Fan till the end.(re: BGD
TERRY HERRIN
YASMINE L. GOURDAIN wrote:
YLG>Besides there would be no credence to Superman if he
YLG>didn't go to help the new Kryptonians. If you ask why he went to save them,
YLG>then you should be mad everytime he leaves Lois to save a city, stop a major
YLG>catastrophe, or help anyone in need for that matter. Clark's selflessness is
YLG>what distinguishes him from other men, even if he has superpowers. This is
YLG>what makes him a hero.
This is exactly the way I feel. It's not in Clark's nature to tell
people in need to get lost. If he did that, he wouldn't have become
Superman in the first place.
Terry
---
* OLXWin 1.00b * Limit Congress To 2 Terms--1 In Congress And 1 In Jail...
Howard M. Blank
TERRY HERRIN wrote:
> YASMINE L. GOURDAIN wrote:
> YLG>Besides there would be no credence to Superman if he
> YLG>didn't go to help the new Kryptonians. If you ask why he went to save them,
> YLG>then you should be mad everytime he leaves Lois to save a city, stop a major
> YLG>catastrophe, or help anyone in need for that matter. Clark's selflessness is
> YLG>what distinguishes him from other men, even if he has superpowers. This is
> YLG>what makes him a hero.
YEs! YES! YES! I should have added that to me "Re: BGDF Strike Two"
message to KalElFan. KalElFan, if you've read this, TAKE IT IN and think
about it! It's that LOVE thing I told you about!
Sincerley,
Gina Blank =)
"I had to make a choice on whether my powers stood for life or
death...and I ... chose life."
KalElFan
In article <319EB4...@cadvision.com>, "Howard M. Blank"
<bla...@cadvision.com> writes:
>> YASMINE L. GOURDAIN wrote:
>> YLG>Besides there would be no credence to Superman if he
>> YLG>didn't go to help the new Kryptonians. If you ask why he
>> YLG>went to save them, then you should be mad everytime he
>> YLG>leaves Lois to save a city, stop a major catastrophe, or
>> YLG>help anyone in need for that matter. Clark's selflessness
>> YLG>is what distinguishes him from other men, even if he has
>> YLG>superpowers. This is what makes him a hero.
>
>YEs! YES! YES! I should have added that to me "Re: BGDF Strike
>Two" message to KalElFan. KalElFan, if you've read this, TAKE IT
>IN and think about it! It's that LOVE thing I told you about!
Men really must be from Mars, and women from Venus.
I've already responded to Gina's post in that other thread, but here
I'll just reemphasize a point that someone made elsewhere: guys
expect things to make sense. They're into logic, and it really annoys
them when an episode gets as stupid as BGDF. I love the romance
too. If Superman had been leaving at the end there because he had
to, motivated by his love for Lois and Jonathan and Martha and the
people of Earth, that would be very romantic to me. But he isn't.
That's not the way the writers set it up. He's leaving - for what he
has every reason to believe is forever - in order to "save" a relative
handful of very unsympathetically described bozos. He's choosing
his Kryptonian heritage (much as it pains me to entertain the notion
that this schlock may possibly represent L&C's version of his
Kryptonian heritage) in favor of his Earth life that we the viewers are
supposed to identify with. There must be hundreds of ways they
could have done this story so it made sense and was exciting and
entertaining for everyone. Instead they chose to say screw the logic
and everything we made some people in our audience believe they
were getting in TAGD, let's go for the "gee I loved it and I haven't
cried that much in three years" crowd.
Aren't there writers in Hollywood who can address the romance
and the fantasy element without throwing logic and common sense
completely out the window? It seems to me it isn't like brain surgery
or splitting the atom.
P.S.: Whenever I make a post like this there's usually one or two
people who get offended that I'm dividing FoLC into male and female
groups and generalizing about that. To those FoLC who are offended
I'll answer in advance: get over it. There are obviously exceptions to
every rule. Most FoLC like both the romance and the fantasy, as I
do, and I've never claimed otherwise. But you also don't have to be
a rocket scientist to see differences between the kinds of things
women are saying about BGDF and the kinds of things men are
saying about it.
Zoomway
>>I'll just reemphasize a point that someone made elsewhere: guys
expect things to make sense. They're into logic<<
It smells like..like...it is! Testosterone poisoning :P um...uh,
seriously though. Where is the logic in judging a whole race by 2
representatives? I'm not sure I'd like the human race judged by Bonnie and
Clyde. If the anal pragmatism and suppressed emotions of Ching and Zara
were innate qualities of Kryptonians, then Clark would be like them, but
he is not. "The GOOD I bring to Krypton..." I don't think Clark has any
intention of sitting on his hands there. Also, Ching and Zara, if
believed, are of the highborn and ruling class. This may mean that they
are not like those over whom they hold sway (wow, what a Pennsylvania
Dutch sentence :)
I have watched this show from the pilot on, and I am amazed by anyone who
would NOT think Clark would go to New Krypton<g> Clark places himself in
exhile away from everyone in Man of Steel Bars because he believes it is
the only way he can put an end to suffering. Clark does not check out the
'science' behind the claims that his 'super feats' cause the super heat.
