course, like Brigadoon, it only
showed up in this dimension occasionally...)
The way Bryne laid the foundation, Superman was actually lucky that
Krypton exploded. The place made the planet Vulcan look like Disneyland.
Plus, the door was, and is, still open a crack to other survivors of
Krypton. Whenever a Superman writer is asked if there will be any new
Kryptonians introduced, the response is usually something like "I don't
think so, but you never know what will happen in the future." That
opening made the character of Kara in Superman Vs. Aliens so intruiging -
we 'knew' she wasn't gonna be a Kryptonian, but maybe, just maybe....
I still don't feel that anything has been lost in the revamp. As I've
said before, just about everyone and everything is back, but with new
twists. Lex Luthor still hates Superman, but not because Superboy made
his hair fall out. Mr. Mxyzptlk is back, but we don't have to endure
umpteen ways to make him say his name backward anymore to get rid of him.
The Phantom Zone criminals returned, and in the process brought along a
Supergirl with them. (And Superman killed them, so now we really know the
basis for his new code against killing.) Ma and Pa Kent are back, and are
still living. Lois is back and now knows the secret. Jimmy was even
Turtle-Boy (as the star of a kiddie show). There's even a Krypto who
hangs out with the new Superboy, but they don't really get along.
And whoever mailed the info about the Fortress was wrong - there was/is
one now; but it's not currently in proper working order.
Vartox (who is pressing the black button on the AOL Zone projector...)
KalElFan
writes:
>De-lurking again (sigh)...
I'm glad. It's an interesting debate.
>... Clark isn't _that_ lonely about the loss of Krypton, at
>least as much as the pre-Crisis Superman was - and he
>had much less reason to mourn.
Well, I don't think Len or I were referring to the words that
some writers might put in Clark's mouth. It's the perception
that we the audience/readers have, i.e.:
>... Between Argo City, Kandor, the Phantom Zoners and even
>Jor-El and Lara... there were enough surviving Kryptonians to
>populate a New Krypton.
And now there aren't *any*, at least technically, no matter what
hoops they might try to jump through. It seems to me a little
rash. And unnecessary. It's not like those pre-crisis Kryptonians
were running around Metropolis every day. But they were a
readily available part of the legend, and I think that was a good
thing for the writers and the readers.
>The way Bryne laid the foundation, Superman was actually
>lucky that Krypton exploded. The place made the planet
>Vulcan look like Disneyland.
You seem to be saying Byrne blew it up *real good*. I'm sorry,
but that doesn't make me feel any better about it. The Krypton
I remember wasn't such a bad place. That's the one I wish
there were still some remnants of, besides kryptonite.
>Plus, the door was, and is, still open a crack to other survivors
>of Krypton. Whenever a Superman writer is asked if there will
>be any new Kryptonians introduced, the response is usually
>something like "I don't think so, but you never know what will
>happen in the future."
And I bet those Superman writers are asked that a lot. And I
bet they wish they didn't have to contemplate the daunting task
of jumping through those hoops to get there. They've already
found themselves:
---> creating another Supergirl but calling her Matrix (and
even giving her shape-shifting abilities so she could look
like the old one);
---> bringing back Kara, no small task now with that wonderful
new "Krypton-less" structure we've got, but now they can't
even call her Supergirl because they think they've backed
themselves into a corner with Matrix;
---> creating Kryptonian globes because they've torched
their Fortress of Solitude and need *something* to keep the
Krypton link (BTW, Clark goes back to his apartment for
contemplation, what a great thing to look forward to for the
next 60 years). I know, the Fortress is there but not in working
order. So now the writers have to get that thing in working
order. Again.
What was the point of getting rid of Krypton in the first place?
Simply to make Superman "unique?" At what cost?
>I still don't feel that anything has been lost in the revamp... Lex
>Luthor still hates Superman, but not because Superboy made
>his hair fall out.
I agree that was always a little silly, but at least it was personal.
That's what made him such a great villain. The new Luthor must
have been modelled after Michael Milken or something. But I'm
not completely against this one. John Shea's portrayal and the
way the thing's developed over the past *two* years have almost
convinced me to keep an open mind. <g> We'll see.
>Mr. Mxyzptlk is back, but we don't have to endure umpteen
>ways to make him say his name backward anymore to get rid
>of him.
Interesting you should mention that. It's a good change.
>The Phantom Zone criminals returned, and in the process
>brought along a Supergirl with them. (And Superman killed
>them, so now we really know the basis for his new code
>against killing.)
Well, I guess the Phantom Zone folks are gone for good now,
then. And the idea that Superman had to kill to have a basis
for his new code strikes me as very un-Supermanish. The
old Supes had the code because it was right, at least as I
remember it.
>Ma and Pa Kent are back, and are still living. Lois is back
>and now knows the secret.
Both *very* good moves.
>Vartox (who is pressing the black button on the AOL Zone
>projector...)
What's the point if everyone there's been killed off? <g>
That was another interesting post, Vartox. And I want to
emphasize that I'm not trashing what Byrne did *at the
time he did it*. In fact, I accept that things very much
needed to be shaken up, and he may have done exactly the
right thing. A lot of what he did will remain, I'm sure. But
at some point, things change again in a major way, and I
think now would be a good time.
You yourself complained about what you considered the
TV series tail wagging the comic dog. A better structure
would deal with that issue and allow each to be pursued
more independently. Many other people, especially the
"post-crisis" fans, seem to have the impression that you
can't do x,y, or z because that's pre-crisis and doesn't
exist. Writers seem to be using (wasting?) creative
energy awkwardly jumping through those hoops when
they shouldn't need to.
The more I think about, learn about, and discuss this the more
I become convinced that there's a problem here, Vartox. Take
it from someone whose perspective on this is different than
yours. You've seen Superman slowly evolve through this crisis, I
haven't. I won't argue my perspective is better, but perhaps it does
allow me to "see" things that you don't. IMHO, this brave new world
is becoming tired and old even quicker than the last one did. It
could use an overhaul that opens things up considerably more,
and that makes it a lot easier "to get there from here."
And a final word on what I consider the second problem with
the crisis, which is this "humanizing" of Superman and the
extent that it's been taken to. DC already has a human, tragic,
lonely, dark character. He's called Batman. Superman, in my
view, has always been and always should be the idealistic flip
side: pure, almost god-like, a beacon of light, a standard that
we can never achieve but can aspire to, at least in our fantasies.
Perhaps it's a good idea for us to take this Hercules or Zeus or
whomever you want to compare him to, and try to humanize him
to some extent. But not to the extent that we permanently tear
down Olympus and make him just a turbo-charged version of
ourselves. That may be alright to do as a ten-year "shake things
up because we need to" experiment. But I think it's time for the
pendulum to start swinging back to where it should be, which is
the other way.
erbin
According to my friend, this season's finale is going to be a
shocker since we will all find out that Superman's already married.
He's been married since he was a baby and his wife will be paying
Metropolis a visit. She needs his help to fight off some evil man
trying to take over their planet (wherever that is).
Of course, Lois Lane will be devasted but Clark will do everything
he could so that he and Lois ends up together. Hmmmm....
```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Has anybody heard of this very interesting plot? Any truth to this?
Kal El Jr
>me an e-mail early on saying, more or less, that the reason they
>didn't use the Fortress of Solitude anymore was because it basically
>didn't exist post-crisis.
Sorry, but it did exist post-Crisis. A 200,000(somewhere around there)
year old Kryptonian artifact called the Eradicator came into Superman's
possession and it created the Fortress of Solitude. The Eradicator and
Fortress were Superman's links to his Kryptonian heritage. The Eradicator
had to be destroyed, however, because it was trying to control Superman's
mind. It came back in a humanoid form, was destroyed, came back to life,
sacrificed his life for Superman, and his body now lives with someone
else's mind in control. The original Eradicator's mind is trying to
return, though. The Eradicator also destroyed the Fortress, fearing that
he wouldn't get to Superman in time to save him and help save the earth.
So Superman has now lost his ties to Krypton, except for the knowledge
that was driven into his brain by the Eradicator and a device of Jor-El's
when he first learned he was Kryptonian.
Fly-Boy
- He is the only survivor of Krypton. Because of a genectic defect, Most
Kryptonians could not leave the planet without dying. Jor-EL (being
one of Krypton's greatest scientests) corrected this defect in Kal-EL,
before shipping him to Earth.
- He was NOT born on Krypton; but rather on Earth. He was conceived on
Krypton and kept alive in the starship's "birthing chamber" (I think that's
what is was called).
- Clark's power developed slowly through his childhood. Under Earth's yellow
sun, (as opposed to Krypton's red sun) his Kryptonian cells act as living
solar batteries, absorbing solar energy and giving him superhuman powers.
These powers steadily developed and increased as he grew older.
Therefore, Clark's pre-crisis youth of "Superboy" no longer existed. The
Superboy that exists in today's comics is actually a partial-clone of
Superman (he was created from a government project that attempted to clone
Supes after he "died" a few years back).
- In the pre-crisis timeline, Clark's Earth parents died and he tearfully
says, "with all my powers, ... I couldn't save them." Now, Ma and Pa
Kent are still alive and are his confidants.
Changes with respect to Supes' powers:
- strength greatly reduced
- speed greatly reduced (eg. can no longer fly at light-speed)
- cannot fly in space nor underwater for an extended period of time
(must fill his lungs up before doing so).
- can be knocked over by canon fire; but remains unharmed by pretty much all
earthly artillery (however, I've heard different stories on how he would
fare against a nuclear explosion).
- his irradiated cells generate a thin force field around his body that
renders nearly indestructible any material in close physical contact with
him, such as his skin-tight costume. (On L&C, it is referred to as an
"aura").
Hope this helps lift the veil of confusion,
Jack.
KalElFan
writes:
This would certainly fit with what little we know about this upcoming
3-parter. Can't you just see it now? Lois and Clark all ready to get
married, again. The Minister asks, "does anyone know of any reason..."
when in pops (flies?) Kal-El's pre-arranged partner in marriage. The
mind boggles.
The problem is this would be a continuation of the soap-opera approach
to the marriage: clone-wedding-amnesia arc, the sequel. IMHO, it would
show they're completely out of touch with their audience and still haven't
learned their lesson from this last one. Even more FoLC would leave,
because it reaches the point where you get tired of them pulling your
chain and you really don't care anymore (right, Leigh?). They should
be concentrating on better self-contained stories and less on the soap
opera stuff. It's fine to take their time with the marriage, and make the
engagement as long as they want, but pulling FoLC's chains like this
is plain stupid. It would pretty much prove that TPTB view L&C as a
nightime soap rather than the romance-fantasy-action/adventure-comedy
that most FoLCs thought they were watching.
Anyway, do you have any reason to believe this rumor has any truth?
Colonel X
>In article <4k63bl$9...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, var...@aol.com (VARTOX)
>writes:
>>Luthor still hates Superman, but not because Superboy made
>>his hair fall out.
>
>I agree that was always a little silly, but at least it was personal.
>That's what made him such a great villain. The new Luthor must
>have been modelled after Michael Milken or something. But I'm
>not completely against this one. John Shea's portrayal and the
>way the thing's developed over the past *two* years have almost
>convinced me to keep an open mind. <g> We'll see.
When I started reading the Superman comics again in 1992, I found my-
self liking the new Luthor a lot more than the old. The only times in
my youth I ever found that silly, bald, jumpsuit-wearing fellow at all
interesting were the times his schemes were just too outlandish for
words. There was a great World's Finest where he and the Joker teamed
up, stole a time machine thing and brought people like Genghis Khan
and Ivan the Terrible into the present. I loved that to pieces...oh,
and all of his dastardly cartoon schemes with the Legion of Doom of
course. "OK, now who's got a cunning plan to destroy the Super Friends
this week? The chair recognizes Sinestro!"
The new (comic) Luthor has seemed a much more rounded character, and
I think most of season one followed in some of those dandy footsteps.
Since "The Phoenix," he's just been a "Melrose Place" character. Sad,
really.
>
>>Mr. Mxyzptlk is back, but we don't have to endure umpteen
>>ways to make him say his name backward anymore to get rid
>>of him.
>
>Interesting you should mention that. It's a good change.
Well, I don't agree at all here. Mxyzptlk has always been such a
stupid character that the only time I found him tolerable was when
Superman was rearranging billboards to trick him.
"Oh, no! Mxyzptlk! I've gone blind! Where are we?"
"Well, we're seven miles from, uh, Klip-liss-skim. Oh, drat!!!"
Poof!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
On assignment in Athens, Georgia,
Colonel X.
Expect the unexpected.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Colonel X
Potential spoilers herein, if'n of course these rumors turn out to
be true.
At least, at the very fractured core of it, it's intriguing to me
since it's different and, potentially, more of an original television
notion than the whole amnesia thing. Sure, I know, I'm just the wacky
ole Colonel who is the lone voice in the wilderness wanting to see
some real fantasy elements, from Green Arrow to the Green Seas of Planet
Coosbain and less romance (we have afternoons full of that),
but I'll sit up and take notice of this plot a good deal more handily
than I will the Romance Gone Bad arc.
A note of fear though...apparently Eugenie Ross-Leming and Brad Buckner
are behind the last episode of the season and they've pretty well
proven themselves incapable of writing fantasy (that's "sci-fi" for
you laymen out there) and this new rumored arc does seem to be even more
firmly grounded in the "way out" than anything else we've seen on the
show...that doesn't hold a lot of promise.
(On that note, I saw an episode of "Highcliffe Manor" this weekend that
featured, among its stars, Eugenie Ross-Leming as a mad scientist type.
It's a shame she didn't stick with acting because she did a really
good job and her character was much more interesting than any she's
created as a writer.)
KalElFan
<GOG...@MUSIC.CC.UGA.EDU> writes:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Potential spoilers herein, if'n of course these rumors turn out to
>be true.
>
>
>
>
This thread was entitled "Superman's got a wife???" and I'm
proposing we continue it here. I agree that the person should
have included spoiler space and I probably should have in the
response, but it was there at the top of the thread and in the
title, so we're probably too late now. Anyway, it's still just
a rumor and I hadn't seen it anywhere before. The earlier posts
are recapped below.
The only problem I have with the rumor is if this woman really is his
"wife" under some Kryptonian legal convention they might conjure up.
I think that's unnecessarily messing with people's brains again. We
already hear people talking about how it won't be the same if they
get married now because of the last arc. If Lois becomes Clark's
third wife (after this woman and the clone - that bigamist!), it will
detract from the eventual wedding even more for a lot of FoLC.
That said, I agree with you Colonel that the story itself could be a
very interesting one if it's done right. It certainly fits the Krypton
connection criteria.
Also agree that more fantasy would be good, and I don't think it
would necessarily have to be at the expense of romance.
KalElFan
>Potential spoilers herein, if'n of course these rumors turn out to
>be true.
You're right, Colonel. I propose this thread be continued in the "Rumor /
Possible SPOILER" thread I've just posted to. (Even though it's a bit
late for that now.)
KalElFan
writes:
>Sorry, but it [Fortress of Solitude] did exist post-Crisis... The
>Eradicator also destroyed the Fortress... So Superman has
>now lost his ties to Krypton...
This is basically consistent with what the person e-mailing me said.
You make the point that it technically existed, but it's been destroyed
now and Superman has lost all ties to Krypton with a few minor
exceptions.
The fact that the Eradicator story seems like such an interesting one
(Zoom recently posted a description of it as well), again begs the
question as to why Krypton was eliminated in the crisis overhaul.
The Eradicator story is another example of the writers jumping
through those hoops to try and bring back the Krypton links that
should never have been eliminated in the first place.
But don't worry. This is fantasy. There's nothing that can't be
corrected fairly easily. If I were them, though, I'd do it in one major
overhaul so I didn't have to continually jump through those hoops.
KalElFan
<GOG...@MUSIC.CC.UGA.EDU> writes:
>When I started reading the Superman comics again in 1992, I found
>myself liking the new Luthor a lot more than the old... The new
>(comic) Luthor has seemed a much more rounded character,
>and I think most of season one followed in some of those dandy
>footsteps. Since "The Phoenix," he's just been a "Melrose Place"
>character. Sad, really.
There's probably a composite Luthor in here somewhere that might
appeal to all of us. I didn't like Luthor as a regular in season one,
or as someone who went around wooing Lois every other week.
Having both of those feeds in to the soap opera stuff which you've
correctly identified as a drawback of Luthor's appearances.
The thing I really liked about the old Luthor was the personal, life-
long animosity he had towards Superboy/Superman. I think that
provides a better foundation for a great villain.
So maybe the Luthor we'd all be happy with is one whose enmity
with Superman goes way back, who went on to become the well-
rounded John Shea character in season 1, who still has it in for
Superman but is "respectable" and therefore tough to beat
(e.g., pulling the strings of other villains he uses as tools), but
who isn't a romantic rival. As for the bald/hair controversy, maybe
that does have something (but not everything) to do with his enmity
with Superman, and now he wears a toupee.
If that sounds like a fair compromise, then we'll draw up a
contract and ask TPTB to sign it in time for next season. There
are some continuity holes in there, I know, but this is fantasy
and we can work them out.
>>>Mr. Mxyzptlk is back, but we don't have to endure umpteen
>>>ways to make him say his name backward anymore to get rid
>>>of him.
>>
>>Interesting you should mention that. It's a good change.
>
>Well, I don't agree at all here. Mxyzptlk has always been such a
>stupid character that the only time I found him tolerable was when
>Superman was rearranging billboards to trick him.
>
>"Oh, no! Mxyzptlk! I've gone blind! Where are we?"
>"Well, we're seven miles from, uh, Klip-liss-skim. Oh, drat!!!"
>Poof!
I might have more to say about this character at some point ;), but
again, how about a compromise? Saying his name backwards is
one of several ways he goes poof, along with the use of a wish he's
granted (being used currently, I understand), his own choice, and
any other good ones we can think of.
Good point about him being pretty stupid, Colonel. He used to
remind me of that Kazoo character or whatever his name was in
the Flintstones (for all I know, that's where that Flintstones'
character came from; the Honeymooners were already in there,
so why not Mxyzptlk). Make him a little wiser and potentially
more threatening (at least at times), and less silly while still
retaining the humor. Maybe even lose the Leprechaun look.
VARTOX
writes:
>The more I think about, learn about, and discuss this the more
>I become convinced that there's a problem here, Vartox. Take
>it from someone whose perspective on this is different than
>yours. You've seen Superman slowly evolve through this crisis, I
>haven't. I won't argue my perspective is better, but perhaps it does
>allow me to "see" things that you don't. IMHO, this brave new world
>is becoming tired and old even quicker than the last one did. It
>could use an overhaul that opens things up considerably more,
>and that makes it a lot easier "to get there from here."
>
But on what do you base that opinion? You haven't been following the
comic, and you've said you're not interested in going back to see what's
gone before, so you're basically giving out opinions on what you "think"
you know. It would be akin to my telling you where the mistakes were in
the book Gone With the Wind, never having read the book, but only seeing
the movie, and trying to figure what the general public, many of whom may
never have viewed either version thinks about the characters. (Perhaps
not a completely accurate example, but I think you get the idea.)
I'm not going to bother with what would be a rehash of history I've set
out before - the places to look for yourself that I've suggested (and
encourage, and there are more resources I could suggest, should you become
interested) still apply - with this exception:
>And a final word on what I consider the second problem with
>the crisis, which is this "humanizing" of Superman and the
>extent that it's been taken to. DC already has a human, tragic,
>lonely, dark character. He's called Batman. Superman, in my
>view, has always been and always should be the idealistic flip
>side: pure, almost god-like, a beacon of light, a standard that
>we can never achieve but can aspire to, at least in our fantasies.
He still is that icon to most citizens, heroes and fans of the DC
Universe. I know Len said something about him being lonely and brooding,
but frankly, I'm still trying to figure out his basis in fact.
Superman knows all about Krypton. He respects the people and their
accomplishments, but doesn't miss the sterility, emotional and otherwise,
of its civilization. As a result, he's been happy to be a citizen of
Earth, and happy to be Superman, in a position to help his fellow man.
Sure, getting killed annoyed him, but once the danger that faced Earth
upon his return passed, he was happy again. Certainly, he's been in a
funk lately, but I'd think anyone whose fiance broke their engagement not
long after he'd been on trial for destroying a planet that blew up before
he was born (yes, Krypton) would have more than a little chip on his
shoulder.