If there is even a remote chance of that being the truth, he takes the
better (but not necessarily logical) part of valor. I just can't believe
that the Clark we've seen for 3 years, would stay on Earth even if there
is the remotest chance that if he does, thousands will suffer. There is
also the issue of Lord Norr. If he has sent one assassin to Earth, to try
and stop Clark from going to New Krypton, wouldn't it be logical, even if
Clark refused to go to New Krypton, that Norr would keep sending assassins
after 'Kal' to insure that he never becomes a thorn in his side? I mean
'logically' as long as Kal is alive, he represents a threat to Norr's
power and position. Tez threatened Clark's parents and Lois, would the
next assassin stop at 'threats'? Can Clark take that chance? Then there is
the issue of Clark's biological father, Jor-El, did you hear the 'guilt
ob' the guy laid on Clark?<g> I mean holy moly, deliver his people from
the chaos of darkness. Even Lois seemed moved by his words, and may even
have been the deciding factor for Lois in wanting Clark to 'help them in
their struggle'. It was not Ching and Zara, but rather Jor-El.
The larger issue of whether or not Ching and Zara are really Kryptonian,
or even if they might have created the image of Jor-El, is all actually a
non-issue. Because we do know that Norr is real. He is not conjured up by
Ching and Zara, he does want Kal-El dead, and to that end he did send Tez
to Earth. So, this being the one fact that we know for sure, then you can
choose it for your manly man logic ;) Clark goes to New Krypton, because
if he stays, he may forever find his friends and loved ones in jeopardy
from some new assassin.
Zoom ("are you sure it wasn't a girly scream?")
KalElFan
In article <4nre9l$9...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, zoo...@aol.com (Zoomway)
writes:
>I have watched this show from the pilot on, and I am amazed
>by anyone who would NOT think Clark would go to New
>Krypton<g> Clark places himself in exhile away from everyone
>in Man of Steel Bars because he believes it is the only way
>he can put an end to suffering...
Again, you're equating Superman *saving* those on Earth and those
in Metropolis with *abandoning* Earth, Metropolis, Lois, his parents
for what he has every reason to expect is a one-way trip to New
Krypton. There are many ways the thing could have been structured
so that his decision made sense, but it wasn't. And it's critical
enough to the whole thing - geez, it's the whole damn premise of
the arc - that they should have ensured he had reason to go. He
doesn't.
>even if Clark refused to go to New Krypton... Norr would keep
>sending assassins after 'Kal' to insure that he never becomes
>a thorn in his side...
In fact, I'd argue the exact opposite. If Kal-El had decided not to
go, Norr would have had no reason to be concerned about him.
Norr looks like an idiot anyway for sending Tez (who, you'll remember
in that scene with Lois, said he was only out to get Kal-El anyway).
But the main point is that they didn't give your theory as a motivation.
If somewhere along the line Ching or Zara revealed to Kal-El that Norr
intended to threaten Earth, Metropolis, Lois, etc., then Kal-El goes
for all the right reasons and I'm happy. But he didn't. That's not the
way they set this up.
>Then there is the issue of Clark's biological father, Jor-El, did you
>hear the 'guilt ob' the guy laid on Clark?<g> I mean holy moly,
>deliver his people from the chaos of darkness.
I've already trashed that speech in another thread so I won't get into
it again.
>Because we do know that Norr is real. He is not conjured up by
>Ching and Zara, he does want Kal-El dead, and to that end he did
>send Tez to Earth. So, this being the one fact that we know for
>sure...
Ah, but the truly creative mind would never take such a defeatist
attitute <g>. I'm trying my best to wiggle out of what they seem
to have in store for us - at least in my dreams, until they bring me
crashing back to reality next September. See my "The Perfect
Premiere?" post for a possible way out of your fatalistic
assumptions. At least until someone finds unpluggable holes
in it. <g>
Brad Ferguson
> The larger issue of whether or not Ching and Zara are really Kryptonian,
> or even if they might have created the image of Jor-El, is all actually a
> non-issue. Because we do know that Norr is real. He is not conjured up by
> Ching and Zara, he does want Kal-El dead, and to that end he did send Tez
> to Earth. So, this being the one fact that we know for sure, then you can
> choose it for your manly man logic ;)
There is still no proof that there is a Lord Norr. We haven't seen him
yet. Zara and Ching could have arranged for Tez to attack Clark in order
to make their story about Norr seem more believable.
--
Stop by and set a spell at http://www.fred.net/thirteen/
VARTOX
Apologies in advance if this turns out to be a repost - when I tried to
send it yesterday I received an "unable to send" message, which is
_occasionally_ accurate.
In article <4nre9l$9...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, zoo...@aol.com (Zoomway)
writes:
>The larger issue of whether or not Ching and Zara are really Kryptonian,
>or even if they might have created the image of Jor-El, is all actually a
>non-issue.
Say what?!?!?!? Non-issue??? Don't think so, I'll explain why later.
>Because we do know that Norr is real. He is not conjured up by
>Ching and Zara, he does want Kal-El dead, and to that end he did send Tez
>to Earth. So, this being the one fact that we know for sure, then you can
>choose it for your manly man logic ;)
OK, I'll accept that as a fact, but the application of facts are equally
as important as the basic knowledge itself. More to come later.
>Clark goes to New Krypton, because
>if he stays, he may forever find his friends and loved ones in jeopardy
>from some new assassin.
(Later starts_ here_ <G>) Sorry, but doesn't that pretty much happen on a
weekly basis anyway? Can't see that point holding up here. Let's scroll
back up to demonstrate further:
>There is
>also the issue of Lord Norr. If he has sent one assassin to Earth, to try
>and stop Clark from going to New Krypton, wouldn't it be logical, even if
>Clark refused to go to New Krypton, that Norr would keep sending
assassins
>after 'Kal' to insure that he never becomes a thorn in his side? I mean
>'logically' as long as Kal is alive, he represents a threat to Norr's
>power and position. Tez threatened Clark's parents and Lois, would the
>next assassin stop at 'threats'?