And if memory serves, the premise of having Clark happy to be on Earth
was, in fact, to distinguish him from Batman. Without the angst of being
orphaned (not only when Krypton exploded, but when the Kents died) that
the pre-Crisis Superman had, this new incarnation is free to be Superman
because he has the powers and the goodness of heart to use them.
Some of the other points you raise have actually long since become
irrelevant to those of us who have been following the character.
By now, I've frankly forgotten the original point I had. But as for the
tail wagging the dog, my problem was not that the tv show directly
influences the comic, just that the business side's one-time wish for a
double-wedding has led to the story in the comic being held back. The
comic really doesn't influence the show much these days, but so far, it
certainly reflects the four-color version of Superman's lack of despair
over Krypton's fate. To date, only one episode that mentions it in any
detail.
So, with that, this post (which again was composed with the intent of
being relatively opinion-free), class is over.
For now anyway.
KalElFan
writes:
>But on what do you base that opinion?
That would take an awfully long time to answer, and since it's already
been largely answered in the 10,000+ words, at least, that have made
up this thread so far, I won't bore you with it again here.
>You haven't been following the comic, and you've said you're not
>interested in going back to see what's gone before, so you're
>basically giving out opinions on what you "think" you know.
Getting a little testy, aren't we?
Up until six weeks ago, Vartox, I admit that I had a major gap in my
Superman knowledge, i.e., the post-crisis comics. But I've been a
fan as long as you have, still had suitcases full of comics as late as
around 1981 when I sold them, and have bought them a number of
times since then. Unlike you, I don't view the comics as being the
only reference point here. There's the old TV series, the movie series
(which I followed very closely, probably sitting down in the theater
more than 50 times over the course of the whole series), L&C and so
on.
As far as the gap goes, I was always vaguely aware of the changes
in 1986, the crisis, Doomsday, etc. Over the past six weeks, I've
purchased a number of comics, and I've also been subscribing to
the comics newsgroup for several weeks. There are spoilers over
there as well as the Krytonian Cybernet postings, Chappell's
material that he just posted yesterday which has a wealth of
post-crisis information, and lots of other stuff. I've been looking at
the Krypton Club's material including some interviews with people
like Byrne himself. (BTW, did you know he only saw a "couple of
episodes" of L&C in its second season, after which that interview
was done? And he was about to move on to Wonder Woman at
that time, saying he wasn't really interested in doing Superman
on a regular basis. So I guess even the pros have neither the time
nor the inclination to keep up on everything Superman, eh, Vartox?)
As my AOL bill last month can attest ($201.99!) I've absorbed
quite a bit of information, thank you very much, about post-crisis
Superman. You could read this newsgroup alone, this thread alone
and come out with a fairly good "big picture" view of this thing.
I may have taken the "Coles Notes" approach, teach, but I've got
those notes pretty well mastered by now. Way more than enough
to express an informed opinion. I could even argue a more informed
opinion than you, because your view of the forest may have been
blinded by all those trees that made up the comic books you've been
reading. But I won't argue that, because it would be a little too
testy. ;) [Especially on this wonderful, snowy, Christmas-like Easter
afternoon up here in Toronto].
>He still is that icon to most citizens, heroes and fans of the DC
>Universe. I know Len said something about him being lonely
>and brooding, but frankly, I'm still trying to figure out his basis
>in fact.
Maybe it's the fact that he's the last surviving member of his race,
and maybe some fibre of his fictional being resents the fact that all
those great Krypton connections have been stripped away from him
by this crisis you're apparently so unconditionally in love with.
>Sure, getting killed annoyed him, but once the danger that faced Earth
>upon his return passed, he was happy again. Certainly, he's been in
>a funk lately, but I'd think anyone whose fiance broke their engagement
>not long after he'd been on trial for destroying a planet that blew up
>before he was born (yes, Krypton) would have more than a little chip
>on his shoulder.
Oh, so now you're helping make a better case for us. On behalf of Len
and I, thank you.
>Some of the other points you raise have actually long since become
>irrelevant to those of us who have been following the character.
By "those of us" I assume you mean those professionals in the
Major League of Superman Raw Knowledge who happen to agree
with your view?
>By now, I've frankly forgotten the original point I had.
I think it was that my opinion was somehow deficient.
>So, with that, this post (which again was composed with the intent of
>being relatively opinion-free), class is over.
>
>For now anyway.
Always glad when you drop by.
Len Leshin
>Check out the last page of the Man of Steel TPB - you both might find that
>Clark isn't _that_ lonely about the loss of Krypton, at least as much as
>the pre-Crisis Superman was - and he had much less reason to mourn.
Ummm..have you checked the last 2 months of the comics out?
Lois has dumped him, Jimmy has left the Planet, Cat left a long
time ago, and he's never really been a member of the Justice
League in this incarnation...in fact, the most recent comic
stresses how alone he is. Maybe it's time for another trip to
Smallville....
>Plus, the door was, and is, still open a crack to other survivors of
>Krypton. Whenever a Superman writer is asked if there will be any new
>Kryptonians introduced, the response is usually something like "I don't
>think so, but you never know what will happen in the future."
I agree completely.
>I still don't feel that anything has been lost in the revamp. As I've
>said before, just about everyone and everything is back, but with new
>twists.
Yes, I do feel that the pluses of the revamp far outweigh the
minuses. But I still think that Clark's a lonely guy,
especially since his Resurrection. Maybe it's the writers; I
certainly miss Byrne/Ordway and their take on the Blue Guy.
>Vartox (who is pressing the black button on the AOL Zone projector...)
Hah! Me am impervious -- I mean, i am impervious...
--
Len L.
lle...@davlin.net
KalElFan
writes:
>Yes, I do feel that the pluses of the revamp far outweigh the
>minuses. But I still think that Clark's a lonely guy,
>especially since his Resurrection. Maybe it's the writers; I
>certainly miss Byrne/Ordway and their take on the Blue Guy.
Lest anyone get the wrong impression from the ongoing debate,
I don't disagree with the revamp decision at the time. It may well
have saved Superman from fading into oblivion, and as Vartox
mentioned helped pave the way for L&C and whatever lies ahead.
I also believe there are many positive aspects of the revamp that
should be carried forward.
What I've said also isn't meant to attack any of the writers or
artists, especially not Byrne, for the job that they've all done.
Quite the opposite, I've tried to look at this as a writer would,
and I think what I'm advocating would make their job easier. Even
on L&C, where the writers have taken a lot of flack for this arc, I
blame primarily ABC for it and their desire to achieve a February
ratings bounce with little regard for the long-term health of the
series. The writers and the creative side played the cards they
were dealt as well as they could.
What I'm advocating is another revamp, one which probably
doesn't have to be as big as the last one, which would improve
upon what exists now: open up the possibilities even more and
make it easier "to get there from here," especially when it comes
making the Krypton-related folklore more readily available (the
Fortress, the Phantom Zone and those it contained, Kara, and
so on); swing the pendulum back *somewhat* from the "human-
izing" of Superman, and better address the multimedia reality of
Superman that may be on the verge of exploding.
BTW, I'm watching a rerun of Ultra Woman (it's on CTV up here
in Canada), and it's better the second time, IMHO. Hope you're
all enjoying The Ten Commandments. Heh heh.
Seraphis1
o
s
s
i
b
l
e
S
p
o
i
l
e
r
Re: the wife/marriage problem.
I think whoever came up with this arranged marriage things is probably
right on the
money. (By the way I have to publicly eat crow or the finale
marriage.....I want to take
my licks from you guys for being so wrong.....I admit it now and I now see
the scheme
that is in the minds of TPTB.)
They believe they have to keep the real marriage for later in the fourth
season. It's
coming folks. I knew I was wrong when there was no publicity engine in
gear. When
the real wedding takes place they will be hitting the boards at least a
month in advance.
We will be in no doubt about it and we will know that there will not be
any hanky
panky involved they'll do it straight and I have no doubt that despite all
the denials at
DC about a coordinated effort I believe that this is all meant to explode
as a major
surprise for maximum effect.
I've heard that the last three eps are a trilogy with the second part the
cliffhanger and no
doubt the cliffhanger IS the fact that "S" is bound by an arranged
marriage and the fourth
season will deal with how he untangles that mess and finally in one of the
sweeps periods
they will have the real marriage.
TPTB regard the marriage as a major ratings coup to be exploited to the
fullest possible
extent. Therefore, have two major obstacles and two weddings one in each
season with
the real wedding rising in an orgasmic crescendo an punching L&C into the
top ten.
That's undoubtedly the plan. The question is will it work??????????????/
Kal El Jr
>Ummm..have you checked the last 2 months of the comics out?
>Lois has dumped him, Jimmy has left the Planet, Cat left a long
>time ago, and he's never really been a member of the Justice
>League in this incarnation...in fact, the most recent comic
>stresses how alone he is. Maybe it's time for another trip to
>Smallville....
Superman WAS a member of the post-Crisis Justice League. He teamed with
them several times and led them for a while. He was the leader when they
fought Doomsday.
He is going to Smallville in two weeks, but a couple of tornadoes are
going to drop by.
You also forgot a childhood friend discovering his secret identity, trying
to kill him and all his friends, destroying the Kents' farmhouse, and then
killing himself while trying to kill Superman. That would make me mourn
some. How 'bout you?
These are only a few of the things they have done to ruin what they did by
making him Clark first, and Superman second, and cutting his Kryptonian
ties. These helped cheer him up, and now he's always mad (or at least
that's how they have been drawing him in Action Comics for the past few
years). I think the only reason his break-up with Lois didn't drive him
insane was the belief that they might get together and knowing he always
had his parents' love. These are the only things that have kept him from
turning into a super-powered Batman in a brighter costume.
As for what KalElFan says, I disagree when he says that they should've
kept him as more of a Kryptonian and less of a human. He can still be a
symbol of light, but he can now be one we can all aspire to become. As a
pure Kryptonian, god-like being like he was pre-Crisis, his perfection was
unattainable, while having him more like the average man gives the idea
that anyone can be just like him, only without the powers. One of the
things about him that makes him a symbol of light and justice is that he
will do anything for anyone and that he will not take a life. As an alien
we cannot copy, he can't be as good of a symbol as he is as someone who is
like the average Tom, Dick, or Harry. The pre-Crisis Superman/Clark Kent
was a perfect god we could not easily copy. The post-Crisis Clark
Kent/Superman is a super-powered man with faults like everyone alse who we
can more easily copy. While the classic Superman was by far the more
powerful in physical attributes, I think the modern Superman is the more
powerful in moral and humanitarian attributes. If I had to choose which
Superman would be the one in the comics, or any show, I would choose the
modern Superman anyday.
Cj
>The only problem I have with the rumor is if this woman really is his
>"wife" under some Kryptonian legal convention they might conjure up.
>I think that's unnecessarily messing with people's brains again. We
>already hear people talking about how it won't be the same if they
>get married now because of the last arc. If Lois becomes Clark's
>third wife (after this woman and the clone - that bigamist!), it will
>detract from the eventual wedding even more for a lot of FoLC.
>That said, I agree with you Colonel that the story itself could be a
>very interesting one if it's done right. It certainly fits the Krypton
>connection criteria.
>Also agree that more fantasy would be good, and I don't think it
>would necessarily have to be at the expense of romance.
For what it's worth, here are my thoughts:
First of all, haven't heard this rumor anywhere but here. Now that
doesn't mean anything, but I don't see widespread rumors on this line.
Colonel; couldn't agree more that we have to get back to the basics
on L&C; ie, Superman saving the world from diabolical villians. More
fantasy/action is essential to keeping this series from becoming a
campy version of Knots Landing.
However, since this is Lois and Clark: The New Adventures of
Superman, and not simply, The New Adventures of Superman, Lois has to
have a significant role. Returning to a Superman that is almost
eunich-like (read: George Reeves version), could not happen to this
series nor would it be welcome. To have a Superman that simply saves
the world every week gets dull and we'd have a Superman that is, in
the end, pathetic. Plus, Lois just chasing him around to get a story
or maintain some school-girl crush is not very '90s nor very
satisfying. After where they have been and where they are heading, it
would certainly ruin what has, IMHO, kept this version of the tale
fresh.
KalElFan; agree in kind with your position that the romance must
remain. I think that based on the way the whole series is set up, any
departure from that basic premise would cause the ratings and the show
to collapse.
It is my opinion that the Execs at ABC (aka: TPTB) understand that
they are in a severe jam. On the one hand, there's the "Moonlighting"
and "Cheers" effect that occurs to programs once the underlying
tension between the two main characters is resolved. On the other
hand, those that are watching the series are getting mighty frustrated
with their indecision and lack of boldness on the wedding issue.
Either situation is undesireable but they've painted themselves into a
corner. The recent wedding arc caused considerable frustration in the
ranks of the loyal following (with all due respect to Colonel X) to
the extent that some have threatened to move on and in some case they
may have, based on the share and ratings for the past few weeks. Yet,
TPTB can't shake the "Moonlighting" fear that a wedding will bring the
tension to an end and people will drop off.
If I were part of TPTB, I would see one sure thing happening:
keep screwing around with the wedding and viewers will drop off from
frustration. That will happen. Even if you don't like the romance
part, you do get tired of getting yanked around like a rube!
On the other hand, with good writing, good plots, focus on the
action/fantasy, putting Lois in peril and Superman in jeopardy
frequently enough and the show can retain it's staying power,
notwithstanding the marriage between Lois and Clark. Plus, the
marriage can provide the bit of humor that the show's been missing
over the last few episodes.
I'd like to see some Kryptonian heritage influence in the show. I
think that will be a fascinating road upon which to take this series.
But I strongly feel that it should go that route with L&C together as
a wedded couple. I believe that TPTB should grow a set, have the
wedding, get it over with, and let the series get on with where it was
headed all along. There's plenty of people that still deal with Clark
who don't know his identity, there's still plenty of mystery that
surrounds his disappearances, and I think if TPTB just got it over
with and moved on that we'd get past the soap opera effect and start
getting back to some real fantasy and action.
That's my two cents on the matter...for what it's worth. Returning
to lurking mode...3...2..1...out!
CrackerJack
Len Leshin
>Superman WAS a member of the post-Crisis Justice League. He teamed with
>them several times and led them for a while. He was the leader when they
>fought Doomsday.
Well, he was never really their leader, and he worked with them
sometimes but wasn't a member in that he ever appeared on a
regular basis in the JLA comics.
>He is going to Smallville in two weeks, but a couple of tornadoes are
>going to drop by.
Actually, my comment "time for a visit to Smallville" _was_
alluding to the upcoming issues. I guess I wasn't being
obvious enough.
>You also forgot a childhood friend discovering his secret identity, trying
>to kill him and all his friends, destroying the Kents' farmhouse, and then
>killing himself while trying to kill Superman. That would make me mourn
>some. How 'bout you?
I got the impression from the "0" comic series that Braverman
was more of an acquaintance, not a great friend. How good of a
friend is it who keeps trying to beat you at competitions and
gets so bent out of shape when he loses?
>These are only a few of the things they have done to ruin what they did by
>making him Clark first, and Superman second, and cutting his Kryptonian
>ties. These helped cheer him up, and now he's always mad (or at least
>that's how they have been drawing him in Action Comics for the past few
>years).
No, I like the current incarnation better. All that Kryptonian
mumbo-jumbo "alienated" me. (Heh, heh, heh.) I like Byrne's
version of a cold, sterile Krypton better, so Clark/Kal-El
doesn't mourn his homeland so much. (But I _still_ miss Kara.)
I think the only reason his break-up with Lois didn't drive him
>insane was the belief that they might get together and knowing he always
>had his parents' love. These are the only things that have kept him from
>turning into a super-powered Batman in a brighter costume.
Nah, someone would have to kill Jonathan and Martha in a dark
alleyway to do that, first.
>As for what KalElFan says, I disagree when he says that they should've
>kept him as more of a Kryptonian and less of a human. He can still be a
>symbol of light, but he can now be one we can all aspire to become. As a
>pure Kryptonian, god-like being like he was pre-Crisis, his perfection was
>unattainable, while having him more like the average man gives the idea
>that anyone can be just like him, only without the powers. One of the
>things about him that makes him a symbol of light and justice is that he
>will do anything for anyone and that he will not take a life. As an alien
>we cannot copy, he can't be as good of a symbol as he is as someone who is
>like the average Tom, Dick, or Harry. The pre-Crisis Superman/Clark Kent
>was a perfect god we could not easily copy. The post-Crisis Clark
>Kent/Superman is a super-powered man with faults like everyone alse who we
>can more easily copy. While the classic Superman was by far the more
>powerful in physical attributes, I think the modern Superman is the more
>powerful in moral and humanitarian attributes. If I had to choose which
>Superman would be the one in the comics, or any show, I would choose the
>modern Superman anyday.
To me, the old Supes was "Truth, justice and the American way."
I think anyone can strive for that, super breath or no super
breath. :>
Len Leshin
(snip)
>He still is that icon to most citizens, heroes and fans of the DC
>Universe. I know Len said something about him being lonely and brooding,
>but frankly, I'm still trying to figure out his basis in fact.
Umm...I meant lately, actually. Lois dumped him, Jimmy and Cat
are no longer at the Planet, Lana hasn't been seen since the
funeral (does she know he's back?), and he doesn't "hang" with
other heroes very much (I _never_ see him at Warrior's)....I
was just saying that I think he's a lonlier character without
Kara, that's all. I certainly don't think he's
"brooding"....did I use that word? If so, I didn't mean it.
The whole point to my post was that I miss Supergirl.
Otherwise, I like the post-Crisis Supes more so than the
pre-Crisis.
BTW, I just re-read the "Crisis" issue where Kara
dies....powerful stuff, one of the greatest comics ever.
Maybe we should move this thread to alt.comics.superman?
--
Len L.
lle...@davlin.net
36, father of 2 and still reading Superman comics
Shana Hornstein
from some other planet or what?
Zoomway
to the marriage: clone-wedding-amnesia arc, the sequel. IMHO, it would
show they're completely out of touch with their audience and still haven't
learned their lesson from this last one. Even more FoLC would leave,
because it reaches the point where you get tired of them pulling your
chain and you really don't care anymore <<<
Here I agree. The stories have been too dark lately, and worse, they've
been frustrating. There will be plenty of humor in Teri's episode, but it
will be followed by darkness again. The writers seemed in tune to the
romance and its importance to the survival in the ratings for most of this
season, but somehow that focus has been lost, or at least blurred. I'm
sure fans who hated seeing Lois with someone else will adore seeing Clark
with an 'obligation' to someone else..oy<g>
They have to come up with something fairly spectacular for their finale,
and having Lois and Clark again torn apart by circumstances just won't
quite fill the bill. They can't even bank on a guest star because Tenney
is a not a name draw (no offense but he simply isn't) Now if they want to
suit-up Clooney in the Bat suit for a test drive, okay :) *That* would
grab ratings. I worry because of FMN costing L&C 2 million viewers.
Downers just don't do well in what should be a romantic comedy adventure.
Occasional dark episodes are fine, but a series of them does start looking
like a soap opera. Well, if part one is hot enough, it may hook people
into part two, and thus the cliffhanger. Although they have a lot of
ground to make up after a wedding arc that had no wedding and trying to
cajole 2 million people into watching again.
>>They should
be concentrating on better self-contained stories and less on the soap
opera stuff. It's fine to take their time with the marriage, and make the
engagement as long as they want, but pulling FoLC's chains like this
is plain stupid. It would pretty much prove that TPTB view L&C as a
nightime soap rather than the romance-fantasy-action/adventure-comedy
that most FoLCs thought they were watching.<<<
For the most part I agree here. That is, avoiding 'arcs' for the most part
unless they have L&C in love and working as a team in some arc. Having
them apart, or at odds with each other longer than one episode is just way
too frustrating and we've learned what a beating it can cause in the
ratings. Since they have already been renewed for a fourth season, perhaps
they feel they are in no danger by dragging things out, but without
knowing the competition next year, that becomes dangerous. The comic book
is also suffering due to this 'drag it out' downer nature, but at least
they are getting back into characterization and away from the 'event'
Superman-as-punching-bag stories they had for a while.
>>At least, at the very fractured core of it, it's intriguing to me
since it's different and, potentially, more of an original television
notion than the whole amnesia thing.<<<
Really? I thought it sounded a lot like Amok Time from the original Star
Trek<g> "Less than a marriage, but more than a betrothal."
>> Sure, I know, I'm just the wacky
ole Colonel who is the lone voice in the wilderness wanting to see
some real fantasy elements, from Green Arrow to the Green Seas of Planet
Coosbain and less romance (we have afternoons full of that),
but I'll sit up and take notice of this plot a good deal more handily
than I will the Romance Gone Bad arc.<<<
Well, I wouldn't mind Batman, but only because that would be a ratings
grabber. The others are strickly from hunger. No offense, but The Flash,
as well done a show as it was, and MANTIS as 'un'well done a show as it
was, had something in common. Neither had a hook that would attract an
audience beyond the basic comic book fan. It is the romance of Lois and
Clark that drives the show, and all else, no matter how unfair as it may
seem to the tiny minority that want comic book action, pales by
comparison.
>>A note of fear though...apparently Eugenie Ross-Leming and Brad Buckner
are behind the last episode of the season and they've pretty well
proven themselves incapable of writing fantasy (that's "sci-fi" for
you laymen out there) and this new rumored arc does seem to be even more
firmly grounded in the "way out" than anything else we've seen on the
show...that doesn't hold a lot of promise.<<<<
Well, ERL/Buckner are two of my favorite writers this year, but if the SF
element had ever been a factor in the show's popularity, then the show
would have been a 'ratings bonanza' back in the first half of season two,
but that was clearly not the case. I enjoyed Never on Sunday, because I
also enjoy the comics, but I also know the show would fold up with too
many episodes paying homage to the comics. Again, it just is not what
grabs the ratings. Lois and Clark's romance does, even with some pretty
severe critics. That's why ERL/Buckner are enjoyable for me, because their
forte is relationship dialogue, and I really enjoy their work. I could
give a flying !@#$ at a rolling donut when it comes to the villains. If
they don't overpower or truncate the L&C interaction, they can be Spenser
Spenser of Lex Luthor, and I don't care.
Zoom (amazing how many rumors are coming from WB after TPTB there turned
it into a concentration camp after they came in with a 2" stack of
printouts that ticked them off :)
Zoomway
Chris Smith
I really wish if you were going to post spoilers or potential spoilers
you would list it in the header. I do not read them and get very
upset when I stumble upon them. I like the mystery of not knowing in
advance
KalElFan
writes:
>I disagree when he [KalElFan] says that they should've kept him
>as more of a Kryptonian and less of a human.
That was a long post <g>, and I agreed with pretty much all
of it. I've highlighted the above because I think it may be due to a
misunderstanding of my position. I also don't think that that one
sentence fairly reflects your own position, either, at least as you
set it out in your last post.
My position is that:
"Perhaps it's a good idea for us to take this Hercules or Zeus or
whomever you want to compare him to, and try to humanize him
to some extent. But not to the extent that we permanently tear
down Olympus and make him just a turbo-charged version of
ourselves."
If they brought back the Krypton links so that they were more
readily *available*, that would go a long way towards swinging
the pendulum back. That's not to say that the Krypton links
should be overused. I very much like other attempts to humanize
him (e.g., bringing back Ma and Pa Kent, toning his powers
down *somewhat* so he can't "push planets around with one
finger," [at least not all the time <g>], etc.).
Even more importantly, I'm trying to look at the broader picture,
as I've described in earlier posts and won't repeat here.
In article <4ka2f8$r...@news2.cais.com>, Len Leshin <lle...@davlin.net>
writes:
>Maybe we should move this thread to alt.comics.superman?
You may be right. But I'm sure it was interesting for many L&C folks to
read about it. At least some of them.
KalElFan
wrote:
[Many things, not one of which I really disagree with. This concerns
me greatly, because I also agree with Colonel X most of the time,
and yet Zoomway and Colonel X seem to differ on the fantasy/sci-fi
versus the romance issue. How can I agree with both and still
remain credible? Answer: Because we FoLC should be able to have
our cake and eat it too, that's why! Throw in a little something for
everyone once in a while.]
As far as the rumor/spoiler goes, we still don't know if it has
any real basis. The reasons I think it may be true are (i) it
seems so plausible (i.e., it fits with everything we know including
the "Krypton Connection" and "Big Surprise" theories (although
the "Changes Metropolis" deal still throws me a bit); and (ii) the
poster relayed it in a way that suggests it comes from a source
who seems to accept that it's true, for some reason.
In article <4ka50f$f...@news.ccit.arizona.edu>, Shana Hornstein
<sha...@u.arizona.edu> writes:
>One question, didn't Krypton and everything on it blow up? Is
>this wife from some other planet or what?
That would probably be the way they'd do it, Shana. See the following.
In article <4k9u4n$h...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, sera...@aol.com
(Seraphis1) writes:
>TPTB regard the marriage as a major ratings coup to be
>exploited to the fullest possible extent. Therefore, have two
>major obstacles and two weddings one in each season with
>the real wedding rising in an orgasmic crescendo and punching
>L&C into the top ten. That's undoubtedly the plan. The
>question is will it work?
Well, it would really be two in a series of weddings if the rumor
is right. As I said, and as Zoomway, Leigh and countless others
have said before me, there's only so much FoLC can take before
clicking their remote. Many already have. The key will be in
how they handle this.
For example, say they make her a Kryptonian but her
adopted planet since birth has been somewhere else
(the original poster suggests there is another planet involved
that she tries to get Superman's help in saving). If that's
the *only* reason she's here and the audience is let in on
that, it might work. I absolutely agree with Zoom's analysis
of the potential impact on FoLC. The key, in my view, is to
do it in some way that doesn't jerk the audience around. If
she shows up, is told by Clark and Lois "sorry, dear, he's
taken," accepts that, and then Clark/Lois agree to help her
out, then FoLC might enjoy the rest of the arc. If she has
IKBD (Incurable Kryptonian Betrothed Disease) and is
inalterable scheduled to die in next season's opener (so we
FoLC know she isn't another threat a la Mayson Drake), then
even better. Maybe we can even root for her adopted home
planet getting saved or whatever.
If they handle it the wrong way, it becomes a never-ending
marriage-related soap and they lose another big chunk of
viewers, IMHO.
BTW, even if it's not true, it's good to get this thing out in the
open in case they ever try something like it in the future. Like
after they get married, annulling the wedding when someone
like her shows up. (Well, how can you trust them not to do
something like that? They refuse to come out and give any
clear, public assurances.)
As far as Clooney's Batman showing up, wouldn't that be a
great boost to the ratings, if they could work it out? Even if it
were a short guest appearance of some kind. Maybe as a
guest at a *real* wedding?
Then again, maybe a network cross-over like that would only
exacerbate the confusion at ABC. We wouldn't want that. <g>
TPaschal
have been speculating on in this thread. Granted, these are from tabloid
papers that are generally NOT credible sources of information, but several
people have said that their spoilers for the (Non) Wedding Arc were
correct. Maybe these tabloids really do have an inside source at L&C?
S
P
O
I
L
E
R
S
P
A
C
E
The first post read:
<<<In this weeks Star Magazine there is a spoiler. Read on.
#1 it says Dean Cain wants $450,000 per episode and that he may fly away
as Superman forever. Nobody is worth that much money. Personally I think
thats a publicity stunt to get viewers to really react. I think we are
reacting already.
It goes on to say:
"According to the script's final scene, the man of steel flies off into
the heavens to save his people with a beautiful Kryptonian woman called
Zara, leaving Lois heartbroken and in tears. But he telepathically tells
Lois that he still loves her and she looks up to the skies with hope in
her eyes." Honest thats what it says.
I wouldh't take much stock in what Star wrote except that their spoiler
for the Arc was right on the money and it came out about a month before
the arc actually aired. Not one thing differed on the series from what
their spoiler stated.>>>
And the second post read:
<<<Hi Co-fans! The following article is from the April 16th issue of
Globe Magazine. It contains the details for this year's season finale.
LOIS WEEPS AS SUPERMAN FLIES OFF WITH HIS WIFE:
Get out your handkerchiefs for the sensational season-ender of Lois &
Clark. Superman, reveals an insider, will break the heart of his
long-suffering galpal and fly off to another planet - in the arms of
another woman! It's the biggest shock of the series as the Man of Steel
(Dean Cain) discovers he's been married since birth. Disguised as
mild-mannered reporter Clark Kent, he's bowled over when a co-worker
reveals she's from Superman's home planet Krypton, and was wed to him when
they were just babies!
The celestial cutie, Zara, explains she's come to Earth to collect her
hubby and return to space to over-throw an evil ruler - with his help.
This is crushing news for Lois Lane (Teri Hatcher) who had her own
iron-clad wedding plans for the Man of Steel. But Clark promises he'll
return if he can. And Lois makes sure he won't forget - by gently placing
a wedding ring on a chain around his neck. Superman, says an insider,
takes her hands gently in his and vows: "I'll keep it as safely as I keep
my love for you. I've loved you from the very beginning. In my heart,
I'm YOUR husband."
The weepy plotline will come as a shock to fans of the usually
light-hearted show. "The final scenes could have been lifted from a
romance novel," the insider reveals. The episode, titled Big Girls Don't
Fly, is scheduled to air May 19 on ABC. "It's an emotional cliffhanger,"
says the insider.>>>
I'm still hoping that this is wrong, but if two of the tabloids are going
with this story, and if another person posted it on this board, it sounds
like there may actually be a leak somewhere at L&C. I hope it's all
disinformation, but maybe not...... :-(
Tonya
TPas...@aol.com
VARTOX
>var...@aol.com (VARTOX) wrote:
> (snip)
>>He still is that icon to most citizens, heroes and fans of the DC
>>Universe. I know Len said something about him being lonely and
brooding,
>>but frankly, I'm still trying to figure out his basis in fact.
>
>Umm...I meant lately, actually. Lois dumped him, Jimmy and Cat
>are no longer at the Planet, Lana hasn't been seen since the
>funeral (does she know he's back?), and he doesn't "hang" with
>other heroes very much (I _never_ see him at Warrior's)....I
>was just saying that I think he's a lonlier character without
>Kara, that's all. I certainly don't think he's
>"brooding"....did I use that word? If so, I didn't mean it.
>The whole point to my post was that I miss Supergirl.
>Otherwise, I like the post-Crisis Supes more so than the
>pre-Crisis.
>
My apologies for misquoting you. As you ight have read in an earlier
post, I do agree largely with your assessment of his current unhappiness.
Staying post-Crisis for a minute, if they'd ever refer to him missing the
new Kara, who he'd apparetnly quickly come to regard as family, I'd gladly
add that to your list also.
Through most of this thread, I've been holding back on many of my personal
opinions, in favor of "historical references", but now seems like a good
enough time to offer a few (some might even surprise readers who think
they know what I've been thinking):
Though I've grown to accept Matrix as the current Supergirl, I miss the
original too. Seems when the movie bombed, that sealed her death warrant.
>BTW, I just re-read the "Crisis" issue where Kara
>dies....powerful stuff, one of the greatest comics ever.
>
No argument there. Ironically, Crisis #7 was quite possibly the best
Supergirl story ever, in that it (finally) defined just who she was - and
they went and killed her. But then, who said life (in comics or reality)
ws fair?
To tie this back into Lois & Clark (if indeed, I can), I know there has
been some speculation about whether or not a Supergirl will be introduced
into the show. For all the silly villains we've had to put up with, I'd
be pleased if we got her back in exchange. Wouldn't bother me in the
least if she was Clark's cousin. In fact, that might be the best way to
proceed, in that we wouldn't have another "Mayson Drake" obstacle to
distract from the L&C relationship. Might even serve as a test for the
newlyweds, if they had to "raise" Supergirl (presumably Kara Zor-El,
though who could be certain these days) during her adjustment to life on
planet Earth.
Then agian, a version of Matrix would also be acceptable to me, regardless
of whatever her powers would be (frankly, I don't think the show depends
on powers - Superman's included - for it to be interesting, butmore on
that later), as long as she doesn't pose the Mayson problem.
It's my understanding that the version of Supergirl set to appear in the
Fox cartoon beginning this fall will be neither Kara Zor-EL or Matrix, but
a resident of another planet in Krypton's solar system. As the
storytellers who are working on Superman: The Series are largely the same
as those who worked on Batman: TAS, I'm looking forward to seeing that
version. Many of teh standard characters on the latter series wee altered
noticeably from their comic counterparts to interesting and (more
importantly) entertaining effect.
Oh, and before I forget, the part about the powers not being important in
L&C; that might not be precisely correct on second thought. However, I
don't think "Superman" is particularly important. Case in point, TGGGOH,
in which "Superman" (that is, the guy in the costume) appears only briefly
in the prologue. Still, to my mind, the best episode of the series.
Sometimes it seems that the need to involve villains to battle Superman
seriously gets in the way of exploring the relationship, which I believe
the show is primarily about.
(Interestingly, this is not a new "problem". On at least one occasion
during the George Reeves series of the 50s, a script was written that
writers and producers were quite thrilled with - but then they noticed
they forgot to include Superman. Said script went back for rewrite.)
Sorry if the above digressed a bit from the post I'm directly responding
to, but one of the misconceptions that has been expressed about my
"opinions" - if partially due to my failure in clearly expressing my
thoughts - is that I'm strictly for DC's post-Crisis characterizations.
Not so; DC threw out a lot of good with the things that needed work
Nor do I think that portrayals in other media should necessarily reflect
current comics continuity. The 1980's CBS cartoon blended parts of the
old with the new incarnations most successfully, while the Superboy series
of the same era tried to bring comic concepts to the screen that just
didn't work. Notably, Mxyzptlk and Metallo. Gene Hackman's Luthor was
delightful, yet didn't represent his comic alter-ego at all. During the
40s, there was no Kryptonite in the comics until it was created for the
radio serial.
I could go on, but to get back to my original post, these variances (for
good or ill) might not be possible if a single concept of Superman were
franchised out under a single umbrella. I doubt if, in that scenario,
such artistic freedom would be allowed under the resulting corporate
mindset (examples being the wedding arc and the state of Marvel Comics,
who are even now phasing out their comic line in favor of licensing out
their characters to the highest bidders).
Somewhere along this thread, I got sidetracked in what someone thought was
a debate, when my descriptions of what is currently happening in the
comics (and a bit of the history involved) were confused with my opinions.
Hope this clears some of that up for anyone who cares, and apologies for
taking up the time of anyone who doesn't.
VARTOX
writes:
>Getting a little testy, aren't we?
>
Actually, I was, but now I'm too busy laughing. I won't go into why in
great detail here (maybe you'll figure out some of it from the post I
prepared previously to this one), mostly because I find the whole thing
just too funny.
BTW, about your AOL bill, have you learned the procedure for offline
reading/posting to newsgroups via FlashSession yet?
(Six weeks of secondhand info.....as if I didn't have access to all that
and more.......ROTFLMAO!!!)
Seraphis1
is right. As I said, and as Zoomway, Leigh and countless others
have said before me, there's only so much FoLC can take before
clicking their remote. Many already have. The key will be in
how they handle this.<<
I don't really think the TPTB are thinking about the people they will
lose. They are
thinking about the people they will gain. When you view (as I have) the
quintilogy in
one five hour session, you have to admire the concept. Unfortunately, the
way it was
delivered left much to be desired.
I think everyone is getting ahead of the game. I don't think that "S" is
married as an
infant, but, as in India they are probably spoken for by arrangement (tho,
I must admit I
wouldn't put it past them to make the marriage an accomplished fact just
for the sheer
dramatic impact). Remember they always leave a logical way out as not to
violate
conventions (....i.e...Leigh-Anne). The clone is dead so at worst CK is a
widow in
marriage one. And, under the circumstances annulment would be no problem
in the eyes
of the law so bigamy or trigamy is not an issue. Besides in order to
violate any legal or
moral conventions one must knowingly and willfully perpetrate the crime
(bigamy, etc.)
CK is not aware that he is betroved or married therefore not culpable.
But, I think you are on the wrong track when you folks equate the show to
a soap opera.
As a long time comic book reader, I can tell you this is right out of the
comic book realm
of developement. All thru the quintilogy I could see the exclamation
marks over CK's
head every time one of those hammers came down on him.
I'm sorry gang but I am quite satisfied with the way things are going.
It's imaginative and
quirky and exceedingly entertaining. This in not a show that could
develope in a linear
manner.
KalElFan
writes:
[specific quotes later]
It looks like this thread has wound down, and as I indicated in my
e-mail, Vartox, no hard feelings. It was a very lively non-debate <g>
and I learned a lot. You continue to impress with your major-league
knowledge, for example the upcoming animated series that I'm
sure very few people would know anything about. It's also obvious
that you care a lot about the "franchise" (although I know you
don't necessarily like that word. <g>)
>Actually, I was [getting testy]...
Well, so was I, but I'm glad we've established that you did first. <g>
And I'm also glad you're laughing now. It's good therapy.
>BTW, about your AOL bill, have you learned the procedure for offline
>reading/posting to newsgroups via FlashSession yet?
Many months ago. That just shows you how much *real* research
time has been packed into those six weeks! And it's almost all had
a big picture focus to it. Didn't bump into a single tree along the way.
BTW, I'm glad that the debate we didn't have (kind of like waving that
magic, Krypton-purging wand, isn't it?) led to that last post of yours.
I thought it was one of your best in the thread (although, as I indicated,
they were all good and I learned a lot.) We probably still have a few
differences, but even there I can find some agreement. For example,
I really disliked season one but I think TGGGoH was the best of the
lot (I also liked the premiere, if nothing else because it was kind of
special.)
There was one point you mentioned in that other post where you
probably think we disagree but we don't, i.e.:
>I could go on, but to get back to my original post, these variances (for
>good or ill) might not be possible if a single concept of Superman were
>franchised out under a single umbrella. I doubt if, in that scenario,
>such artistic freedom would be allowed under the resulting corporate
>mindset...
What I had in mind would specifically allow for that flexibility.
I'm very mindful of the artistic freedom issue, in fact that was
the whole rational for my questioning the Krypton purge. I think
if the Krypton-related folklore were more *readily available* (not
to say overused), the writers and readers/viewers would be better
off. I also agree wholeheartedly that different things, villains, etc.
work in some media and not in others.
Anyway, drop out of lurk mode anytime. I'm hoping to gradually
ease back into that mode myself. (But don't cheer too loudly,
okay?)
KalElFan
(Seraphis1) writes:
>But, I think you are on the wrong track when you folks equate
>the show to a soap opera. As a long time comic book reader,
>I can tell you this is right out of the comic book realm of
>of development...
>I'm sorry gang but I am quite satisfied with the way things
>are going. It's imaginative and quirky and exceedingly
>entertaining. This in not a show that could develop in a
>linear manner.
What I'm referring to, and I think other people are, is the soap-
style treatment of the Lois & Clark relationship. For most of
the 60 year history of the comic book, there's no precedent
for that because they weren't engaged. One of the loudest
complaints I've read from the comic side (even from Vartox
who I've obviously had some disagreements with) is that the
engagement has been dragged out too long there as well,
because of a desire to have the wedding at the same time
as the TV series.
You're certainly entitled to your opinion and I'm glad you're
happy about things, but there are many FoLC who don't share
that view. I think the relationship could have and should have
proceeded in a relatively linear manner, dragging it out as
long as the wanted to but without this "jerking around". They
could have done that through reliance on better self-contained
stories. Instead, they've chosen to risk the long-term health
of the series and the franchise for a February ratings bounce,
and now it looks like they may be going to the well again in May.
There's only so much that many FoLC will take of this.
All MHO.
Colonel X
KalElFan originally wrote:
>>>>The problem is this would be a continuation of the soap-opera approach
>to the marriage: clone-wedding-amnesia arc, the sequel. IMHO, it would
>show they're completely out of touch with their audience and still haven't
>learned their lesson from this last one. Even more FoLC would leave,
>because it reaches the point where you get tired of them pulling your
>chain and you really don't care anymore <<<
>
>Here I agree. The stories have been too dark lately, and worse, they've
>been frustrating. There will be plenty of humor in Teri's episode, but it
>will be followed by darkness again. The writers seemed in tune to the
>romance and its importance to the survival in the ratings for most of this
>season, but somehow that focus has been lost, or at least blurred. I'm
>sure fans who hated seeing Lois with someone else will adore seeing Clark
>with an 'obligation' to someone else..oy<g>
>
>They have to come up with something fairly spectacular for their finale,
>and having Lois and Clark again torn apart by circumstances just won't
>quite fill the bill. They can't even bank on a guest star because Tenney
>is a not a name draw (no offense but he simply isn't) Now if they want to
>suit-up Clooney in the Bat suit for a test drive, okay :) *That* would
>grab ratings. I worry because of FMN costing L&C 2 million viewers.