Seems to me that someone might've said that Tez was the best assassin that
Norr had. If that's so, seems like the only real danger to Metropolis
would be the citizenry laughing themselves to death at the bumbling of the
next wave(s). Superman took him out pretty easily,actually, and as I said
before, his friends and family are pretty much in danger constantly. So
that point seems moot, whether he stays on Earth or not.
Remember also that we don't really know how Superman is a threat to Norr's
"power and position". All we think we know is what Zara and Ching have
told us.
I, for one, can't really consider them models of honesty and/or virtue
after all they pulled in TAGD. For all we know, their intentions for
"Lord Kal-El" aren't necessarily honorable.
Consider one possiblity just off the top of my head: The populace of "New
Krypton" is embroiled in their own little version of a "Clone War" (which
may or may not be liket hat described in the post-revamp comic series "The
World of Krypton" - which frankly, I found so forgettable, I can't recall
any details. But it might be just inspirational enough to a writer or two
- or not.). The warring sides (whether Kryptonian or not) might find a
fresh infusion of Clark's Kryptonian DNA vital to their eventual victory.
The tests, then, might have had a real function, depending on Zara and
Ching's outlook. Function A - if the pair are honorable beings:
Determining if Kal-El, and by extention, his clones is an honorable being
himself, who would have the moral fiber to lead them to righteous victory.
Function B - if they're actually no better than Norr: Determining if
Kal-El, and by extension, his clones, possesses the sheer power to raze
Norr's forces to lead them to ruthless victory over an equally ruthless
opponent.
Remember again, we don't really know that "New Krypton" orbits a red sun.
Clark's powers could indeed be the prize both sides seek.
Assuming (for the sake of explaining away some of the plot holes littering
the arc thus far) that the cloning process only works if the donor is
alive, the tests could have had a third function: How feasible would
kidnapping Superman be as opposed to tricking him into leaving with them?
They don't necessarily have to be Kryptonian in this instance. What
matters is their knowledge of things Kryptonian - and how they obtained
it - and how that knowledge can be used to prod Clark's subconscious
memories of Krypton in accomplishing their goals.
Lest you think I've forgotten Lord Norr's desire to kill Superman, that
can be explained also: Zara and Ching have greater resources than Norr.
They can afford/enable the expedition to retrieve Kal-El. Norr's limited
resources offer him the choice of "If I can't have they can't either".
Thus, lacking the capacity to bring Clark to "New Krypton", Tez was sent
to destroy Superman, rendering his DNA unusable to either side.
And lest you think that under my scenario, Lois could be potentially able
to accompany Clark to "New Krypton", remember that Ching considers her
more aware than Superman. She found the hologram; she gave Clark the idea
to save Perry, Jimmy and Metropolis. Ching fears Lois' instincts,
instincts that could eventually tip off Clark to the Zara and Ching's true
motivations.
Which leads up to:
> Can Clark take that chance?
Pretty much, I'd say.
>Then there is
>the issue of Clark's biological father, Jor-El, did you hear the 'guilt
>ob' the guy laid on Clark?<g> I mean holy moly, deliver his people from
>the chaos of darkness. Even Lois seemed moved by his words, and may even
>have been the deciding factor for Lois in wanting Clark to 'help them in
>their struggle'. It was not Ching and Zara, but rather Jor-El.
At the risk of piling it on: as I said in another thread, we don't know
that the ship wasn't tampered with by our strange visitors before Clark
retrieved it from who-knows-where. And as I was reminded in yet another
thread, Ching certainly showed a propensity for holographic imagery in
TAGD.
So we _don't_ know that it was truly Jor-El that was the "deciding
factor". Could well have been a Ching and Zara Production.
Going back to my original disagreement in this post: The issue of whether
the duo is Kryptonian is very much an issue, I would think. If they truly
are, that changes the whole outlook on how fortunate or not Clark was to
wind up on Earth. And it alters the legend forever (whether the true
story is like my scenario or not).
If they are not, it cuts to the motivation behind the story and to the
possibilities of how many worlds interacted with Krypton, and to who might
yet appear from the cosmos with knowledge of Krypton - and how will that
knowledge be used?
I grant that there may well be plot holes in the above scenario I just
laid out. Doesn't really matter since it would never be used, having
appeared here publicly - and besides, I've spent all of an hour on it
(including time out for laundry, not to mention my really slow typing).
All I'm trying to say is that logic doesn't have to interfere with WAFFs.
All of us can be happy if enough care is taken with the season opener.
And I challenge TPTB to do just that.
KalElFan
L&C Co-Executive Producers Brad Buckner and Eugenie Ross-
Leming appeared in the AOL Cyberplex this evening. Here are
a few quotes:
"Clark has to save the Kryptonian freedom fighters from the evil
Lord Nor, deal with the fact that he is married to Zara, and be
reunited with Lois."
"It is a two hour opener and it will resolve this current arc."
"The two part opener will show you plenty [of the Kryptonian
heritage stuff] and then we think we'll give it a rest for a while"
BTW, "Nor" is the way they spelled it.
Colonel X
In article <4o3pee$2...@newsbf02.news.aol.com> kale...@aol.com (KalElFan) writes:
>L&C Co-Executive Producers Brad Buckner and Eugenie Ross-
>Leming appeared in the AOL Cyberplex this evening. Here are
>a few quotes:
>
>"Clark has to save the Kryptonian freedom fighters from the evil
>Lord Nor, deal with the fact that he is married to Zara, and be
>reunited with Lois."
>
>"It is a two hour opener and it will resolve this current arc."