Sadly, it's highly unlikely that they'd do this. And hey, what?...I
thought you were against celebrity guest stars, Zoom! :)
>Downers just don't do well in what should be a romantic comedy adventure.
>Occasional dark episodes are fine, but a series of them does start looking
>like a soap opera. Well, if part one is hot enough, it may hook people
>into part two, and thus the cliffhanger. Although they have a lot of
>ground to make up after a wedding arc that had no wedding and trying to
>cajole 2 million people into watching again.
And with "MSW" moving back to Sundays for May, this won't be easy.
(snip)
(and then I said...)
>>>At least, at the very fractured core of it, it's intriguing to me
>since it's different and, potentially, more of an original television
>notion than the whole amnesia thing.<<<
>
>Really? I thought it sounded a lot like Amok Time from the original Star
>Trek<g> "Less than a marriage, but more than a betrothal."
Well, I see similarities in that we'll see how an alien culture handles
its mating, but I hope the similarities end there. I don't think I want
to see Dean Cain attempting a Kryptonian Mating Howl like Bobo and
Cindy Crawford were doing last Friday on the Muppets...
>
>>> Sure, I know, I'm just the wacky
>ole Colonel who is the lone voice in the wilderness wanting to see
>some real fantasy elements, from Green Arrow to the Green Seas of Planet
>Coosbain and less romance (we have afternoons full of that),
>but I'll sit up and take notice of this plot a good deal more handily
>than I will the Romance Gone Bad arc.<<<
>
>Well, I wouldn't mind Batman, but only because that would be a ratings
>grabber. The others are strickly from hunger. No offense, but The Flash,
>as well done a show as it was, and MANTIS as 'un'well done a show as it
>was, had something in common. Neither had a hook that would attract an
>audience beyond the basic comic book fan. It is the romance of Lois and
>Clark that drives the show, and all else, no matter how unfair as it may
>seem to the tiny minority that want comic book action, pales by
comparison.
I didn't say *no* romance, I said less romance. The Romance Gone Bad arc
is just about as much of the soap opera I'm willing to stomach. And
again, they don't have to take a strictly comic book action route, which
is one of, not the only, reason why "The Flash" failed. There are
more than just a few fantasy shows doing very well right now, apart from
us there's "Touched By an Angel," "The X Files," "DS9" and "Highlander"
for instance. Occasional supervillains and heroes, are, again, more
than welcome in the waters 'round Athens, but I agree that a steady
diet of them and nothing else, will sink the show. Sure, I want more
intriguing fantasy and I know that, with the exception of E R-L and Brad
all the regular writers have the expertise to pull it off. But comic
book action isn't the only flight of fantasy the show can take...
I still contend that the show can explore many avenues other than
"romance" and "fantasy." I'd very much like to see how the Planet
staff reacts to a major news event such as a sniper in the city
like we saw on "Homicide" a few months back, or major corruption in
the Metropolis city fathers. What if they were all in the pocket of
Intergang? How about showing how they'd cover the assassination of
the president? In its first season, "L&C" easily had the capacity to
become the best newsroom drama since "Lou Grant," and maybe ever, but
they've lost their way...it would mean doing research, and our intrepid
writers are not the best at that (see "liquid nitrogen" and "Romans in
Ireland," f'r instance), but shifting gears and doing a story or two
along these lines, and a story or two of Dean and Teri making googoo
eyes, and a supervillain or two, and some normal criminals or two,
and a more strict fantasy/SF story or two would:
a) keep things interesting
b) manage to please a lot of people
c) prove the program's versatility
and
d) get the show out of the bad soap opera rut ABC's run it into.
>
>>>A note of fear though...apparently Eugenie Ross-Leming and Brad Buckner
>are behind the last episode of the season and they've pretty well
>proven themselves incapable of writing fantasy (that's "sci-fi" for
>you laymen out there) and this new rumored arc does seem to be even more
>firmly grounded in the "way out" than anything else we've seen on the
>show...that doesn't hold a lot of promise.<<<<
>
>Well, ERL/Buckner are two of my favorite writers this year, but if the SF
>element had ever been a factor in the show's popularity, then the show
>would have been a 'ratings bonanza' back in the first half of season two,
I'm not talking about ratings, I'm talking about quality TV...and while
the WAFFs in "OP," "JSN," "HIWTHI" pleased a lot of people (and fine
WAFFs they were, these two can, if nothing else write good WAFFs {but
I really really hate the way Dean delivers his line "I...*love* you"
the same oddly enunciated way each time...}), surely the actual fantasy
elements of those pleased nobody. Bodiless Spencer? Mac Davis and his
flood and his flock? Kryptonian viruses on a ship that by all rights
would have been fumigated and quarantined to total sterility? That
liquid nitrogen crap? That telepathic link? (OK, a lot of people enjoy
that.) That blasted mature version of the robot in "Small Wonder?"
I have no doubt that if the season finale concerned itself solely with
Lois and Clark's small, intimate wedding (I'm thinking a Furillo-
Davenport lunchtime ceremony) and the details around it, then E R-L and
Brad could write the most wonderful hour ever written for the show.
But with Zara taking Clark out into space? Oooooh, no. Not from these
two, not with their track record, not without John McNamara rewriting
every last bit of it.
I have no doubt that the romance increases the ratings (although I
don't believe its effect is as powerful on the Nielsens as you do,
Zoom) and I have no doubt that at least one scene in "BGDF" will put
a whopping smile across all America as these skilled relationship
writers touch the viewers' hearts. And who knows? Maybe their pens are
helping the ratings hugely. But if I choke in disbelief as the show
gets rampantly stupid again (as I did in all 4 of their previous hours,
the 4 episodes of the show I like the least and one of which I actively
ridicule as being as bad as TV gets), then I personally won't give
a flip how it affects the ratings, as I might stop watching the program
altogether. I came close during Romance Gone Bad, and I think that if
we hadn't seen Grant Rosenberg's "it's only 5 weeks and it'll be OK"
post, then I might have done so after "Double Jep."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
On assignment in Athens, Georgia,
Colonel X.
Expect the unexpected.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred Bulger
: lupton@news-server (Carter Lupton) wrote:
: >One minor nit picky note: Crisis occurred in 1985 (50th anniversary of DC
: >Comics), not 1987, and the John Byrne re-vamp of Superman came about 6 months
: >later, in mid 1986.
: Quite true, I seem to have fixated on 1987 for some odd reason.
: BTW, KalElFan, Vartox was the name of a villain in the pre-Crisis
: Universe and has not reappeared yet. YOu'd think they'd bring him back
: since they brought back the terra-guy....
I thought Vartox was a superhero from another planet??
Later...
-Fred.
--
|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
|Fred Bulger fr...@ccn.cs.dal.ca |
|(902)-829-2134 http://www.ccn.cs.dal.ca/~fred |
| |
| "Giddyup!" --- Cosmo Kramer. |
|::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::|
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Justin Miller
On 8 Apr 1996, TPaschal wrote:
> #1 it says Dean Cain wants $450,000 per episode and that he may fly away
> as Superman forever. Nobody is worth that much money. Personally I think
> thats a publicity stunt to get viewers to really react. I think we are
> reacting already.
Personally I think that we're not the only FOLCs who are fed up with
these stupid storylines! :) If Dean's career is going to get trashed by
this turkey, he'd better get some big bucks for next season.
BTW in none of the spoilers did I see any mention of a villain played by
John Tenney. I'd speculate further, but a) I didn't put any spoiler
space in this post, and b) why bother?
-Justin, signing off
McInnes
>
> >>>The problem is this would be a continuation of the soap-opera approach
> to the marriage: clone-wedding-amnesia arc, the sequel. IMHO, it would
> show they're completely out of touch with their audience and still haven't
> learned their lesson from this last one. Even more FoLC would leave,
> because it reaches the point where you get tired of them pulling your
> chain and you really don't care anymore <<<
>
> Here I agree. The stories have been too dark lately, and worse,
>they've been frustrating. There will be plenty of humor in Teri's
>episode, but it will be followed by darkness again. The writers seemed
>in tune to the romance and its importance to the survival in the
>ratings for most of this season, but somehow that focus has been lost,
>or at least blurred. I'm sure fans who hated seeing Lois with someone
>else will adore seeing Clark with an 'obligation' to someone
>else..oy<g>
What a disaster if this is where they're headed! They seem to have
lost the whole atmosphere of the show, the romantic comedy/drama/
exploration of CK's problems just trying to be human yet help
others with his powers. They seem to be floundering around
trying to come up with crazy ideas and plots when so much could
be done with the problems already at hand, and even just the small
ideas (that made for such a great story in WWW last year when S
got sued.) Why come up with this junk when they can't even seem
to handle the stuff in front of them? There was so much left
to be sorted out after this disastrous arc, I can't imaging
why they must resort to creating new and ridiculous problems,
and not even original ones at that. Desperation measures when
they have totally lost their way.....
> like a soap opera. Well, if part one is hot enough, it may hook people
> into part two, and thus the cliffhanger. Although they have a lot of
> ground to make up after a wedding arc that had no wedding and trying
>to cajole 2 million people into watching again.
A lot of fans were brassed off about the non-existent wedding, mostly
because of the hype and spoilers and stuff showing up in magazines
(even out here at the back of beyond long before the third season
even arrived). To me, it showed how little regard they have for the
characters, and worse, for the modern legend/myth that is Superman.
Even if the show concentrates on the relationship, the offhand way
the wedding was used to get ratings, leaving, as far as we know,
the first real wedding for Superman in any medium to be to
a clone is a really pathetic move. And it looks as if all the
issues raised by this miserable arc will not be answered at all -
got their ratings, now they just ignore the consequences to the
characters and the show. This commercial attitude is just the
kind of thing CK and LL would abhor and CK/S refused to be involved
in. CK/S agreed to a franchise arrangement early on, but only if
the profits went to charity. He was shown wisely turning
down the chance to sue "the people turning out the comics and
the T-shirts" later. Once, the writers understood their characters,
what the concept of Superman, the myth, was about. Now they just
manipulate them like characters in a soap. There's nothing special
any more about CK/S and his problems, or how Lois has shaped him.
It's just another bloody soap.....
> Really? I thought it sounded a lot like Amok Time from the original Star
> Trek<g> "Less than a marriage, but more than a betrothal."
Not the first time they've used a rehashed plot from elsewhere
this year - last one was a disaster in the wedding arc and this
may be just as bad. Maybe Buckner and Ross-Leming figure if they
don't have to think out the plot, they can spend more time on
the soap dialogue....
>
> >>A note of fear though...apparently Eugenie Ross-Leming and Brad Buckner
> are behind the last episode of the season and they've pretty well
> proven themselves incapable of writing fantasy
Amen to that!!
>
> but if the SF
> element had ever been a factor in the show's popularity, then the show
> would have been a 'ratings bonanza' back in the first half of season two,
I disagree completely on this. You actually need some decent science in
there. That's what was
missing in some of the worst eps last season, like "The Eyes Have It".
What rubbish! Any 13 year old could see how stupid the basic
science in the plot was, and how negative the attitude to science
was. If anything, the crappy science would put off any real
SF reader, as would the attitude to scientists.
>That's why ERL/Buckner are enjoyable for me, because their
> forte is relationship dialogue,
Then how come so many fans are complaining at all the important
romantic dialogue that has been left out, all the important
discussions about the relationship that have been covered off-screen
(at least we have to assume they have been discussed there, since
there is nothing to show LL and CK ever talked about them)?
From the sound of it, stiff competition is on the way for the May
sweeps. Whoever planned this recent arc and had a hand in it's execution
(no pun intended) and is planning more strife to completely change
the tenor of the show, needs a good kick up the backside to wake them up
before they destroy the show entirely.
Louette
McInnes
> They have to come up with something fairly spectacular for their finale,
> and having Lois and Clark again torn apart by circumstances just won't
> quite fill the bill. They can't even bank on a guest star because Tenney
> is a not a name draw (no offense but he simply isn't)
> Zoom (amazing how many rumors are coming from WB after TPTB there turned
> it into a concentration camp after they came in with a 2" stack of
> printouts that ticked them off :)
Just saw this little piece someone sent me and taken from Star Mag.
I think this shows how desperate TPTB are to try and retain the
ratings by *any* means because they've finally realized what a hole
they've dug themselves into with the direction they have taken the
show - and now it's too late to re-do things in time. We've seen too
many spoilers that proved to be hype intended to suck people into
watching, so I was reluctant to think this was real, even
tho it has shown up in several other places. I thought it would
be just like ABC to let this "spill" to try and ensure everyone
tunes in to see if this little *hook* is for real or just another trick
from them again. Then I got another note
saying a source with connections into ABC said that's what was
being done. See what you think....
s
p
o
i
l
e
r
IT'S LOIS AND NO CLARK AS DEAN CAIN IS SET TO MAKE SUPER EXIT
by Dave LaFontaine
Lois & Clark fans are in for a super shock as the hit show finishes
the season with a stunning cliffhanger that could spell the end of
Superman-- as well as series star Dean Cain.
In the emotion-packed finale, the man of steel decides he must
leaveEarth for good to return to outer space and rescue his father's
people from a life of bondage.
As he flies off to fulfill his destiny, a teary-eyed Lois looks on
and whispers: "Don't forget me."
But Superman's hasty departure could also signal the end of Cain's
reign as America's favorite man in tights.
Insiders tell STAR that Cain is insisting his weekly salary be
tripled to a whopping $450,000 -- and producers are calling his bluff
and threatening to strand Superman in space forever if he dosen't drop
his demands.
"If worst comes to worst, they'll send Dean off the show and bring
in some kind of replacement, claiming that it's Superman's cousin, or
that he got his face damaged in some kind of kryptonite accident while
in space." says a source close to the negotiations.
"They're looking at how well DC Comics did with the 'Death of
Superman' storyline a couple of years ago. It was an instant
collector's item.
"Of course producers would like him back, but Warner Bros. is going
to be fighting Dean over every extra cent he demands, hoping to reach
some kind of middle ground."
Cain has vowed not to back down and has told friends he deserves
the extra money for making a the series a runaway hit.
The insider revealed: "Dean told a pal: 'It's only fair. I know
that the show is making tons more money for Warners. Lois & Clark is
popular around the world. The show's a hit because I'm out there every
day inf ront of the cameras for 12 or 16 hours in those tights strung up
on wires.
" ' I don't think I'm out of line asking for a raise' "
But executives are hoping Cain will change his mind and have left
the way open for him to return as Superman -- provided he drops his
demands for a mega-salary.
According to the script's final scene, the man of steel flies off
into the heavens to save his people with a beautiful Kryptonian woman
called Zara, leaving Lois heartbroken and in tears. But he
telepathically tells Lois that he still loves her, and she looks up to
the skies with hope in her eyes.
"The producers put that in at the last minute to leave the door
open
for him to return to the show," says a source.
*****************
Is Dean really this greedy or stupid? Or eager to get out of his
contract by getting fired? He certainly hasn't come across that
way in any interview I've seen or read. Maybe someone else can say
something about this. I think *someone* is in a panic, but not about
DC leaving. Any comments?
Louette
Colonel X
>Found this on the AOL L&C board. It seems to go along with what people
>have been speculating on in this thread. Granted, these are from tabloid
>papers that are generally NOT credible sources of information, but several
>people have said that their spoilers for the (Non) Wedding Arc were
>correct. Maybe these tabloids really do have an inside source at L&C?
>S
>P
>O
>I
>L
>E
>R
>
>S
>P
>A
>C
>E
>The first post read:
><<<In this weeks Star Magazine there is a spoiler. Read on.
>
>as Superman forever. Nobody is worth that much money. Personally I think
>thats a publicity stunt to get viewers to really react. I think we are
>reacting already.
If Dean Cain really thinks he has the know-how to become a successful
Hollywood producer after he hangs up the cape when this series ends and
he's going to try this stunt, then he's obviously mistaken. I know that
a large chorus of people will whine, wail, be outraged and stop watching
should Dean leave, but the facts are simple. Actors have played
Superman before Dean Cain and actors will play Superman after Dean
Cain. (Tim Daly starts his run in the new animated version this fall.)
Dean can, and will be replaced if he threatens too loudly, by any
one of a number of actors who would love to get the chance to play
Superman.
Pierce Brosnan took a *very* small salary (by feature film standards)
for "GoldenEye," under $2 mill, actually, and he's not getting all that
much of a raise for the next Bond film. Yet he's intelligent enough
to know that quite a few other people would like to play 007 and he's
really lucky to have finally gotten the part. Hence he keeps quiet,
enjoys his pay, enjoys his life and enjoys one of the best roles in
moviedom. Time for Dean Cain to follow his example...
Sandra McDermin
>I'm sorry gang but I am quite satisfied with the way things are going.
>It's imaginative and
>quirky and exceedingly entertaining. This in not a show that could
>develope in a linear
>manner.
Since I have not been enjoying the way things are going and therefore
can't agree with your sentiments, your third statement is right on the
money.
Running around in circles seems to be this show's forte.
Sandy (in D.C.)
smcd...@nas.edu
Sandra McDermin
>Sandy (in D.C.)
>smcd...@nas.edu
Arrgh! I would give anything to be able to edit a message after I've
posted it. The sentence above should not start with "Since I have..."
but "Although...."
Yes, I am compulsive.
Sandy
blankh
> According to my friend, this season's finale is going to be a
> shocker since we will all find out that Superman's already married.
> He's been married since he was a baby and his wife will be paying
> Metropolis a visit. She needs his help to fight off some evil man
> trying to take over their planet (wherever that is).
ARE YOU SERIOUS??!!?!?!?!?!?!
I think my stomach's in my throat. Ugh, I don't like this feeling. I
thought the guy said "it won't be BAD, even though it changes Metrop-
olis forever"? YOU DON'T CALL THIS **BAD**???!!?!?!!?
Where would his wife come from, anyway? Clark was the only one they
found in Schuster's field!!!
I don't like that plot. PLEASE tell me your friend is lying through
his teeth.
Sincerely,
Gina Blank >=(
Seraphis1
style treatment of the Lois & Clark relationship. For most of
the 60 year history of the comic book, there's no precedent
for that because they weren't engaged. One of the loudest
complaints I've read from the comic side (even from Vartox
who I've obviously had some disagreements with) is that the
engagement has been dragged out too long there as well,
because of a desire to have the wedding at the same time
as the TV series.<<
In these kind of series especially the comic books themselves. The
creators expect the
character to live on in perpetuity. Therefore, I believe, they try to
suspend time. Comic
time and real time are way different. So, naturally, to us in real time
things can get down
right aggravating. Especially, if you've been waiting fifty years of real
time for LL &
CK/S to get married. But, in their universe it might be just a boy meets
girl, they finally
decide they like each other, they court, they get engaged and eventually
get married in the
usual time span. The other thing they (I believe) consider is that
certain things represent
an end of cycle and nobody wants to find out what the buyer reaction will
be. As long as
there is no end of cycle then they presumably maintain a certain
anticipation. I think the
other cycle that they are working with is the coming of age cycle. They
are going to
naturally lose readers as the age group that started reading discovers
girls, sports etc and
grow out of the habit of comics. But, a new group are growing into the
comic reading
stage and they are keeping everything suspend in time to balance between
these two
groups to hold maximum readership with with story lines that progress
toward a specific
goal but, never arrive. To arrive is to die.
Unfortunately, why they are doing this with a TV show that has only a four
or five year
life span is beyond me.
KalElFan
<GOG...@MUSIC.CC.UGA.EDU> writes:
[excerpt]
>Dean can, and will be replaced if he threatens too loudly, by any
>one of a number of actors who would love to get the chance to play
>Superman.
Although many FoLC would prefer to focus exclusively on what
appears on their screen Sunday nights at 8:00, this is one of
those issues that's becoming more and more difficult to ignore.
K Callan was on one of the AOL "stages" last week, and the
only question she was asked that was worth anything (to me
anyway) was something to the effect "How much longer will
this series go?" There was a rather long pause, followed by a
carefully worded response something to the effect "Well, we
know there'll be a 4th season. I think there should be a 5th.
But it depends on Dean and Teri. [then a pause/afterthought]...