>
>"The two part opener will show you plenty [of the Kryptonian
>heritage stuff] and then we think we'll give it a rest for a while"
No, no, no, no. WE think YOU should give it a rest for a while because
you obviously didn't think about it when you wrote it.
"Tez has failed...so he won't try again, he'll just kill himself!"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
On assignment in Athens, Georgia,
Colonel X.
Expect the unexpected.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Brad Ferguson
In article <4o3pee$2...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, kale...@aol.com (KalElFan)
wrote:
: L&C Co-Executive Producers Brad Buckner and Eugenie Ross-
: Leming appeared in the AOL Cyberplex this evening. Here are
: a few quotes:
:
: "Clark has to save the Kryptonian freedom fighters from the evil
: Lord Nor, deal with the fact that he is married to Zara, and be
: reunited with Lois."
:
: "It is a two hour opener and it will resolve this current arc."
:
: "The two part opener will show you plenty [of the Kryptonian
: heritage stuff] and then we think we'll give it a rest for a while"
:
: BTW, "Nor" is the way they spelled it.
:
: KalE...@aol.com
Good stuff, Kal. Thanks!
Kaberi Chakrabarty
In article <thirteen-220...@thirteen.fred.net>,
thir...@fred.net (Brad Ferguson) wrote:
> There is still no proof that there is a Lord Norr. We haven't seen him
> yet. Zara and Ching could have arranged for Tez to attack Clark in order
> to make their story about Norr seem more believable.
But when Tez first showed up, we "heard" him communicating with some guy about
his mission. This guy was apparently not Ching (I don't remember whether he
actually called him Lord Nor or not), so at the very least there is someone
out there apart from Ching and Zara trying to kill Kal-el.
Len Leshin
KalElFan wrote:
>
> L&C Co-Executive Producers Brad Buckner and Eugenie Ross-
> Leming appeared in the AOL Cyberplex this evening. Here are
> a few quotes:
>
> "Clark has to save the Kryptonian freedom fighters from the evil
> Lord Nor, deal with the fact that he is married to Zara, and be
> reunited with Lois."
Hmmm...do Kryptonians allow bigamy on this continuity?
>
> "It is a two hour opener and it will resolve this current arc."
Then they'll embark on their next 7 story arc with a cross-over into Roseanne...
> "The two part opener will show you plenty [of the Kryptonian
> heritage stuff] and then we think we'll give it a rest for a while"
>
> BTW, "Nor" is the way they spelled it.
I say we go over their heads and start spelling it "Norr" here. <g>
Of course, I also proposed a new formula to the Coke people 12 years ago....
---------------
Len L.
lle...@davlin.net
Mxyzptlk to Lois and Clark: "You're SUPPOSED ta get married! Heck,
I've already bought stock in Polybags!" --MOS #56
KalElFan
In article <kaberi19-250...@lv008-143.starnetinc.com>,
kabe...@starnetinc.com (Kaberi Chakrabarty) writes:
>But when Tez first showed up, we "heard" him communicating
>with some guy about his mission. This guy was apparently not
>Ching (I don't remember whether he actually called him Lord Nor
>or not), so at the very least there is someone out there apart
>from Ching and Zara trying to kill Kal-el.
There was a way they could have avoided a Lord Nor, if they
worked it so Ching had faked that telepathic voice for first
Zara's benefit, then Tez's, and later Kal-El's. Ching could have
been made the real bad guy. But it's all academic now
because Brad Buckner made it clear in the chat room that
there is a Nor (they're even looking for an actor to play him),
there is a New Krypton (they're going to shoot as much of
it as they can afford <g>) and these people are all New
Kryptonians (except Nor, who we were told by Zara wasn't).
Condolences may be in order for Vartox, Len, Kal El Jr,
Zoom and all you other comics fans, especially the post-
crisis fans who like the last surviving Kryptonian business.
I'd have been happy with resurrecting Kara as Supergirl
and bringing back a few of the Phantom Zone folk, but it
looks like we've got a planetoid-size rock full of 'em. Maybe
we'll find out in the premiere why each of them haven't
settled in Earth's major cities by now, staking out their own
superhero (or supervillain) territory. Get the feeling this
premiere is going to raise more questions and answer few
of the ones we've already got?
VARTOX
In article <4oaj3r$k...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, kale...@aol.com (KalElFan)
writes:
>In article <kaberi19-250...@lv008-143.starnetinc.com>,
>kabe...@starnetinc.com (Kaberi Chakrabarty) writes:
>
>>But when Tez first showed up, we "heard" him communicating
>>with some guy about his mission. This guy was apparently not
>>Ching (I don't remember whether he actually called him Lord Nor
>>or not), so at the very least there is someone out there apart
>>from Ching and Zara trying to kill Kal-el.
>
>There was a way they could have avoided a Lord Nor, if they
>worked it so Ching had faked that telepathic voice for first
>Zara's benefit, then Tez's, and later Kal-El's. Ching could have
>been made the real bad guy.
Ching still can be a bad guy. If you saw my last post in this thread, I
gave one example of how. (Kal, if you missed it, let me know and I'll
e-mail you a copy - I didn't post that one on AOL)
>But it's all academic now
>because Brad Buckner made it clear in the chat room that
>there is a Nor (they're even looking for an actor to play him),
>there is a New Krypton (they're going to shoot as much of
>it as they can afford <g>) and these people are all New
>Kryptonians (except Nor, who we were told by Zara wasn't).
>
It was also pretty clear (to me, anyway) that Buckner hasn't started
seriously working on the script yet. All the responses given (except for
the response to my question about the "second wedding" clips being shown
at WB Stores) were even less responsive than those given by candidates for
the Presidency of the United States. Plus, he hinted strongly himself
that he hadn't really worked on it yet (something like, "come on guys, the
season just ended").
(BTW, my question on the wedding clips wasn't the first question I sent
in, but I knew the question I wanted answered most wouldn't be. That one
dealt with the continuity problems: "Mistakes or hints of things to
come?" Never answered. Hmmmm.)
>Condolences may be in order for Vartox, Len, Kal El Jr,
>Zoom and all you other comics fans, especially the post-
>crisis fans who like the last surviving Kryptonian business.
>I'd have been happy with resurrecting Kara as Supergirl
>and bringing back a few of the Phantom Zone folk, but it
>looks like we've got a planetoid-size rock full of 'em. Maybe
>we'll find out in the premiere why each of them haven't
>settled in Earth's major cities by now, staking out their own
>superhero (or supervillain) territory. Get the feeling this
>premiere is going to raise more questions and answer few
>of the ones we've already got?
>
I have the feeling that Colonel X will be posting another "Brad doesn't
know how to write for this show to save his life" message. I have the
feeling that I'll be getting more reading done from 8-9 pm Eastern Sunday
nights as I use ABC programming as my reading lamp.
And, from how little regard for long-range planning of future storylines I
felt was shown by the onstage guests in that AOL chat last week, I have
the feeling that Coach might be moving to Sunday nights as ABC decides to
fight sitcom with sitcom and releases the unfortunate cast from their
current responsibilities of transforming increasingly thoughtless writing
into credible performances.
VARTOX
>L&C Co-Executive Producers Brad Buckner and Eugenie Ross-
>Leming appeared in the AOL Cyberplex this evening. Here are
>a few quotes:
>
>"Clark has to save the Kryptonian freedom fighters from the evil
>Lord Nor, deal with the fact that he is married to Zara, and be
>reunited with Lois."
>
>"It is a two hour opener and it will resolve this current arc."
>
>"The two part opener will show you plenty [of the Kryptonian
>heritage stuff] and then we think we'll give it a rest for a while"
>
>
Not exactly brimming with details, were they? The only question I recall
that they gave a definitve answer about was mine about the reported
showings at WB Stores worldwide of a second, unaired wedding that had
nothing to do with frog-eating clones.
The answer was that there a second wedding was never shot. We also heard
a year ago on AOL that only one ending to last season's cliffhanger was
shot. Since then, we've heard from principals that that wasn't so.
I'm not going to call anyone a liar, because I didn't see those clips
myself, and so I don't know if they exist or not. But after all that has
transpired this season, I'm taking the word of any PTB with such a big
grain of salt that I think I'm going to go get my blood pressure checked.
KalElFan
In article <4ob81q$1...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, var...@aol.com (VARTOX)
writes:
>Ching still can be a bad guy. If you saw my last post in this thread, I
>gave one example of how. (Kal, if you missed it, let me know and I'll
>e-mail you a copy - I didn't post that one on AOL)
If you mean the one referring to the Clone Wars, dated the 23rd, and
where you were responding to Zoom, then yes I've seen it. I like it
better than the kind of thing I expect to see in the premiere. But since
you sent it before the BB/ERL interview in the Cyberplex, I didn't think
it fit anymore. It's like my scenarios where there could have been no
New Krypton and even no Lord Nor. If you look at the entirety of
the interview - including references to Kryptonian freedom fighters
having to defeat Lord Nor - it looks like they really mean all this.
You're right about Ching still possibly being a bad (or badder <g>)
guy, though. There are many ways BB/ERL could write that in.
I wish they'd change they're minds completely about where they
seem to want to go with this premiere, but realistically I don't
think they will. I get the impression that there's a plan and they'd
run with it even if they knew for a fact it was running off a cliff.
>All the responses given (except for the response to my
>question about the "second wedding" clips being shown
>at WB Stores) were even less responsive than those
>given by candidates for the Presidency of the United States...
>BTW, my question on the wedding clips wasn't the first question
>I sent in...
The only reason that one was chosen was because it gave them
a chance to deny the rumor, and they wanted to do that. I've found
the question selection in these things quite annoying. It seems
to me it should be random, and it obviously isn't.
>I have the feeling that I'll be getting more reading done from
>8-9 pm Eastern Sunday nights as I use ABC programming
>as my reading lamp.
The two-hour premiere has me worried. Originally, I thought it
might be the wedding, but all indications are it isn't. One thing
I think BB/ERL are going to have to do, and that's have a few
scenes where they actually announce their intention to get
married, set a date one or two week's hence, etc. Then ABC
will be able to use those in the promos and all the hype will
be able to focus on that. This New Krypton story line is very
risky for them to hang their hats on, and a few WAFF scenes
thrown in won't be good enough either IMHO. If the premiere
can't be the wedding, make it an invitation to it within a week
or two thereafter.
Richard K Bethell
I think there are enough plot elements to resolve in Sept. without
throwing the wedding in to boot. The wedding should be done right in it's
own show. I'm anxious for the wedding as anyone, but don't want it thrown
in as a panicky afterthought to appease fickle fans because that won't
please anyone.