And of course the ratings."
Although I don't begrudge actors getting whatever they can
negotiate, in the end I agree with you Colonel that other actors
have played Superman before and others will in the future. To
me, the "stars" of this series are Superman/Clark Kent, Lois Lane
and all the other supporting players. Dean Cain and Teri Hatcher
didn't create these characters, and the show shouldn't be held
hostage by either of them. (We don't know that it is, of course,
but it's an issue that seems to come up again and again. For
example, there were rumors that Teri didn't want to go more
than one or two more years. And now even a cast member
points to their situation as being the primary factor in whether
the show continues or not. That's wrong, IMHO.)
One can easily envisage this series going another four or five
years (marriage sometime next season, honeymoon period the
following season, a pregnancy the next, baby the following, etc.),
perhaps longer if they stretch things out a little more after the
marriage. Beyond that, *maybe* it's unavoidable that things get
a bit stale. The main obstacle seems to be this casting question.
(I'm setting aside the movie issue for now, because I think there
are ways to deal with that, too.)
All of which leads me to suggest that now isn't a bad time for
TPTB to bring this issue to a head. The tabloids' suggestion
that this cliffhanger has a lot to do with Dean Cain's contract,
a suggestion that seems at least plausible, should have many
FoLC more than a little miffed. If this is going to be an issue
continually hanging over this series, let's get it out of the way
now. How about negotiating and trying to sign them both to a
four or five year extension, but if that can't be done, replacing
either or both of them now and getting it over with?
(On AOL, this is where I'd duck for cover from the "Ooo, I leave
Dean" onslaught. Here, maybe it'll be the Teri nude request
posters. <g>)
Mary Louise Ennis
TPaschal
Rumors from a tabloid say:
>>#1 it says Dean Cain wants $450,000 per episode and that he may fly away
>>as Superman forever. Nobody is worth that much money. Personally I
think
>>thats a publicity stunt to get viewers to really react. I think we are
>>reacting already.
Colonel X responds:
>If Dean Cain really thinks he has the know-how to become a successful
>Hollywood producer after he hangs up the cape when this series ends and
>he's going to try this stunt, then he's obviously mistaken. I know that
>a large chorus of people will whine, wail, be outraged and stop watching
>should Dean leave, but the facts are simple. Actors have played
>Superman before Dean Cain and actors will play Superman after Dean
>Cain. (Tim Daly starts his run in the new animated version this fall.)
>Dean can, and will be replaced if he threatens too loudly, by any
>one of a number of actors who would love to get the chance to play
>Superman.
>
>Pierce Brosnan took a *very* small salary (by feature film standards)
>for "GoldenEye," under $2 mill, actually, and he's not getting all that
>much of a raise for the next Bond film. Yet he's intelligent enough
>to know that quite a few other people would like to play 007 and he's
>really lucky to have finally gotten the part. Hence he keeps quiet,
>enjoys his pay, enjoys his life and enjoys one of the best roles in
>moviedom. Time for Dean Cain to follow his example...>>
Well, before we jump all over the poor guy, let's remember that these
*are* tabloids, and their life-blood is to print sensationalized stories,
true or not, to gain readers! Since first reading this, I have questioned
whether or not Dean is actually STUPID enough to make a demand like this,
and I have answered myself......."No, he is *not* that stupid. No one
could be." I have also heard that these rumors are merely a publicity
stunt to stir up speculation and anticipation for the fourth season
opener. It does make a twisted sort of sense if you think about it. At
least, it might if you were a twisted TV executive!
A SEMI-SPOILER/RUMOR FOLLOWS:
We've all heard that in the season ending cliffhanger Clark flies off with
Zara and we're left for the summer to wonder if and when and how he's
coming back. Well, the show *is* called "Lois & Clark", right? And they
wouldn't have a show without the Clark/Superman character, right? So it
makes sense that he has to come back, and so there's not much suspense
there. On the other hand, if we're left to wonder if the *actor* is
coming back or not, that leaves us with plenty of suspense! And you
betcha that all the people who watch the show for Dean Cain will be
breathless with anticipation to see whether or not he returns! Ya follow?
TTFN!
Tonya
TPas...@aol.com
TPaschal
earlier---that the "Dean Cain is leaving" rumor is very possibly just a
publicity stunt.
<<<FoLC, due to the huge tabloid 'crisis' right now concerning this entire
"Dean Cain" affair, I wanted to let you all know (with permission) a few
things I just found out...
I got a note from someone I know who works for ABC Television, she gave me
some information and told me that it was alright for me to post it (this
isn't 'officially' ABC saying this, I just told her I wasn't going to keep
my lip buttoned about this and she conceeded ;) and to also state that
she works for ABC and that she is a she<vbg> aha ;) Anyhow, (And YES this
is second hand information she dug up for me..all disclaimers apply..blah
blah..I hope no one spazzes ;P) She tells me that due to the nature of
the season finale, the "Dean Cain is leaving" tabloid scare has been set
into motion ON purpose, to garner viewer support for the season opener in
the fall. It seems that the cliffhanger is not a 'typical' cliffhanger (I
guess since all of this started most people at least have an *idea* of
what is planned) and so this little 'crisis' is just for show. To make
fans wonder not so much if CLARK is coming back as "Is DEAN coming
back..." Apparently, its supposed to HELP the ratings. Anyhow, TH and DC
get more money no matter what happens. Thats what I heard, thats what I
know. Dean is expected/slotted to deny two things:
1) That he made such a demand (at least the way the demand was stated in
the tabloids. )
2) That TPTB have any part of this.
As per usual, last year they denied that more than one ending was shot for
ATAI too <bg>
I can't say I like the tactic, if thats what it is, a tactic. But I can't
say I'm shocked either.
Take Care All.
Demi
------
"Demona" on LOISCLA
<dem...@sprynet.com>>>>
Okay? So as I said earlier, let's give the guy a break! Everyone here
seems so sure that it's true and is ready to toss Dean overboard on the
say-so of some trashy tabloid rag!
Tonya
TPas...@aol.com
Seraphis1
>tripled to a whopping $450,000 -- and producers are calling his bluff
>and threatening to strand Superman in space forever if he dosen't drop
>his demands.
> The insider revealed: "Dean told a pal: 'It's only fair. I know
>that the show is making tons more money for Warners. Lois & Clark is
>popular around the world. The show's a hit because I'm out there every
>day inf ront of the cameras for 12 or 16 hours in those tights strung up
>on wires.
> " ' I don't think I'm out of line asking for a raise' "
>
Let's not get all excited folc's. What we need here is someone who
understands how the
money works in this business. First off, how does $450,000 compare to
other salaries of
comparable shows pulling the same excellent demographics, etc. Johnny
Carson (and I'm
not comparing a top gun with a 20 to 35 rated show which is ONLY
marginally
successful) held up NBC for years because of the humongous advertising
revenues he
captured and he wanted his fair share. Unfortunately, for DC I think any
competent
actor could be substituted for the "S" man just as ML was replaced by JW.
This character
doesn't have a one and only actor. This is where DC is going to get cut
off at the knees.
But, not withstanding, if he holds out like a ball player they will sue
him into oblivion.
I believe he has a five year contract that allows for negotiations (and he
will get a
substantial raise), but, he has no ability to hold out and not show up for
work. His minor
leverage will come at the end of the five year contract. If they decide
to go for six or
seven years then not only DC but TH will have some heavy hitting fire
power in the
salary department. I doubt that any of this will come to past. A have a
strong feeling that
the show will not go five seasons. I really believe this is the last
season.
But, I don't doubt that right on the heels of this is Supergirl or some
other Superhero
with all inexpensive unknowns in the lead rolls.
KalElFan
writes:
>This was posted on the AOL board. It refers to what I was
>talking about earlier---that the "Dean Cain is leaving" rumor
>is very possibly just a publicity stunt.
As I mentioned in our e-mail exchange and posted on the
AOL boards, the "denial" just makes the story even more
credible. Think about it. TPTB supposedly "authorized" this
story to get people to watch the first episode next year?
Noooo, I don't think so. As you said, it makes Cain look
bad, throws him overboard, and makes people more
disgusted with the whole thing rather than more likely to
watch. But even assuming they did authorize it, why would
someone "semi-authorize" it to be withdrawn within a day?
That makes even less sense. If it's such a great publicity
thing, why not leave it out there?
Also lending credence to it is the fact that we've heard these
things before: "Oh, this series is only supposed to go another
year because Teri only wants to do it that long" or "Dean Cain
is only coming back because he's obligated to." The tabloids
also have a good track record on certain things, like the National
Enquirer in the O.J. case. One of these tabloids apparently had
the last arc bang-on a month in advance. Finally, it all seems
rather plausible considering Dean's the only one headed off into
outer space in May.
I don't know whether any of it is true or not. All I want to do is
watch good Superman / L&C stories on Sunday night. But
until they come out and tell me (i) "we're all one big happy
family here and we're all signed up for the next five years,"
or (ii) "Dean and Teri have been canned because they just
weren't happy here or were making outrageous demands, so
now you'll just have to live with these new great actors x and
y," I don't think this issue is going to go away. Although I'd
prefer (i), quite frankly I don't personally care if it's (ii). I'd
just like it to be over with and settled, and I hope TPTB settle
it one way or another during the hiatus. I wouldn't want FoLC
to have to go through this every year, along with everything else.
KalElFan
KalElFan
(Seraphis1) writes:
[after suggesting L&C may only go another year]
>But, I don't doubt that right on the heels of this is Supergirl or
>some other Superhero with all inexpensive unknowns in the
>lead [roles].
If they jump to a spinoff after prematurely pulling the plug on
this series, FoLC will not be receptive. Likewise with a big
movie production. It's ironic in a way. Their *success* with L&C
really puts them on the spot now. How those 16-20 million
FoLC feel they're being treated with L&C will impact how they
respond to whatever comes afterwards.
This is not to suggest that they can't take the Batman approach
to the movie and have some degree of success with it. But they
will be far more successful if they handle L&C right, and pulling
the plug on it after next year is not the way to do it.
VARTOX
writes:
>It looks like this thread has wound down,
Well, at least on my end.
Since this is gonna be my last post on this thread, I'll thank KalElFan
publicly for his part in the thread, and apologize for any nastiness on my
part. Thought you showed real graciousness again, Kal.
I do hope others jump in after we stop hogging the thing. Len and KalElJr
had some great input (although in a post from April 3 that I read on MSN a
few minutes ago that I didn't see over here on AOL, I'm afraid you got
Vartox's character wrong, Len. He was actually a hero from another world
who Superman considered a friend, and nearly married Lana Lang).
(But you still have a shot at figuring out who Sally Selwyn was...)
;)
V
Karen Fung
> According to my friend, this season's finale is going to be a
> shocker since we will all find out that Superman's already married.
> He's been married since he was a baby and his wife will be paying
> Metropolis a visit. She needs his help to fight off some evil man
> trying to take over their planet (wherever that is).
#1. Does that mean Clark LIED? Clark LIED? For a BAD reason this time,
about being a virgin? Oh, I can see the fireworks already:
Lois: You sicko, pshyco, two-headed Liar! (SLAP!) <stomp on foot> <drags
Clark out of the room, pulls out a piece of kryptonite, and slips it in
his pocket>
Dan Scardino: Lois! You can't marry him!
Lois walks out, surprised he's there.
Lois: I know!
They run out, hand in hand, and get married someplace else, like Vegas.
I SHIVER at the thought of THAT! EEEEEEWWWWWWAAA!
#2. I hope your friend is the two-headed liar! If this comes true, I
can just see the stir on the net now: no one will be at the auditorium
except ABC Amy when anyone from L&C is there; FoLClore will cease to
exist; Leigh Raglan will spend her time running a club called: Sliders:
The Quantamically excellent club(I KNOW there is no such word as
quantamically!); (Take a breath)Craig Byrne will head up an anti-L&C
army to elimanate any and all L&C related things on the 'net; Debby
Stark's FTP site will be banished; Renate Brinks will finally get her
big break when everyone's unsubscribed from the fanfic mailing
list,(Take another deep breath) ABC order one neatly gift-wrapped and
sugar covered series finale, and L&C will be cancelled wiht no hope of
syndication. (Take a deeper breath)Dean Cain will be living in a cheap
apartment as an out-of-work actor only to discover he really IS Superman
and find out it's a dream from hell, Teri Hatcher will get her big movie
break and say the cancellation of L&C was the best thing that happened
to her except for the fact she didn't get to see Dean again, (Take
another breath, on the brink of passing out) Justin blossoms into his
musical career as a guitar player for a Smashing Pumpkins clone and his
first song hits the BillBoards at #1, and Lane is the next "Grumpy Old"
man in "Grumpy Old Men IX". And Eugenie Ross-Leming(SP?) goes back to
acting.(Pass out)
:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(
5 minutes later:
I SHIVER at the thought of THAT, much worse than if Lois did run off
with Scardino, of all people. Buuuuuurrrrrrr!!!! I feel faint...
Karen Fung, Talking extraordinaire
gf...@unix.dsoe.com
Canada
All opinions above are my own and not intended to
offend anyone unless noted.
Serena Yang
say that you do not want l&c to turn into a soap opera, etc., etc. and i
do agree that there should be more of a balanve. but at the same time,
referring to the dean-cain-wants-more-$$-saga, some people have mentioned
that it doesn't matter who plays the role, that its the characters that
matter.
well, i think that's odd that you would say that because generally, the
only shows that replace a main character by another actor w/o
changing/killing the character are soap operas. true, jw replaced that
other guy as jimmy, and cat was completely written out, but there are two
things to bear in mind here: (1) they are relatively minor characters
(not that i didn't love them) and (2) with the jw sit, the show had a
COMPLETE face-lift so to speak. i think the success on the show in a
large part depends on the familiarity of the actors, and the chemistry...
when i tune in L&C, i'm not just watching for random people to place lois
and clark, i'm looking for th and dc. to suddenly change the kent actr
would boggle audiences, and no doubt cause a lot of outcry and anger.
think of it this way: would roseanne be the same if another overweight
actress took her place? wold "who's the boss" be fun if kelsey grammar
suddenly turned up as tony? how about the classic "moonlighting"example:
who would have watched it if, right in the middle of the maddie-david
romance, cybil sheppard was replaced by someone else? only soaps can get
away with this because their actors do not have as much star power, and
(out of necessity) because the shows run much more frequenly and
indefinitely. l&c with out th and dc would just NOT be the same.
especially after these actors have been established in their roles.
(another point about jw change - came after the first season. do you
think it would work now???)
just my long $.02
--
sy:)
******************************************************************************
"If you ever reach total enlightenment while drinking a beer, I bet it
makes beer shoot out of your nose."
-- Deep Thoughts
by Jack Handy
******************************************************************************
Zoomway
AOL boards, the "denial" just makes the story even more
credible. Think about it. TPTB supposedly "authorized" this
story to get people to watch the first episode next year?
Noooo, I don't think so.<<<
The only way to get a contract demands out in the open in order to
'vilify' the celebrity who may be requesting more money, more power (a
producer credt) etc. is to 'pretend' that someone leaked the information,
or someone snooped around and 'discovered' the information. You ain't
gonna have someone jeopardize his or her career by being spotted in print
saying "Dean wants this or that.." They know they'd be out on the streets
looking for the unemployment office. This type of thing is done to a
celebrity for a variety of reasons, and not the least of which is to
prompt him to go on a show and deny it publically, or at least deny it in
print. If he can't deny it (meaning it is true) then it forces him back to
the negotiation table. This gives a second-hand publicity to the show, and
helps prove that those who hold the reins can control that celebrity. Most
stars are smart enough to know that if they are branded as 'difficult'
they will find future employent 'difficult'<g>
It also is done to taint the star's credibility in the eyes of the fans.
If he or she is seen as a cold, money-grubbing opportunist, TPTB hope that
it will taint him enough to accept some new star taking his place. I'm
afraid that replacing Dean would destroy the show. The chemistry he has on
screen with his costar simply could not be duplicated by any other actor.
Someone mentioned that fans finally accepted Whalin replacing Landes, but
failed to mention that poor Justin was an object of complete scorn for
almost an entire half season, and if not for Dean and Teri at least still
being there, the show might not have weathered that change at all. The
posts were so nasty in fact, that Justin stopped reading the printouts.
I can't imagine that ABC would actually be scared just by a higher price
tag, especially if this series could go only two more seasons tops. We're
not talking about paying Ted Danson for 10 years. No, there's something
more. Dean has always been very aggressive in his approach and ideas for
the direction of this show. Way back in first season he wanted to take a
new direction and have L&C fall in love, Lois discover the secret, etc. He
said on Prodigy before his 2nd season episode Season's Greedings aired
that it represented the direction he wanted the show to take (romance)
Dean's vision was vendicated when the show dropped the losing mighty
morphin' Superman direction in favor of romance and the ratings began to
climb. He then wanted Lois to know Clark's secret, and (according to an
inteview he gave in Australia during hiatus) argued with an ABC executive
for 2 hours trying to convince him what a good idea Lois knowing would be.
Perhaps what Dean is after is more control over what he does and what he'd
like to accomplish on the show with a minimal amount of interfenence from
the network. Now 'that' would scare ABC enough to leak money demands and
try and discredit Dean.
It's one thing to switch Darin's on Bewitched when all Darin served as was
a straight man with all manner of comedy and fantasy unfolding around him,
and no raging chemistry from either Darin where co-star Elizabeth
Montgomery was concerned, or you can have an ensemble show like ER, NYPD
Blue, MASH, Cheers, etc. lose a main star (or several over the years
through attrition) but Lois and Clark, though having 'supporting
characters' is *not* an ensemble show. It is Lois and Clark...period. It's
funny how often this type of ploy works to get a star back in line and
control him. Has no one thought how strange that two tabloids simultaneous
leaked the same info...'exclusive' info and one is in the U.S. and the
other in Australia. We aren't talking weeks difference, or even days. We
are talking about tabloids that came up with this within a few hours of
each other, and the Aussie rag was first. Here is the Star's article:
IT'S LOIS AND NO CLARK AS DEAN CAIN IS SET TO MAKE SUPER EXIT
by Dave LaFontaine
Lois & Clark fans are in for a super shock as the hit show finishes
the
season with a stunning cliffhanger that could spell the end of Superman
-- as well as series star Dean Cain.
In the emotion-packed finale, the man of steel decides he must leave
Earth for good to return to outer space and rescue his father's people
from a life of bondage.
As he flies off to fulfill his destiny, a teary-eyed Lois looks on
and whispers: "Don't forget me."
But Superman's hasty departure could also signal the end of Cain's
reign as America's favorite man in tights.
Insiders tell STAR that Cain is insisting his weekly salary be
tripled to a whopping $450,000 -- and producers are calling his bluff and
threatening to strand Superman in space forever if he dosen't drop his
demands.
"If worst comes to worst, they'll send Dean off the show and bring
in some kind of replacement, claiming that it's Superman's cousin, or
that he got his face damaged in some kind of kryptonite accident while in
space." says a source close to the negotiations.
"They're looking at how well DC Comies did with the 'Death of
Superman' storyline a couple of years ago. It was an instant collector's
item.
"Of course producers would like him back, but Warner Bros. is going
to be fighting Dean over every extra cent he demands, hoping to reach
some kind of middle ground."
Cain has vowed not to back down and has told friends he deserves the
extra money for making a the series a runaway hit.
The insider revealed: "Dean told a pal: 'It's only fair. I know
that the show is making tons more money for Warners. Lois & Clark is
popular around the world. The show's a hit because I'm out there every
day inf ront of the cameras for 12 or 16 hours in those tights strung up
on wires.
" ' I don't think I'm out of line asking for a raise' "
But executives are hoping Cain will change his mind and have left
the way open for him to return as Superman -- provided he drops his
demands for a mega-salary.
According to the script's final scene, the man of steel flies off
into the heavens to save his people with a beautiful Kryptonian woman
called Zara, leaving Lois heartbroken and in tears. But he
telepathically tells Lois that he still loves her, and she looks up to
the skies with hope in her eyes.
"The producers put that in at the last minute to leave the door open
for him to return to the show," says a source.
*********************
Now, here is the Australian article:
SUPER LOOT...or I'm Gone (by Warren Gibbs)
Superman hunk Dean Cain has sent Hollywood bosses into orbit with his
demands for a staggering $350,000 weekly pay hike.