Just my $.02
--
Richard Bethell * cj...@freenet.carleton.ca * rbet...@magi.com
"I'll assimilate you, * http://www.ncf.carleton.ca/~cj434
you'll assimilate me, happiness is irrelevant." Barney of Borg
**** T H E P R I N T I N G H O U S E ****
Colonel X
In article <4ocmkn$i...@freenet-news.carleton.ca> cj...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Richard K Bethell) writes:
>> In article <4ob81q$1...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, var...@aol.com (VARTOX)
>>
>> might be the wedding, but all indications are it isn't. One thing
>> I think BB/ERL are going to have to do, and that's have a few
>> scenes where they actually announce their intention to get
>> married, set a date one or two week's hence, etc. Then ABC
>> will be able to use those in the promos and all the hype will
>> be able to focus on that. This New Krypton story line is very
>> risky for them to hang their hats on, and a few WAFF scenes
>> thrown in won't be good enough either IMHO. If the premiere
>> can't be the wedding, make it an invitation to it within a week
>> or two thereafter.
>
>I think there are enough plot elements to resolve in Sept. without
>throwing the wedding in to boot. The wedding should be done right in it's
>own show. I'm anxious for the wedding as anyone, but don't want it thrown
>in as a panicky afterthought to appease fickle fans because that won't
>please anyone.
Note to everyone on the staff who even considers reading this:
Richard is more absolutely correct on this than anyone on the planet.
Pay careful attention to the phrase: "*done right* in it's *own show*."
(Mine and just about everyone on Earth's emphasis.)
When you do the wedding (in episode 3 or 4 or 5ish), just do the damn
wedding. Don't do Brainiac or Mr. Z then, don't bring back Luthor,
or Baron Sunday, or Dr. Mamba, or Mac Davis, or Al Capone. Don't have
some crisis spoil or threaten the festivities. Don't detract from the
wedding at all. Give us a little Perry & Jimmy, give us the Kents,
give us the Lanes (don't give us that thrice-damned Baby Gunderson),
give us an accredited minister of Lois and Clark's preference. Don't
give us green or red or fuschia kryptonite. Don't give us death
threats, don't give us indigestion. Give Lois butterflies over the
fact that she just *knows* something will go wrong, and then don't let
anything go wrong. Give us talk of where they'll live and where they'll
honeymoon and cut away tastefully as they consummate their love.
It's the least you can do for the majority of your viewers--people who
just watch Lois & Clark for the romance--after all the crap you've
thrown at them. Viewing figures are down in a big way and your fan
base frankly deserves a simple, upbeat, positive story about the
relationship they've been suffering through. You owe them this much.
You will make millions of consumers very happy. You will win back the
respect of dedicated fans who have wondered what the hell you've been
smoking and the attention of a few million casual viewers who have
better things to do than watch another amnesia story.
And then if the following week we can see Superman try vainly to
stop The Odd Man and Shade the Changing Man from choosing Metropolis as
the site of their latest drunken night on the town, then you'll make
me happy, too!
KalElFan
In article <4ocmkn$i...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>,
cj...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Richard K Bethell) writes:
>I think there are enough plot elements to resolve in Sept. without
>throwing the wedding in to boot. The wedding should be done right
>in it's own show. I'm anxious for the wedding as anyone, but
>don't want it thrown in as a panicky afterthought to appease fickle
>fans because that won't please anyone.
I don't disagree, and in any case Brad Buckner has already said
that the wedding episode will focus on that (so you don't need to
worry Colonel). If they could dispose of the New Krypton story in
the first half hour and then have the real wedding for the next
hour and a half, then that might be preferable. But it's clear that
isn't going to happen.
The point I was trying to make is that those early episodes are
going to have to be an *advertisement* for the wedding unless they
want to take a big risk losing their audience. Quite frankly, if
all ABC or TPTB have to offer is a long (2-hour) episode featuring
a continuation of BGDF's lousy storyline, I think they'll be mass
defections to TBAA or 3rd Rock that night and it could be hard to
win those viewers back on a permanent basis. The wedding isn't
going to be in the premiere, but I think they need to dangle it
like a carrot to get people hooked into what may be as long as
a four or five episode real-wedding arc (if they wait until that first
November sweeps episode).
What I'm hoping is that the Ching and Zara business gets disposed
of in the first hour and a half, and somewhere in that last half hour
there's a kind of transition into the real wedding arc, where L&C
talk about their plans, etc. The premiere will be an easier sell that
way, and they may be able to reel some FoLC in before they get
hooked on something else.
Zoomway
>>If you mean the one referring to the Clone Wars, dated the 23rd, and
where you were responding to Zoom, then yes I've seen it<<<<
I must have missed that post. Do you mean the storyline of ancient Krypton
where Kryptonians kept clones of themselves for the sole pupose of being
harvested for replacement parts? The clones rebelled, not surprisingly<g>
>> But since
you sent it before the BB/ERL interview in the Cyberplex, I didn't think
it fit anymore. It's like my scenarios where there could have been no
New Krypton and even no Lord Nor. If you look at the entirety of
the interview - including references to Kryptonian freedom fighters
having to defeat Lord Nor - it looks like they really mean all this.<<<
Well, like I've said, I don't like them being Kryptonians. It's not too
much about going against the current comic book continuity. When they
introduced red Kryptonite last year, they'd already gone against current
comic book history in a small way. My problem is it does take away 'the
last son of Krypton' isolation of Clark, that little added urgency that if
he and Lois cannot produce a child, the Kryptonian bloodline ends with
Clark, but worst of all, if they exishfully don't want to see Ching and
Zara beyond the premier, heck, I didn't even want to see them past TAGD.
There's just a lot of problems I have with them if they are in fact
Kryptonian. It may be why John Byrne wisely set up the destruction of
Krypton in such a way to preclude the notion that any Kryptonian could
survive regardless of their capability of space flight. That is, a chain
reaction in the core of Krypton not only made the planet unstable, but it
started fusing native elements together creating a new and fatal element.
A radioaction element known as 'the green death' (Kryptonite)
Kryptonite began poisoning and killing Kryptonians long before the planet
became unstable enough to explode. They were all infected by the radiation
poisoning, which meant, even if they left Krypton, they'd be dying on some
other planet anyway from the latent effects. It was not like Clark being
exposed to Kryptonite and then when away from the exposure, recovering,
this was Kryptonite that had infected them internally, it was part of what
they ate, what they drank. It was sort of like the Kryptonite poisoning
Clark received in Top Copy. It was infecting him internally, and thus
there was no escape. By the time scientists on Krypton began to seek a
cure for the poisoning (they were slow to respond to the green death for
purely political reasons. Death had become a 'stranger' to Krypton, just
as illness had, and so they kept the news of what was happening a secret
from the general population), it was already too late, because the
unstable planet was about to explode. Clark was saved because he, like all
gestating infants, had been kept in a matrix chamber (artificial womb) and
so the poison of Krypton never touched him. All of this is a moot point
however, because unfortunately Deborah Joy LeVine went with the Superman
movie lore about Clark/Superman/Kal-El.
The already 'born' Kal-el is placed in the spaceship and sent to Earth
with the 'S' shield being some symbol from Krypton instead of in the
comics where the S shield like the costume was created in Smallville. This
unfortunately left the door open for other perfectly healthy Kryptonians
to leave Krypton, or in some way to be offplanet when Krypton exploded. If
Ching, Zara and Nor are all Kryptonian, it leads to more questions than
answers. If a people who obviously suppress emotions and have a pragmatic
approach to logic, why does one seek a violent overthrow of the
government? If Nor is a 'monster' by Ching's definition, then what is
Ching, a man who thought nothing of killing the 11 million people in
Metropolis? These people have the capability of faster-than-light space
travel. If Nor is so hot to rule the rock of New Krypton, wouldn't logic
dictate that the Kryptonians who oppose him hop the next shuttle out of
town, and find another planet, perhaps a more hospitable one as their
home? They could set up some planetary defense system and blast Nor and
his followers out of the sky should they try and seek them out in their
new digs. I'd really prefer these 'people' to be an offshoot of the
Kryptonian bloodline in the same manner that Romulans are an offshoot of
the Vulcan bloodline. That way they could still be very similar, but still
be two distinct races, and Clark still be the last of the true
Kryptonians.
There are many alternatives with this being fantasy/SF. I mean there is
one villain who could have gone through all this trouble, and made it all
seem very real to Clark. A villain with access to Lois and Clark's
computers, and therefore access to the truth of Clark's heritage, and
having the ability to play on that. Most of all, however, a villain who
would have a great motive for revenge, and who, the last time we saw him,
had tappped into his father's mind control database and was going to link
it to his virtual world<g> I mean even without the 'mind control'
feature, Lois and Clark took a while to realize they were still in virtual
reality. Jaxon made the mind control element sound formitable, "Every
president will be my puppet...every general my toy soldier."
Another scenario could be a race that had read Clark's mind, and needed
him offplanet so they could do what they liked with Earth. Tapping into
his memories of his sketchy heritage would provide the needed ruse.
It could be a storyline that introduces Brainiac, though I'd prefer not
seeing the green guy with hoses in his head really<g> Perhaps if he were
kept in the human form of Milton Fine the mentalist 'possessed' by Vril
Dox.
The story could involve the Linear Men creating some glitch in time
wherein these Kryptonians and Clark can interact, when in reality,
Krypton, in our time would have been dead for about a quarter of a billion
years. That way Clark could have been on a parity with them at that time,
helped them, returned to our present, and with a quarter billion years of
evolution, the Kryptonians would not be in the least like Clark anymore
(boy, I'm getting weirder as I go along ;)
New Krypton could really exist. Clark and the freedom fighters could
defeat Nor, but Nor, like Khan (from ST II The Wrath of Khan) doesn't take
defeat well, and decides to take the planet out with him. As New Krypton
is in its death throws due to Nor, there is only one hyper-space craft
left, but it can only hold one person. Since, by this time, Ching and Zara
will have admitted their love for each other, and thus not want to be
separated (even if it means croaking together a la Jor-El and Lara) they
tell Kal to take the ship home. Kal...er Clark will protest, being the
noble bugger he is, but Ching and Zara would no doubt ask Clark if he and
Lois would do the same thing were their positions reversed. We could have
a flashback from Don't Tug on Superman's Cape where Lois says, "You gave
up everything in your life for me." Where Clark replies, "Without you it
wouldn't have been a life" Thus, concurring with their decision, boards
the craft and yet again leaves a dying Krypton behind.