The man of steel reckons he is working on "slave wages" and has threatened
to quit the top-rating series unless there's a big leap in his salary. But
the show's producers hit back and told Tinsletown's new golden boy to take
a
super jump.
In preparation for Dean's departure, the season ending episode of _Lois &
Clark_ sends Superman into outer space - never to return.
A source says: "Dean has been written out because his pay demand is
totally
outrageous. He already earns $150,000 an episode, twice the amount of his
co-star Teri Hatcher."
Woman's Day has obtained an exclusive copy of what could well be the final
script for _Lois & Clark_.
Codenamed 'Big Girls Don't Fly', Superman leaves Earth to join his own
people in the battle for freedom on the planet Krypton.
As Superman heads skywards he telepathically tells Lois that he loves her.
She looks up with hope in her eyes.
An insider says producers ended the episode with a slight glimmer of hope,
in case Dean changes his mind.
Dean's pay demand has angered everyone on set, none more than Teri, who
plays Lois. She hopes producers hold firm and sack him.
"Teri is hoping that Dean's absence will give her more power," says the
insider.
"She managed to hound Warners into giving her husband a bit-part on the
show, and hopes she'll get more if Dean goes."
But Dean has told friends his pay rise is justified.
"It's only fair," he says. "I know the show is making tons of money for
Warner Brothers.
"The show is a hit because I'm out there every day in front of cameras for
12 to 16 hours, in those tights, strung up on wires like an idiot."
The source says Warner Brothers doesn't want to lose him, but they're
looking at what DC Comics did with the death of Superman story-line.
"They replaced him with four other super characters," the source says.
"So if worst comes to worst, they'll send Dean off the show and bring in a
replacement, hoping audiences won't turn off in disgust."
++++++++++++++++++
Isn't that fascinating? :) Seems to me that a blitz was launched against
Cain simultaneously giving two separate publications the 'exclusive'
finale script. "codenamed" Big Girl's Don't Fly?<g> You'll note the Aussie
article also taints Teri Hatcher making her seem power mad. Don't believe
for a second that ABC, WB or both aren't behind this. It would serve
WB/ABC right if Teri and Dean put on a show of solidarity and both walked
off refusing to return.
Zoom
KalElFan
wrote:
[a good explanation of why we've seen these tabloid leaks]
As I mentioned in my "A Consensus?" piece on the AOL boards,
Zoom, I think your recent posts have cleared up the contradictions
that I saw in some of the earlier discussions from a number of
different people. For example, these leaks couldn't possibly have
been authorized for the *reasons* given, like enticing people to
watch the premiere next September to see whether Dean Cain
shows up (we'll know long before that if he is or isn't). Here was
the rest of my consensus piece:
"... we seem to have a consensus that I can live with, i.e.:
1. There really is a "negotiation" going on between TPTB and
Dean. It isn't something the tabloids made up or that TPTB
leaked *because* they think it will get us to watch in September...
2. A "leak" tactic to make Dean look bad and hurt his negotiating
position is *probably* what's behind the Dean salary demand story.
(I'll even add that the "spin" put on the spoiler by the tabloids - i.e.
that Superman could always return from his little excursion a
changed man <g> - also fits with this wage-war-in-the-tabloids
strategy); and
3. FoLCs are just pawns in this war, and it really has nothing to
do with what we're all most interested in, which is what we see
on our TV screens Sunday nights. (I'll qualify that, and say that
it has nothing *directly* to do with it. More about the indirect
connection in my next post.)
In terms of what we can expect next, you probably said it best
in your AOL post with:
>>>When the smoke clears, the watchword will be 'deny
everything' ABC and WB will deny they ever 'leaked' to the
papers about Dean's 'demands' and everyone else will deny it,
if they want to keep their jobs<g><<<
This will have brought them full circle in their "muddify the
fuzzification" strategy. Maybe we'll be able to look back and
refer to all this as the stealth-tabloid-leak-propaganda-war arc.
They all better be very careful, though. As if they haven't got
enough problems with the never-ending soap storylines, there
comes a point where the off-camera circus can also cause a
lot of FoLC to say "a pox on all your houses," and click their
remote."
KalElFan
[a good argument for why Dean and Teri are essential to L&C's
success]
It was a good argument, Zoom, but as you know I disagree with it.
This show isn't like those other examples you gave, IMHO. There
would be a huge outcry, I'm sure, but in the end it's not *that*
much different than James Bond or Batman: the characters are
the stars here, not the stars themselves.
I'll admit that it's a little more difficult, here, because you've got
two lead actors instead of the one. The potential for disaster if
they got two people who didn't have the same on-screen chemistry
is certainly there. But as the Colonel pointed out, there are many
actors who would be eager to take these parts, and I think they
could come up with a good match if they had to.
Here was the rest of my AOL post related to this:
"With all due respect to the "Ooo I love Dean" crowd... this
show *especially* can and should be able to go on without
Dean and Teri. For many FoLC, the "stars" of the show are
Superman/CK, Lois Lane and all the supporting players that
many FoLC have been familiar with for their entire lives. Good
on-screen chemistry between the title actors is important,
and I agree that it shows up on screen very well with Dean
and Teri, but it doesn't have to be them. If they brought in two
young, exciting, relative unknowns to fill the roles, many FoLC
would continue to watch and many new ones might check in
for a look. There would be some drop-off of existing FoLC, to
be sure, but I think the show could and would survive
(depending on many other factors that are collectively much
more important.)
Not that I want that, as I've said before. But what I do want
is for them to address this issue now. If I have to choose
between one more year of this series with Dean and Teri
followed by cancellation, versus five more years with two
new, young, exciting, relative unknowns, then I'll take the
latter. If I were TPTB, I'd settle this issue for both Dean and
Teri during the hiatus, offering them very big raises but
insisting that an extension/option be part of the package.
I think it would be worse if they had to replace them next
year or the year after that."
Zoomway
This show isn't like those other examples you gave, IMHO. There
would be a huge outcry, I'm sure, but in the end it's not *that*
much different than James Bond or Batman: the characters are
the stars here, not the stars themselves.<<<
Sorry, it just doesn't wash. Batman as a character in films is secondary
to SFX and bigname villains. Batman, as far as films go, is a refillable
rubber suit, and nothing more. The muscles, the look, everything come with
the suit. James Bond, almost the same deal, but without the suit. Also, in
films, we are talking about getting to know a character for two hours,
we've known Dean's interpretation of Clark and Superman for 3 years. We've
seen him interact with Teri for 3 years. We've seen everything that has
been built up between them happen over a span of 3 years. A romantic
pairing on a television show is a much more delicate thing. When you get
right down to it, and it should be apparent to anyone who reads usenet,
AOL, CIS and the listserv, that the romantic interaction between Lois and
Clark is what gets the big notice. Not how good Superman did this or that.
Unlike Batman, where his action as the 'bat' is all important, fans tend
to love Lois and Clark *despite* Superman, and not because of him.
>>The potential for disaster if
they got two people who didn't have the same on-screen chemistry
is certainly there. But as the Colonel pointed out, there are many
actors who would be eager to take these parts, and I think they
could come up with a good match if they had to.<<<
Bad example using the Colonel, he loves the comic book aspect of the show,
thus putting him in the minority. I enjoy the comic book stuff too, but
know that isn't what attracts the viewers, and never has (except the
children's demographic) and certainly there'd be a ton of young men
waiting in the wings to take Dean's place....but, we get back to 'romance'
being a delicate thing. You don't even have to 'lose' a lead to a show to
have a romance hurt. Moonlighting's big coffin nail came with Mark
Harmon's character interloping onto the scene. Bruce Willis (and thus
David) was still on the show, but no one wanted to see 'sparks' between
Cybill and Harmon.
>>
"With all due respect to the "Ooo I love Dean" crowd... this
show *especially* can and should be able to go on without
Dean and Teri. For many FoLC, the "stars" of the show are
Superman/CK, Lois Lane and all the supporting players that
many FoLC have been familiar with for their entire lives.<<
Not correct. Most people have not even picked up a Superman comic book
their entire life, and thus those characters only have special meaning to
fans because Dean and Teri breathed life into them. I see no reason for
the series to even attempt to continue if they lose either Dean or Teri.
If WB won't relent, and keep Dean on, then they can at least say they had
3 seasons, and the show has already been bought for syndicated re-runs, so
they can look back at their 3 years and be happy. I have no doubt, Dean,
or no Dean, they'll try and fly the 4th season because it's already been
renewed, but without knowing what the competition will throw at them next
year, relegating Dean to the unemployment line may spell their end as
well. I have to tell you, that the plots, villains, etc. has never been
the show's long suit in any season, and so they'd have to try and bank on
that weak aspect to try and carry the show while everyone else tries to
get used to a 'new' Clark/Superman.
You're right, there will be a minority of fans (especially those who
simply view Superman like a refillable suit just as Batman is viewed, and
mostly comic book fans at that) and a minority of new viewers who never
saw Cain in the role and will have no problem. However, the fan core will
be gone, just as happened with seaQuest. When Scheider was out and
Ironside was in, the fan core who had been there since season one,
vanished. There were some truly good episodes of seaQuest it's last
partial season this year, but for most of the fan core, losing Scheider
signalled the end. How many fans of The X-Files would tune back in if
either Anderson or Duchovny left the series? I wouldn't, and those
characters don't even have a romance going<g>
Zoom
Seraphis1
only shows that replace a main character by another actor w/o
changing/killing the character are soap operas. true, jw replaced that
other guy as jimmy, and cat was completely written out, but there are two
things to bear in mind here: (1) they are relatively minor characters
(not that i didn't love them) and (2) with the jw sit, the show had a
COMPLETE face-lift so to speak. i think the success on the show in a
large part depends on the familiarity of the actors, and the chemistry...
when i tune in L&C, i'm not just watching for random people to place lois
and clark, i'm looking for th and dc. to suddenly change the kent actr
would boggle audiences, and no doubt cause a lot of outcry and anger.<<
They are not going to change the actors, if, DC doesn't sign the show will
be cancelled.
It's that simple. They just move to another Super hero character. This
will also clear the
way for the Superman movie which has been held in obeyance because of the
semi-
success of the TV show. Another thing with show biz people anything that
stays on the
airwaves is a hit. L&C is NOT a hit. To be a bonified hit you must be in
the top ten
AND have the right demographics....then as the star or stars you have
unlimited power
and the prestige that goes with it. Take Angela Lansbury for example.
She had a top ten
show but the wrong demographics so TPTB close their minds to her
protestations. In
effect they said keep the show on or quit makes no difference to us. She
quit. But, if,
Jerry Seinfeld for example said Shit!....10 executives would pull down
their pants in
place and take a dump. (Not a pretty sight or thought.)
Seraphis1
as we know them.
1. TPaschal's version is undoubtly wrong. It's pretty ludicrous that DC
would partipate
in having his name and reputation dragged thru the mud as a ruse to get
ratings
KNOWINGLY with malice of fore thought.
2. There is no doubt that DC is asking big bucks. If I were him I would
also if it was
possible within the confines of the contracts. Probably, every time ABC
renews the
season they have to renegotiate the contracts and when they do that they
have to come up
with more money. Every negotiation starts with a very high demand that
has to be
hammered away at and these things are never solved until the very last
minute.
3. What we don't know is does DC really WANT to come back! This could be
his way
of getting out. I've made this posting before. It just came sooner than
I thought. I
thought the real negotiating power for both DC and TH would come at the
end of the five
year option period.
4. It doesn't seem possible for them to continue a LOIS AND CLARK
concept without
DC, I don't see how they could do it. But, they could cancel the show and
begin a new
series with a Death of Superman concept. Even do the death of S on
Krypton, in some
major battle that gets him killed and then return with four different
S-men and sort them
all out in a series called ......The Return of Superman.....A Continuation
of the Saga or
Superman. (Note that the leave Lois out of it.) If this is done I
believe the show will end
up on Saturday morning or afternoon.
Finally, to say again, everything depends on whether DC REALLY wants to
come back. I won't even hazard a guess. I have absolutely no premonition
on the subject.
KalElFan
writes:
[excerpts later]
First off, let's hope we never have to find out who's right here
Zoom. <g>
Serena, in the post just before you Zoom, made many of the
same points, citing examples such as Moonlighting, Roseanne
and Who's The Boss as series where you wouldn't want to see
cast changes. I don't think the comparisons are relevant, but
even if they were it's a moot point because the major characters
weren't replaced. And there have been examples of major
cast changes in prime time series that have gone on to be
successful, like Cheers for example.
But I think Serena ignored my main point, which is that *unlike*
other TV series, the "stars" here are the characters themselves
and not the actors. Comparisons to Moonlighting, Roseanne,
Who's The Boss, Seaquest or the X-Files just aren't relevant
to these circumstances, in my view. (BTW, Seaquest was
simply a very bad show, and I think the cast change had very
little if anything to do with its demise. To the extent that it did,
it was because Roy Scheider was better known than Michael
Ironside. My impression is that Babylon 5, which I don't watch,
didn't seem to be hurt by a similar change.)
Anyway, Zoom, you did touch on the main point I was making in a
few comments, i.e.:
>...the romantic interaction between Lois and Clark is what gets
>the big notice. Not how good Superman did this or that.
It's not the only thing, but I agree with you it's the romantic
interaction between *Lois and Clark*, these characters that
have been around for sixty years and that everyone knows,
that is the focus of this show. I'm not suggesting Dean and
Teri aren't an important part of the mix, but more than any
other series perhaps in history, it's the characters that are
the focus here, not the actors. If there were different actors,
many, many fans would still want to tune in to see what
happens between *Lois and Clark*.
>Bad example using the Colonel, he loves the comic book
>aspect of the show, thus putting him in the minority. I enjoy
>the comic book stuff too, but know that isn't what attracts
>the viewers, and never has (except the children's demographic)
Well, it seems to me the children's demographic isn't unimportant.
I'd be in the 18-49 demographic TPTB seem to covet so much, and
I can tell you I never would have started watching this show if it
had been Clark Smith and Lois Jones working for the Daily Star
in Des Moines. I never watched Moonlighting. I'd wager that the
*vast* majority of people who tuned into this show were people
who were familiar with the Superman legend and that's the main
thing that drew them in. They'd read the comic books as a child,
or they'd seen the old TV series or the movies (perhaps on TV).
I'd even go further than that and suggest that one of the main
problems with the series that first year was acceptance of Dean
Cain as Superman! So it's kind of ironic for people to suggest
now that no one else can play him without driving away the
majority of viewers. I'd be sorry to see him go at this point too,
probably even sorrier to see Teri Hatcher go, but I'd still stick
around with great interest, at least initially, and I'm sure many
other FoLC would as well. (Even the ones who I don't doubt
would howl loudly if they ever made a change. BTW, if they
did make a change, it probably would be better if they recast
both at the same time.)
>>"With all due respect to the "Ooo I love Dean" crowd... this
>>show *especially* can and should be able to go on without
>>Dean and Teri. For many FoLC, the "stars" of the show are
>>Superman/CK, Lois Lane and all the supporting players that
>>many FoLC have been familiar with for their entire lives.
>
>Not correct. Most people have not even picked up a Superman
>comic book their entire life...
Well, I'm not even sure you have to have picked up a comic book
to have seen the movies, or to have in any number of other ways
become aware of the Superman story and characters, and I'd say
the vast majority of FoLC fell into that "very aware" category
when they came on board. I'm not sure whether anyone can prove
it either way, but I think that would be the conventional wisdom.
You were, Zoom, I was, the Colonel was, virtually everyone else
on this board seems to be, and I suspect a large majority of FoLC
were and are.
>You're right, there will be a minority of fans... and a minority of
>new viewers who never saw Cain in the role and will have no
>problem.
Well, I think you're right that a minority will have *no problem*.
If that's the criteria, then I'm in the majority with you, because
it's something that I'd prefer not to happen. But if they made the
change I'd stick around and give it a chance, and I suspect the
*vast majority* (well, at least 75% or 80%) would stick around to
check out the new actor(s), and a few new FoLC might come on
board as well. Beyond that, it would depend how good the new
actors were.
Of course, another factor here is (aargh!) money. If you're TPTB
and you can save a combined $10 or $15 million a season (or
whatever the number is going to be) by making the changes,
then that can go a long way towards easing the pain of losing
*some* viewers. If you're looking at it from TPTB's point of view,
I don't think there would be that great a net loss initially, or at
least it would be within the salary savings because there would
be a novelty factor that people would want to check out. Longer
term, it would depend entirely on who their replacements were,
and that's why it would be so risky. They know it works well with
Dean and Teri, it may not work so well with their replacements.
A cast change certainly isn't something I'm advocating, because
I think they'd do much better paying Dean and Teri the big bucks
and getting an extension/option to their deal. But if Dean and/or
Teri are determined to leave after another year or two and the big
bucks can't persuade them otherwise, I just think it would make
more sense to bite the bullet and make the changes now. (One
doubts that TPTB are really thinking long-term about anything,
though. They certainly haven't given us any indication of that.)
One last word. There's been some talk of Dean wanting a
producer's credit. That might be a win-win situation for everyone
all around, including the fans. In an earlier post, Zoom, you
talked about Dean fighting to have TPTB let Lois learn the
secret and focus more on the romance. This suggests he has
a good understanding of what FoLC want to see, and I thought
the two eps he wrote were okay too (not the kind of thing I'd want
to see all the time, but an okay part of the overall mix). And this
upcoming ep co-written by Teri also has some good buzz. So
maybe they could both take a more active (and recognized) role
in the writing and production side of things, and agree as part
of that to a multi-year extension/option in their contracts.
KalElFan
(Seraphis1) writes:
>They are not going to change the actors, if, DC doesn't sign
>the show will be cancelled.
If DC doesn't stick around, the show will go on. Same with TH.
Let's hope we never have to prove who's right. <g>
Marc Koenig
> I have no doubt that the romance increases the ratings (although I
> don't believe its effect is as powerful on the Nielsens as you do,
> Zoom) and I have no doubt that at least one scene in "BGDF" will put
> a whopping smile across all America as these skilled relationship
> writers touch the viewers' hearts. And who knows? Maybe their pens are
> helping the ratings hugely. But if I choke in disbelief as the show
> gets rampantly stupid again (as I did in all 4 of their previous hours,
> the 4 episodes of the show I like the least and one of which I actively
> ridicule as being as bad as TV gets), then I personally won't give
> a flip how it affects the ratings, as I might stop watching the program
> altogether. I came close during Romance Gone Bad, and I think that if
> we hadn't seen Grant Rosenberg's "it's only 5 weeks and it'll be OK"
> post, then I might have done so after "Double Jep."
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------> On assignment in Athens, Georgia,
> Colonel X.
>
> Expect the unexpected.
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh, Colonel! Do you really think the board could get along w/out your
wise posts??? I read every single one!
Your fan,
-Bethany
*
*~*
blankh
> "According to the script's final scene, the man of steel flies off into
> the heavens to save his people with a beautiful Kryptonian woman called
> Zara, leaving Lois heartbroken and in tears. But he telepathically tells
> Lois that he still loves her and she looks up to the skies with hope in
> her eyes." Honest thats what it says.
> And the second post read:
> LOIS WEEPS AS SUPERMAN FLIES OFF WITH HIS WIFE:
> Get out your handkerchiefs for the sensational season-ender of Lois &
> Clark. Superman, reveals an insider, will break the heart of his
> long-suffering galpal and fly off to another planet - in the arms of
> another woman! It's the biggest shock of the series as the Man of Steel
> (Dean Cain) discovers he's been married since birth. Disguised as
> mild-mannered reporter Clark Kent, he's bowled over when a co-worker
> reveals she's from Superman's home planet Krypton, and was wed to him when
> they were just babies!
>
> The celestial cutie, Zara, explains she's come to Earth to collect her
> hubby and return to space to over-throw an evil ruler - with his help.
> This is crushing news for Lois Lane (Teri Hatcher) who had her own
> iron-clad wedding plans for the Man of Steel. But Clark promises he'll
> return if he can. And Lois makes sure he won't forget - by gently placing
> a wedding ring on a chain around his neck. Superman, says an insider,
> takes her hands gently in his and vows: "I'll keep it as safely as I keep
> my love for you. I've loved you from the very beginning. In my heart,
> I'm YOUR husband."
>
> The weepy plotline will come as a shock to fans of the usually
> light-hearted show. "The final scenes could have been lifted from a
> romance novel," the insider reveals. The episode, titled Big Girls Don't
> Fly, is scheduled to air May 19 on ABC. "It's an emotional cliffhanger,"
> says the insider.>>>
>
>
> I'm still hoping that this is wrong, but if two of the tabloids are going
> with this story, and if another person posted it on this board, it sounds
> like there may actually be a leak somewhere at L&C. I hope it's all
> disinformation, but maybe not...... :-(
NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO
NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO
NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO
NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO
NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO
NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I DON'T WANT THIS TO BE AN EPISODE! IT'S NOT FAIR! HE BELONGS TO LOIS!
NOT SOME "CUTIE" CREEP FROM KRYPTON!
I have some explanations, too, as to why this can't possibly be a real
episode:
1. Where has Zara been for 30 years, since Krypton exploded?
2. What kind of planet marries their kids @ birth, and if they were
just "betrothed" which is NOT married, why is "Zara" forcing him?
3. The first spoiler I heard of BGDF was from a producer, and they
said it would change Metropolis forever, BUT NOT IN A BAD WAY!
4. WHY CAN'T SUPERMAN SAY NO TO THIS ZARA CREEP AND MARRY LOIS ALREADY!
Unfortunately, this spoiler would explain why the show is entitled "Big
Girls DON'T FLY." This sucks.
BTW, ANY **TPTB** OUT THERE? IF SO, ***PLEASE*** TELL ME THAT THIS
SPOILER IS FALSE!!!
Sincerely,
Gina Blank =)
TPaschal
(Seraphis1) writes:
>Before everybody gets their panties all in a bunch, lets look at the
facts
>as we know them.
>1. TPaschal's version is undoubtly wrong. It's pretty ludicrous that DC
>would partipate
>in having his name and reputation dragged thru the mud as a ruse to get
>ratings
>KNOWINGLY with malice of fore thought.
Whoa! Wait a minute.....MY version???? Wrong, wrong, wrong. I simply
reposted some rumor/spoiler messages that I came across on AOL from people
who had read The Star, The Globe, and from someone with a friend at ABC.
The comments that I added to those messages were simply speculations IF
those messages were true.
What I said was:
<<<A SEMI-SPOILER/RUMOR FOLLOWS:
We've all heard that in the season ending cliffhanger Clark flies off with
Zara and we're left for the summer to wonder if and when and how he's
coming back. Well, the show *is* called "Lois & Clark", right? And they
wouldn't have a show without the Clark/Superman character, right? So it
makes sense that he has to come back, and so there's not much suspense
there. On the other hand, if we're left to wonder if the *actor* is
coming back or not, that leaves us with plenty of suspense! >>>
I was just speculating that if it *does* turn out to be true that the
salary demand rumors were leaked on purpose, that it would make a twisted
sort of sense in light of what we've heard about the season finale. I in
no way meant to imply that this is my version of the facts, or even what I
believe to be true.
My other comments were that I don't think Dean is stupid enough to toss
his career away by making such outrageous demands, which I still believe,
and that we all should be wary of believing anything we read in the
tabloids. As I *did* say earlier.....<<Well, before we jump all over the
poor guy, let's remember that these *are* tabloids, and their life-blood
is to print sensationalized stories, true or not, to gain readers! >>
I hope this makes things a little clearer.
Tonya
TPas...@aol.com
Zoomway
didn't seem to be hurt by a similar change.)<<<
Babylon 5's producer/creator, J Michael Straczynski wrote the following
about changing out one actor for another, or one character for another,
and what it ends up costing a show's momentum:
" Every season-end, the networks look to how they can change the show to
make it better...and in so doing, end up causing more problems, because
you've got to get over the resistance of the fans who resent losing
character X; you've got to spend the first part of your season setting up
those new characters and relationships, which costs you whatever momentum
you were able to build up in the prior season...it simply causes more
problems..."
If you weren't here or on AOL during the first half of 2nd season, you
really missed out on an almost neverending riot when fans had to get used
to a new Jimmy Olsen. I love Justin, he's a great guy, I even got to meet
him, but he was so gun-shy after reading some of the nastiest posts
imaginable, he walked out with his hands up saying "I know you guys hate
me." This was long after fans stopped clobbering Justin, but the memory
was very fresh in his mind. This was a problem, and Jimmy Olsen wasn't
even a new character replacing an old character, just another actor given
the name, and yet it still took better than half the season for him to be
accepted (some still not liking him until he knocked Scardino down the
stairway...a real satisfying moment for many fans :)
>>Teri aren't an important part of the mix, but more than any
other series perhaps in history, it's the characters that are
the focus here, not the actors. If there were different actors,
many, many fans would still want to tune in to see what
happens between *Lois and Clark*.<<<
Okay, 4th season opens, Clark returns, Lois (Teri) runs tearfully,
joyfully and plants a big kiss on Clark (played by another actor) The
fans sit there seeing Lois (the one they've known) kissing a Clark
(they've never seen before) I'm afraid there won't be any WAFF there, just
stunned silence from some, outrage from the majority, and quite possibly
giggles from others. Finding an actor that is handsome and well-built in
Hollywood is no problem, the prospects get narrower when looking for one
that has acting ability that will let him hold his own with an actress
like Teri Hatcher. Dean Cain, though acting from a young age, was very
stiff throughout most of the first season and a half of Lois and Clark,
but his undeniable chemistry with Teri is what pulled it off, and by the
time 3rd season debuted, Dean had really come into his own with a vast
improvement in his acting ability. The chemistry is the part you can't buy
or fake. Robert Butler, the director of Lois and Clark's pilot, was
watching the dailies of Dean and Teri's screen test and just shook his
head in wonder and said, "You've got it, you've got it! What is it with
these two?" To my mind, and only in my opinion, these actors *are* Lois
and Clark, and the show would be down the tubes without them.
>>Well, it seems to me the children's demographic isn't unimportant.
I'd be in the 18-49 demographic TPTB seem to covet so much, and
I can tell you I never would have started watching this show if it
had been Clark Smith and Lois Jones working for the Daily Star
in Des Moines<<<
Do you want to know how many times I've seen fans post here saying "Could
someone send me tapes of first and second season? Like a dunce I thought
this was just going to be a dumb show about Superman, but I was wrong"
There were more people who avoided this show because 'Superman' was in the
title, than people who were attracted 'because' Superman was in the title.
If Superman had been the drawing card, then the show would have been a hit
from its debut, and nothing could have been further from the truth. If
Superman was the hot property here, then certainly the first half of
season 2 would have made Lois and Clark a top 10 show, instead, it was in
danger of cancellation until The Phoenix with it's heavily promoted
romantic plot, which was able to raise the ratings from The Eyes Have It
(ranking #60th in the ratings for a first run episode) all the way up to
#40. After that, Lois and Clark didn't have to worry about ratings again.
The romance started in The Phoenix, and played out to the season finale
giving Lois and Clark their best ratings. As far as children being a
valuable audience, they are, especially in the 'per household' ratings
system where every warm body watching the TV is clocked. However, 'just'
children demographics in a primetime slot will not help a show. The new
Muppet show is in trouble for this very reason. Even with ratings as low
as that show gets, other shows with even lower ratings remain because they
have adult demographics.
>>I never watched Moonlighting. I'd wager that the
*vast* majority of people who tuned into this show were people
who were familiar with the Superman legend and that's the main
thing that drew them in. They'd read the comic books as a child,
or they'd seen the old TV series or the movies (perhaps on TV).<<
Again, this is completely incorrect. Most viewers were so uniformed about
the comics (and keep in mind this is how Superman in the comics has been
depicted for a decade) that they thought the *show* was monkeying with the
Superman legend, and giving it a fresh new spin by having Clark be the
real guy, and Superman the disguise, and letting Lois in on the secret,
and Lois and Clark falling in love and becoming engaged when all of this
happened already in the Byrne revamp. This ignorance of the comics
actually worked to the show's advantage.
>>A cast change certainly isn't something I'm advocating, because
I think they'd do much better paying Dean and Teri the big bucks
and getting an extension/option to their deal. But if Dean and/or
Teri are determined to leave after another year or two and the big
bucks can't persuade them otherwise, I just think it would make
more sense to bite the bullet and make the changes now. <<<<
If they bite the bullet, they may find it's attached to their own rear
ends. If the show only plays out one last season, and if it is with Dean
and Teri, then they should give the show some kind of closure, or create a
spinoff of some type, but not replace Lois and Clark with other actors. It
just won't wash. I know it's hard to argue with a comic book fan on this
issue, because Superman is Superman, and that's that. But for most fans,
Sueprman represents that guy that Clark has to be and that helps create
the quirkiness, mystery, isolation, and problems in their romance. Having
another actor step in and try and replace Dean's interpretation of the
character is a lose/lose scenario. The actor (just like in Whalin's case)
will have to work hard to overcome Dean's take on the character, and
create his own, and as Straczynkski said, you lose a lot more than you
win, in fact, they wouldn't break even on this bet.
Zoom (I love the comics, but if this were just The New Adventures of
Superman, I'd probably try and catch it when I remembered, but not wait
anxiously for each new episode, and not beat myself up if I missed one ;)
"O Brave New Krypton, that has such hunks in't" <g>
KalElFan
writes:
>If you weren't here or on AOL during the first half of 2nd season, you
>really missed out on an almost neverending riot [involving the new
>Jimmy Olsen played by "Justin Whalin"]
In the past, whenever people have agrued that AOL, Usenet and other
online forums aren't representative, I've challenged that view. So I
think it's true that most FoLC were upset about that cast change
initially. It's a very natural reaction.
Having said that, reactions are magnified ten-fold in forums like
these. If you were judging *only* by the reaction on these boards,
the show should have lost half or more of its audience by now.
Finding positive comments about this show since "Tempus
Anyone" is like finding a needle in a haystack. Almost all FoLC
are unhappy. This has started to show up in the ratings, but 80%
of FoLC are still sticking with it.
So I don't doubt there would be a huge outcry if Dean and Teri were
replaced, making the Olsen riot pale by comparison. But in the end,
I believe a large majority of FoLC would stick around to check the
new actors out. Beyond that, it would depend entirely on how good
they were. I think the consensus today is that the Olsen cast change
was a good move. As you pointed out, it just took some time for
FoLC to come around.
>Okay, 4th season opens, Clark returns, Lois (Teri) runs tearfully,
>joyfully and plants a big kiss on Clark (played by another actor)
Here, I agree with your analysis of the adverse reaction it might
have. If you're TPTB and comparing that scenario to the one where
both actors are replaced, the latter scenario may be a safer bet.
If you throw in the additional salary savings (sorry, but we have to
recognize the financial reality here) then replacing both probably
makes more sense than replacing one. Hope it never happens,
but replacing both may well be the route they'd take.
>Do you want to know how many times I've seen fans post here
>saying... Like a dunce I thought this was just going to be a dumb
>show about Superman, but I was wrong... There were more
>people who avoided this show because 'Superman' was in the
>title, than people who were attracted 'because' Superman was
>in the title.
Well, although I don't agree with your interpretation, you've at
least made my point for me in the underlying premise of what you
said here. You say people "thought it was going to be a dumb
show about Superman," or that they avoided it because of
Superman. You're acknowledging that they were *aware* of the
Superman story. They perhaps expected it to be treated like a
comic book, but were pleasantly surprised when they learned
the focus was on the romance. I agree with you that was an
important focus, especially since many of the FoLC who were
brought in were people who had never *closely* followed
Superman before.
But this doesn't change my point, in fact it makes it for me, Zoom,
because all I was saying was that people have been *aware* of
these characters their entire lives. They may have thought to
themselves "oh, I know they never get married because that's
what my brother told me and I couldn't care less about all that
fighting for truth, justice and the American way business," and
then been pleasantly surprised when they found this series
took Lois Lane and Clark Kent to a new level, one that they
hadn't expected. But they had those incorrect expectations
precisely *because* they were aware of the characters prior to
watching this show.
>Most viewers were so uniformed about the comics... that they
>thought the *show* was monkeying with the Superman legend...
>This ignorance of the comics actually worked to the show's
>advantage...
Again, you're making my point that FoLC were aware of these
characters before. They were pleasantly surprised that their
expectations were surpassed.
>I know it's hard to argue with a comic book fan on this issue,
>because Superman is Superman, and that's that. But for most
>fans, Superman represents that guy that Clark has to be...
Again, Superman represented *something* to them, because they
knew about and were aware of him, Clark Kent, Lois Lane and
so on. What's drawn them in is the way the *Lois and Clark* story
has been handled, and not who has played them. Very few tuned
in to see Cain and Hatcher. (They'd have a big problem if those
actors left - so would I - but they'd still be interested to see what
happened to Lois and Clark, provided the right replacements could
be found.)
(BTW, I'm not a post-crisis comic book fan, although I've taken a bit
of a crash course in it recently. <g>)
Anyway, Zoom, as I said on the AOL boards, I've kind of been playing
devil's advocate on this one because I'd much rather see them both
stay. But if they don't for whatever reason, this show can still survive
and even prosper assuming TPTB get everything else right. (A big
assumption I know, kind of like those three survivors of a shipwreck
floating around in a shark-infested ocean and when asked for ideas
the economist among them says "Let's assume we had a lifeboat"...)
Zoomway
these. If you were judging *only* by the reaction on these boards,
the show should have lost half or more of its audience by now.
Finding positive comments about this show since "Tempus
Anyone" is like finding a needle in a haystack. Almost all FoLC
are unhappy. This has started to show up in the ratings, but 80%
of FoLC are still sticking with it.<<<
Irrelevant, it's impossible to tell who leaves the forum, however, the
listserv is another matter. Everytime someone makes a post, an
acknowlegment is sent to the poster saying how many people received the
post. The numbers got smaller and smaller during the first half of season
two. People were just leaving. I must say however, that most people who
leave currently is due to the huge volume of posts, it's a real mailbox
spammer<g>
>>So I don't doubt there would be a huge outcry if Dean and Teri were
replaced, making the Olsen riot pale by comparison. But in the end,
I believe a large majority of FoLC would stick around to check the
new actors out. Beyond that, it would depend entirely on how good
they were. I think the consensus today is that the Olsen cast change
was a good move. As you pointed out, it just took some time for
FoLC to come around.<<<
One has the luxury of time with a supporting character, because that is
not who the audience is tuning in to see. With title characters, it
becomes make or break, and fast, or the show is a lost cause. It wouldn't
even matter if the show had a 22 episode commitment either. seaQuest had
only a half season commitment in its 3rd season, but did so poorly it was
yanked even before those 13 episodes could be shown.
>>Here, I agree with your analysis of the adverse reaction it might
have. If you're TPTB and comparing that scenario to the one where
both actors are replaced, the latter scenario may be a safer bet.
If you throw in the additional salary savings (sorry, but we have to
recognize the financial reality here) then replacing both probably
makes more sense than replacing one. Hope it never happens,
but replacing both may well be the route they'd take.<<<
Only if they were galactically stupid :) ABC has never ever had a show do
as well as Lois and Clark in that Sunday night slot. Sunday is the most
watched night of television in the U.S., and so ad revenues are premium.
It is the reason that CBS moved Murder She Wrote from Sunday night
(allowing it to play out its swan song there in May sweeps) This was a top
ten show, and it had been parked there for 11 years. However, it was a
white elephant. Though high in household rank, L&C was usually able to
match it in the per viewer catagory once L&C switched to romance. Worse
for MSW is that it got lousy demographics, and that is the part the
determines ad rates. Lois and Clark was getting the same ad rate for a
re-run that MSW was getting for a first-run. So, if money were to be
factored in, the salary becomes chump change. We now know the rumor was
false, and yet, as an ABC source said, a publicity stunt. Let's face it,
if the salary demand were the only factor, why give the tabloids spoilers
on the episode? However, had Dean been demanding more money, it would be
no where near the half million mark.
>>"oh, I know they never get married because that's
what my brother told me and I couldn't care less about all that
fighting for truth, justice and the American way business," and
then been pleasantly surprised when they found this series
took Lois Lane and Clark Kent to a new level, one that they
hadn't expected. But they had those incorrect expectations
precisely *because* they were aware of the characters prior to
watching this show<<<
Superman belongs to what Lincoln called the 'mystic chords of memory'.
Superman is precognitive for most of us. We grew up knowing about Superman
just like we grew up knowing about a chair or a table. We don't remember
learning about a chair or table, but the knowledge is there. Superman is
only one of five characters recognized throughout the world. However,
Superman is also a double-edged sword. He instantly says superhero and
comic book, and so the minority like me, might seek that out, but the
majority don't even bother to give it a try. Even if every single current
reader of the Superman comic book titles watched the show, and were
counted as a group to dump into the rating mix information, they wouldn't
have high enough numbers to raise the Nielsens by even one point. That's
how few people have an interest in Superman comics, and that is the
country as a whole. So this show had to attract an entirely different
interest group, and miraculously has done so.
>>>What's drawn them in is the way the *Lois and Clark* story
has been handled, and not who has played them. Very few tuned
in to see Cain and Hatcher. (They'd have a big problem if those
actors left - so would I - but they'd still be interested to see what
happened to Lois and Clark, provided the right replacements could
be found.)<<<
In almost every review I've read about the show, the chemistry and
'sizzle' between Dean and Teri seem to be the overriding factor in the
show's high marks.
>>But if they don't for whatever reason, this show can still survive
and even prosper assuming TPTB get everything else right. (A big
assumption I know, kind of like those three survivors of a shipwreck
floating around in a shark-infested ocean and when asked for ideas
the economist among them says "Let's assume we had a lifeboat"...)<<<
If Dean or Teri left the show, it would have one foot in the grave and the
other on a banana peel<g> So, I will just agree to disagree with you :)
Zoom (isn't it weird though, that both our online nicks come from the
comics? :)
ellen
Unfortunately, DC's attitude seems in keeping with that "Entertainment Weekly" interview in which he came off as a class-1 jerk. I =
>wouldn't put it past him to let his ego get in the way, thus spoiling that WAFFy L&C chemistry that us FoLCs have come to enjoy.... =
> Just my $.02...
>
What Entertainment Weekely interview are you taking about? Do you (or anyone else out there) have the transcripts?
ellen
Seraphis1
knew about and were aware of him, Clark Kent, Lois Lane and
has been handled, and not who has played them. Very few tuned
in to see Cain and Hatcher. (They'd have a big problem if those
actors left - so would I - but they'd still be interested to see what
happened to Lois and Clark, provided the right replacements could
be found.)<<
This has to be patently wrong on the face of it. TH was once and maybe
still is the queen
of the online hits to her photos. She was at one point light years beyond
any online
actress. This doesn't square with your assertion.
KalElFan
writes:
>If Dean or Teri left the show, it would have one foot in the grave and
the
>other on a banana peel<g> So, I will just agree to disagree with you :)
Actually, I can agree with that statement! It would be an extremely
tenuous and risky situation, and I hope they never try it. I also agree
with a related thing you said earlier, i.e.:
>With title characters, it becomes make or break, and fast, or the
>show is a lost cause.
I agree, we would probably know very quickly whether the new
actors worked or not. If they didn't, the thing might go into the
tank real quick.
My only point was that we shouldn't *assume* that Dean or Teri
leaving means the series dies, because it would depend on their
replacements and the fact that in this series, more than any other,
the characters are the stars. You said it yourself:
>We grew up knowing about Superman just like we grew up
>knowing about a chair or a table... Superman is only one of
>five characters recognized throughout the world.
Now maybe we can all start guessing who the other four are. <g>
KalElFan
>So, if money were to be factored in, the salary becomes chump
>change. We now know the rumor was false, and yet, as an ABC
>source said, a publicity stunt. Let's face it, if the salary demand
>were the only factor, why give the tabloids spoilers on the
>episode? However, had Dean been demanding more money, it
>would be no where near the half million mark.
When you consider that the L&C syndication rights were reportedly
sold to TBS for something like $100 million, that ABC gets $300,000
per minute for a commercial in a new episode (I believe that was the
number you posted on AOL), and that the series has been sold
worldwide, the star salaries are a relatively small percentage of the
total revenue. Nevertheless, it isn't surprising to me that WB would
want to save every penny it could, and even that it might stoop to
leaking that story in order to discredit Cain and weaken his
negotiating position.
The "authorized" leaking of the spoiler is something I found very,
very difficult to accept, since it's such an awful spoiler and tends
to drive people away rather than reel them in. However, two
scenarios may explain a leak by TPTB or by WB, i.e.:
1. Maybe there is a *real* wedding in the finale or even in the
next new episode on April 28th. (I speculated on this some time
ago in earlier posts, and there was another AOL tidbit this morning
that hinted at the possibility). If there is a real wedding, it might
make sense for TPTB to get all the bad news out of the way first
and clear the decks for a good news onslaught over the next 15
days or so (they apparently wrap shooting today).
2. Maybe they don't get married for real and it really is nothing but
more soap-style bad news. Maybe if you're WB and it's your ox
being gored while ABC tries to get another soap-style ratings
bounce in May at the possible expense of the long-term success
and *value* of the series and the franchise (which is WB's ox here),
you aren't too thrilled about the way things are going. Maybe just
like they want to send a message to Dean Cain, some elements
within WB want to send a message to ABC: keep goring our ox
like this, and we'll sabotage any benefit you think you might be
deriving from it.
The truth is out there. Trust no one. <g>
KalElFan
(Seraphis1) writes:
>>[KalElFan wrote]:
>>
>>Again, Superman represented *something* to them, because they
>>knew about and were aware of him, Clark Kent, Lois Lane and
>>so on. What's drawn them in is the way the *Lois and Clark* story
>>has been handled, and not who has played them. Very few tuned
>>in to see Cain and Hatcher. (They'd have a big problem if those
>>actors left - so would I - but they'd still be interested to see what
>>happened to Lois and Clark, provided the right replacements could
>>be found.)
>
>This has to be patently wrong on the face of it. TH was once and
>maybe still is the queen of [online]. She was at one point light
>years beyond any online actress. This doesn't square with your
>assertion.
Your logic escapes me. I don't know what you think my assertion
is or what you think Teri being the queen of online has to do with
it, so I'm operating in the dark here.
If you're suggesting that people *did* tune in to L&C because of Teri
Hatcher, all I can say is she was a virtual unknown at the time
she took on the role. I don't even think she was the queen of online
at that time, she became that afterwards. But even if she had been
the queen of online, only a small percentage of the total population
is wired up.
If your point is that people like Teri Hatcher (and Dean Cain) NOW,
today, then I never said they didn't. In fact, I agree there would be a
huge outcry. The wailing would probably go on all season and well
beyond that. What I took issue with was this idea that the series
would necessarily die. That would depend on their replacements and
many other factors. In the end, the series might do even better. We
simply don't know for sure. (I've agreed, though, that it would be
a very dumb, risky move, something TPTB should only do if they're
forced into it.)
he...@nando.net
on the subject of Dean Cain's treatment by the Tabloids and Rumor
Releases that no one released:
Make Cain a producer
Cain a producer
Cain a producer
Cain a producer
Cain a producer
There has to be someone in charge who is more interested in the strengths
of Clark, Lois, and Superman than in whipping, wimping, and WHAMming
them.
Cain a producer
Cain a producer
Cain a producer
Cain a producer
chess
VARTOX
writes:
>>We grew up knowing about Superman just like we grew up
>>knowing about a chair or a table... Superman is only one of
>>five characters recognized throughout the world.
>
>Now maybe we can all start guessing who the other four are. <g>
>
>
No guess necessary: Sherlock Holmes, Mickey Mouse, Tarzan and Robin Hood.
(from Harlan Ellison's forward to "Superman at Fifty" - long out of press,
sorry)
Seraphis1
is or what you think Teri being the queen of online has to do with
it, so I'm operating in the dark here.
If you're suggesting that people *did* tune in to L&C because of Teri
Hatcher, all I can say is she was a virtual unknown at the time
she took on the role. I don't even think she was the queen of online
at that time, she became that afterwards. But even if she had been
the queen of online, only a small percentage of the total population
is wired up.
If your point is that people like Teri Hatcher (and Dean Cain) NOW,
today, then I never said they didn't. In fact, I agree there would be a
huge outcry. The wailing would probably go on all season and well
beyond that. What I took issue with was this idea that the series
would necessarily die. That would depend on their replacements and
many other factors. In the end, the series might do even better. We
simply don't know for sure. (I've agreed, though, that it would be
a very dumb, risky move, something TPTB should only do if they're
forced into it.)<<
I was responding to your assertion that TH and/or DC was not the focus of
the viewers.
Zoomway, amply handled this by pointing out that the show was nearly
canceled until
they got DJL's original boy meets girl romance concept going. So, the
S-Man alone is not
the draw. I myself fall in the category of the people who avoided L&C,
when, it was
originally shown under the impression that this was another 50's style
Superman series.
(I enjoyed the Flash, I collect mostly Batman titles....but....the S man
was never one of
my favorite characters. The only reason I watched was because there was
nothingelse on
one night in the rerun phase....I loved DJL's concept and never looked
back....and thanks
to Leigh4ck I was able to get the DJL episodes on tape for future marathon
viewing
sessions....I've installed an ultra surround sound system in my den and
have really got the
full impact of all the stereo effects). But, moreover, I can't see anyone
replacing TH or
DC. TH is the definitive LL. She is bright, electric and believeable as
an ambitious
woman reporter with moxie and spirit. And, DC has the look and feel of a
naive good
hearted easy going farm boy. Together they ARE the show. Without them I
am gone.
KalElFan
(Seraphis1) writes:
>I was responding to your assertion that TH and/or DC was not
>the focus of the viewers.
That wasn't really my assertion, even though I might not mind defending
that statement in a debate. My main assertion was that if TH/DC
left, it wouldn't necessarily mean the end of Lois & Clark because, more
than any other series, the characters here are the stars and not the
actors. Whether the show survived would depend on their replacements
and many other factors.
>Zoomway, amply handled this by pointing out that the show was
>nearly canceled until they got DJL's original boy meets girl romance
>concept going.
Actually, I'm not sure that's an entirely accurate description of what
turned L&C around, and I'm not sure that's the way Zoomway put it.
In the end, I think our positions were reconciled to a fair extent. She
admitted that FoLC were aware of the characters coming into the
series and there might be a very short window where FoLCs would
take a look at any replacements, and I admitted that replacing DC/TH
would be a dumb and risky move, something only to be done as an
absolute last resort.
>So, the S-Man alone is not the draw.
I agree.
>I myself fall in the category of the people who avoided L&C,
>when, it was originally shown under the impression that this
>was another 50's style Superman series... But, moreover, I
>can't see anyone replacing TH or DC. TH is the definitive LL.
>She is bright, electric and believeable as an ambitious woman
>reporter with moxie and spirit. And, DC has the look and feel
>of a naive good hearted easy going farm boy. Together they
>ARE the show. Without them I am gone.
Although I can accept and even agree with a lot of what you
said there, the last two sentences are where we theoretically
part company. Hopefully we'll never have to do so in practice.
Colonel X
and before her, KalElFan, said:
>>>The potential for disaster if
>they got two people who didn't have the same on-screen chemistry
>is certainly there. But as the Colonel pointed out, there are many
>actors who would be eager to take these parts, and I think they
>could come up with a good match if they had to.<<<
>
>Bad example using the Colonel, he loves the comic book aspect of the show,
>thus putting him in the minority. I enjoy the comic book stuff too, but
>know that isn't what attracts the viewers, and never has (except the
>children's demographic) and certainly there'd be a ton of young men
>waiting in the wings to take Dean's place....but, we get back to 'romance'
>being a delicate thing. You don't even have to 'lose' a lead to a show to
>have a romance hurt. Moonlighting's big coffin nail came with Mark
>Harmon's character interloping onto the scene. Bruce Willis (and thus
>David) was still on the show, but no one wanted to see 'sparks' between
>Cybill and Harmon.
Well, as Oscar Wilde once said, the only thing worse than being talked
about...is not being talked about.
Zoomway, I'm afraid that I completely and totally fail to see how the
fact I've been lobbying for bloody Green Arrow to guest star makes me
unqualified to comment on the replaceability of the program's actors.
The facts are simple. People have played Superman (or supplied his voice
for years prior to Dean Cain. Likewise Lois Lane. I am certain that
"Lois & Clark" will not be the last time we see the Superman legend on
TV or film either. There's the Jon Peters thing coming in the not-too
distant future and it would not be at all surprising to see some sort
of Superman TV adventure in the year 2010 or so. The smallest minority
are not comic book fans, they're the people watching just to see Dean
Cain and Teri Hatcher, and, frankly, if any "fan" gets snooty and stops
watching because a star gets snooty and demands triple their salary,
then good riddance to them. We're all watching to see the story of
two reporters in love, one an alien, and frankly, with all due respect
to the talented artistes portraying them now, the roles of Clark Kent
and Lois Lane are archetypical roles. Any actor worth spitting at can
play them. Would the chemistry be altered? Probably. For the better?
Maybe. (If Cain is replaced by an actor who can actually deliver the
line "I love you" without all of Cain's weirdo enunciation, I'd be
thrilled. That'd be a big improvement in the chemistry.)
In fact, returning to your above example, had Bruce Willis been booted
from "Moonlighting" and replaced, as Addison, by Mark Harmon, then that
would have been a great thing. Harmon and Shepard worked a lot better
together, as actors, than Willis and Shepard. Unfortunately, Harmon was
not playing a role that anyone on Earth wanted to see Maddie romancin'.
The names John Haymes Newton and Gerard Christopher suddenly spring
to mind...
As for most fans never having picked up a comic book, I'd say that's a
gross generalization. They (and we're talking about several million
people here) have almost certainly read a comic book at some point in
their lives and possibly a Superman comic. Are these millions fans of
the comic right now, well of course not. The circulation numbers of
comic books as opposed to the Nielsen numbers of "L&C" easily
disprove that. I myself am hardly a fan of the Superman comic books. I
don't buy them and have nowhere near the insight into their mythos
that Vartox and KalElFan have. But if there's a single viewer of this
show who hadn't heard of the characters "Superman" and "Lois Lane"
before now, then strike me blind. They're archetypes, known to
millions and millions through decades in media. "Superman" is second
only to Mickey Mouse as the most licensed character on Earth and only
a tiny fraction of them read the books. Nobody started watching this
show because "there's a great program on ABC with two people you never
heard of playing reporters in love and one of them's a superhero."
Colonel X
>Oh, Colonel! Do you really think the board could get along w/out your
>wise posts??? I read every single one!
>
>
> Your fan,
> -Bethany
Thanks very much, he said, praying Bethany's not just being
sarcastic, but this newgroup survived for 12 months before I got
here and no doubt will thrive after I leave...
Colonel X
>NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO
>NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO
>NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO
>NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO
>NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO
>NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO
>!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
>I DON'T WANT THIS TO BE AN EPISODE! IT'S NOT FAIR! HE BELONGS TO LOIS!
>NOT SOME "CUTIE" CREEP FROM KRYPTON!
>
>I have some explanations, too, as to why this can't possibly be a real
>episode:
>
>1. Where has Zara been for 30 years, since Krypton exploded?
>2. What kind of planet marries their kids @ birth, and if they were
> just "betrothed" which is NOT married, why is "Zara" forcing him?
>3. The first spoiler I heard of BGDF was from a producer, and they
> said it would change Metropolis forever, BUT NOT IN A BAD WAY!
Of course this can possibly be a real episode.
1. We'll find out in the episode in question.
2. Planet Krypton, whose customs and culture we know nothing about.
Again, see answer one.
3. See answer one.
>4. WHY CAN'T SUPERMAN SAY NO TO THIS ZARA CREEP AND MARRY LOIS ALREADY!
4. See answer one.
We have to wait until the thing airs until we condemn it, you know.
I'm rather looking forward to it myself.
McInnes
threatening to leave the show unless he gets a big pay hike,
I thought the following might be interesting, especially to
those like myself outside the US who don't have easy access to
USA Today. This just came from a friend...
<< there was apparently an
article in Wednesday's USA Today as a result of DC having phoned
them, saying that he was pissed off with all the rumours about his
leaving, and that he WILL BE BACK FOR SEASON 4. Also something about LL
and CK's relationship getting stronger, in spite of the obstacles.>>
Frankly, as I said before, I thought the whole line about DC leaving
was a ploy to try and hold the fans over the summer since TPTB had more
"whams" coming and no time/money to re-shoot or rewrite the
last eps. Even tho they finally realized they had taken a wrong turn
with the dark arc (sounds like someone being sick, doesn't it? gee...)
they need to hold everyone over the summer to have time to correct
their horrendous mistake and keep the show going. And, after all, bad
ratings in May mean less $$$$ in their pockets, and a lower chance
of surviving next season. That's the one thing they *do* seem to
understand.
If DC phoned USA Today, all credit to him for having the integrity
and honesty to front up and stop the rumours. If he was really
trying to blackmail the network into more money, it would be in
his interest to let the rumours continue as a way to worry WB
and get leverage for a pay hike. I just didn't think,
from all the interviews I've seen or things I've heard, that he
would be greedy or stupid enough to try and blackmail the studio
so outrageously, or dump on TH by asking for so much more money.
My opinion of his brains and honesty will go up if he made the
phonecall. At that rate, he's showing more brains and honesty
in real life than the writers have allowed him to show as CK lately.
BTW, LNC rated #1 in NZ for
WHALTTA and rarely was out of the top 10 in season 1 and 2 here. It
averaged out as the 5th rated "drama" for 1995 here even tho it finished
in May. (we had no repeats til the end of October, and that
was repeats of season 1 shown as double eps for about 6 weeks, then
TVNZ dropped it entirely in the run up to Christmas).
The ratings for season 3 have steadily fallen until DTOSC dropped down
to 8. Then LNC dropped off the scale and it didn't reappear with the
next two eps. (HIWTHI will be our next ep.) I gather a similar trend has
occurred in OZ.
Louette, who has had tapes of Seconds and
FMN for 3 weeks and can't bring herself to watch them
BordersMac-2
>But, moreover, I can't see anyone replacing TH or DC. TH is the >definitive LL. She is bright, electric and believeable as an amb=
itious
>woman reporter with moxie and spirit. And, DC has the look and feel of >a naive good hearted easy going farm boy. Together they A=
RE the show. >Without them I am gone.
Without them you're not the only one gone!!
Brad Ferguson
Dean Cain may be asking for a 300% raise, but consider: This show hangs
half on his shoulders, and half on Teri's. This show was a ratings dog
when it started, it stayed a dog through its first eighteen months, and
it's only become a hit because of the excellent work done by the two
leads. It's a worldwide hit, too. Cain (and Hatcher) are fronting this
whole operation to the audience, and they have the money coming.
They _can't_ recast. The chemistry won't take it. Cain knows it, Warners
knows it, ABC knows it. Cain's asked for a lot because he knows whatever
raise he gets will be less, probably a lot less. It may go down to the
wire, but ABC will insist that Warners make it possible for Cain to stay,
and so there's really nothing to discuss here.
Why take management's side, folks (and FOLCs)? Cain brought Superman
alive for a whole new generation of fans. He freshened a creaky franchise
for Warners and DC Comics at a time when comics are dying.
$450K a week is cheap for Warners, but it's everything to Cain. Think
about it: This show will be running in syndication for the next twenty
years, maybe longer. (They're shooting it for HDTV.) There will be video
sales. Cain has no financial role in this series, other than as an actor
(and occasional writer). A producer would have the money rolling in
forever; Cain's checks stop after the fifth or sixth rerun. Cain needs
the money up front, because he'll never see it again.
BTW, this cast-change bit is part of a great Superman tradition. Every
actor (back to Kirk Alyn) who has ever played Superman has demanded a huge
raise in mid-series or for the next movie, been threatened with recasting,
and then gotten most of what he wanted.
Brad Ferguson
> > shocker since we will all find out that Superman's already married.
> > He's been married since he was a baby and his wife will be paying
> > Metropolis a visit.
This sounds like one of those Spock-T'Pring betrothals and possibly an
arranged marriage, but not a real marriage.
Zoomway
fact I've been lobbying for bloody Green Arrow to guest star makes me
unqualified to comment on the replaceability of the program's actors.<<
Aw, gee whiz, Colonel, don't get cranky ;) No put down was intended, but
like Kal, you see mainly the character and not a particular
interpretation. That is, would the show have been as successful if say the
movie approach to Clark Kent was used? That is, a geeky, nerdy Clark? That
worked for the movies, but I don't think it will be an interpretation
we'll see again any time soon. As to other actors and other
interpretations, I have the Fleischer cartoons, The Adventures of Superman
starring George Reeves, the Kirk Alyn serials, and some tapes of the radio
broadcasts. But, in all of these situations, for whatever era they were
reaching, the same actor (or voice) was used throughout that
interpretation's run. When we get to Superman Reborn, we'll have yet
another reading on the character. Dean Cain has put 3 years into this
interpretation of the character, making it *his* Another actor stepping
in would either have to try and imitate Cain's interpretation, or (as in
the case of Justin Whalin) re-interpret the character. Either option would
spell trouble. Imitating Cain would make some fans resentful of anyone
else trying to 'fill the red boots' the same way, but then again, if a new
actor went for a new interpretation after 3 years of being accustomed to a
certian 'take' on the character, it would seem waaaay off. A lose/lose
scenario.
>>Any actor worth spitting at can
play them. Would the chemistry be altered? Probably. For the better?
Maybe. (If Cain is replaced by an actor who can actually deliver the
line "I love you" without all of Cain's weirdo enunciation, I'd be
thrilled. That'd be a big improvement in the chemistry.)<<
This will have to be my 'agree to disagree' point with you :) When I plonk
on the old headphones, and hear Dean Cain say "I love you", then I just
want to Quantum Leap over to Lois, and take her place<g>
>>
The names John Haymes Newton and Gerard Christopher suddenly spring
to mind...<<<
The crowd goes MILD!!<g> Seriously, if anyone out there is shouting
"Who???" They were two actors who played Superboy on the syndicated
series...tada, Superboy. John Haymes Newton played Superboy for the first
season, and Gerard Christopher for the balance of the 2 remaining seasons.
The show unfortunately didn't do well, even by syndicated standards, and
so got re-tooled each season. The show started out with Clark as a
Journalism major, the next season he was given a blabbermouth roommate,
more exotic comic book villains, and a new, older actor was chosen to play
Lex Luthor. That re-tooling didn't seem to help, so the final re-tooling
(and the title changed to The Adventures of Superboy) in the third season
had Clark and Lana working for the Bureau of Extranormal Matters in
Capitol City, where they could encounter even weirder stuff (a B team
Mulder and Scully :)
>>As for most fans never having picked up a comic book, I'd say that's a
gross generalization. They (and we're talking about several million
people here) have almost certainly read a comic book at some point in
their lives and possibly a Superman comic.<<<
All I can go by are posts from fans saying that the show got them
interested in looking at the comics, but not the other way around.
>>But if there's a single viewer of this
show who hadn't heard of the characters "Superman" and "Lois Lane"
before now, then strike me blind. They're archetypes, known to
millions and millions through decades in media<<<
Again, that gets back to the double-edged sword. Everyone knows about
Superman, and so many stayed away 'because' it was Superman, and they felt
they'd seen it all before. And this gets back to various interpretations
of the characters by various actors. I've seen few reviews of the show
that didn't mention the appeal of Cain and Hather's onscreen chemistry as
a selling point, even in reviews where every other aspect of the show was
put down, their interpretation and interaction was the one plus.
>> Nobody started watching this
show because "there's a great program on ABC with two people you never
heard of playing reporters in love and one of them's a superhero."<<
That's like trying to prove a negative. If December 3rd had started from
scratch with ...hmm, two cops maybe, and one had special powers, who knows
how it would have faired (though I do cringe at the thought :). But the
reverse is also true, not many tuned in because it was the Superman
legend, and many avoided it for that reason. I saw a post on CIS from a
guy who said "Hey, how come nobody ever told me this show was so good?!! I
thought it was just going to be an updated version of the old Reeves'
show" Originally, when Paramount was gearing up to make Star Trek films,
they wanted to start fresh with all new actors playing the familiar roles.
The fans threw a fit. Hate Captain Kirk, or love Captain Kirk, but no one
else was Captain Kirk but Shatner. Would the fans of The Next Generation
accept another actor besides Stewart playing Picard? Star Trek has made
its own legends and heroes, and specific actors are indelibly associated
with them. The point here is that it doesn't matter how revolving door the
legend of Superman is, because the fact is, he keeps getting redefined,
and each time he has, there was one actor who created that definition.
This one belongs to Dean Cain.
Zoom (jeez, you'd think I was his press agent or something :)