Okay, I feel better getting all of those scenarios out of my system. I can
now live with the fact that we'll be stuck with real Kryptonians next year
*sigh*<g> Truthfully though, I think Lois and Clark does some of its best
stuff when kept more strictly earthbound. I prefer Intergang, and think
that the N.I.A. could be a truly scary force being a government agency. We
haven't seen government interference in Clark's life since the days of
Bureau 39 and Jason Trask. I'd like to see a rival paper working against
the Daily Planet. Not like in The Rival where the Star had a crooked
editor creating the headlines, but merely a lean and hungry paper that
wants to de-throne the Daily Planet. I'd like to see a reporter, perhaps
modeled after the rather scuzzy Jeb Friedman, who makes things a little
tough for Lois and Clark because he realizes that the Planet must have
some pipeline to Superman for a reason. When you think about it, after
all, Lois has suppressed some stories about Superman because she loves
him; Kryptonite being real(Madame Ex) how Resplendent Man got Superman's
powers (Bolt from the Blue) Superman's blindness (The Eyes Have It)
Superman losing his powers (Ultra Woman), the pint-sized Superman (It's a
Small World After All), and of course the biggest story of all, that Clark
Kent is Superman. This could lead to interesting stories of staying one
step ahead of Friedman and his paper. It might also lead to the ultimate
compromising story: "Superman caught in love nest with wife of best
friend"<g> Let's face it, Lois and Clark aren't very careful in public
when Clark is dressed as Superman, add a hungry rival reporter to this,
and you could have a great scandal ;)
>>The only reason that one was chosen was because it gave them
a chance to deny the rumor, and they wanted to do that. I've found
the question selection in these things quite annoying. It seems
to me it should be random, and it obviously isn't<<<
The questions are screened by ABC Amy, and that about sizes it up. Before,
questions were only screened for vulgarity, language, etc. and if they
passed that test, they were merely put in the que to be asked in the order
they were sent. This led, unfortunately, to too many repeat questions. So,
I think Amy's only function should be to screen for nasty stuff, and to
get rid of duplicates, but not judge the merit or 'worthiness' of a
question. It is much better catching a celebrity or writer in a chat room
without someone interfering with what you want to ask.
>>The two-hour premiere has me worried. Originally, I thought it
might be the wedding, but all indications are it isn't. One thing
I think BB/ERL are going to have to do, and that's have a few
scenes where they actually announce their intention to get
married, set a date one or two week's hence, etc<<<
I agree, if they are going to waste the premier on Kryptonian freedom
fighters, and angst back home, they'd better make certain the wedding
sounds like a go real soon. We know that Clark does return to Lois within
the premier (or as it stands now) and so they'd better make their
commitment to marry a 'no-guess' situation. Name the date, give next
week's promo, and let ABC say the real wedding is coming, and they better
have some good humor about it too, because they can't pretend it's the
first time they tried a wedding.
Zoomway
>>Not exactly brimming with details, were they? The only question I
recall
that they gave a definitve answer about was mine about the reported
showings at WB Stores worldwide of a second, unaired wedding that had
nothing to do with frog-eating clones.
The answer was that there a second wedding was never shot. We also heard
a year ago on AOL that only one ending to last season's cliffhanger was
shot. Since then, we've heard from principals that that wasn't so<<<<
Well, I know this is the hardest part for any fan. I don't think they want
to lie, but sometimes telling the truth, especially in Hollywood, can get
you canned. I know fans were disappointed when they found Dean in a
contradiction..okay, they found him in a lie<g> During his AOL chat last
year after the finale, he was asked about the 3 different endings, and
denied 3 endings were filmed. Then, he gets on Good Morning America, and
admits 3 endings were filmed. It may be that he was not free to admit this
until the premier aired, and so, maybe ERL/Buckner can admit the real
wedding being filmed after it airs, unless they film another one (seems
like a waste of film to me) All I know is, that a group of tourists,
taking the WB tour were in the Daily Planet, and there was a banner that
read Congratulations Lois and Clark and tables filled with goodies, and
tourist were told not to touch anything, because they'd still be filming
that set. They can't even concoct the excuse that the banner was made for
a party to celebrate the renewal of the show, because that impromptu
celebration happened around the time that IASWAA was finishing and TAGD
would be starting. The 'congratualtions' banner was set up while the
non-wedding arc was still underway. As to the clips in the WB store. I did
not see them either, but the person who wrote about it thought that it was
a clip of a current EXTRA show and so was surprised that no one had posted
about that EXTRA segment anywhere. The logical answer is, it never aired.
This person had absolutely nothing to gain by writing me about the WB
store footage (which also matched a description from an employee at a WB
store posting here on usenet) This seems too much of a coincidence to me.
Two California WB stores showing footage from an EXTRA segment that never
aired of a wedding that never took place? Come on<g> Here is what my
friend wrote me in her letter:
>>Hi Zoom!
I'm writing because I saw something in a Warner Brothers store last week
that caught my attention and which I'm quite confused about. At first I
blew off what I saw, but later when I thought about it, I thought, "WHY?"
What I saw was playing on the large screen TV present in all Warner Bros.
Studio stores. This particular store is in Sacramento, California.
I was making a purchase when a promo for Extra's visit to the Lois and
Clark set flashed up on the screen. The segment that was shown was when
Extra visited the set during the filming of the *real* wedding and
included little scenes from the wedding (not the INPY wedding) and
conversation with Dean and Teri. I wish I could have paid closer
attention. Instead I stood there dumbfounded, credit card in hand. "How
could they do this? Do they think we're some kind of idiots?" I thought.
I shook my head, not believing that WB would actually show this in the
stores *right now.*<<<
As you can see, this person was upset. I get the feeling that because
EXTRA is a WB product, they might send clips of their show to WB stores as
a courtesy, or even free advertising. What EXTRA didn't know at the time
is that the brakes were going to be put on the 'real' wedding, and so some
of the California area stores ended up getting footage that should have
never been shown. No doubt now that it has been made public that a WB
store was showing the clip, the WB store managers will have had a stern
talking to as well as their employees, and will adopt the X-File motto
"deny everything" This will make a poor hapless fan like my friend into
the liar, but she knows what she saw, and has seen INPY enough to know
they were not clips from INPY, but she's no one important, so who'll
believe her? There's also a funny bit of evidence that a wedding took
place, but was pulled at the last minute. Newspapers routinely get copy
from studios that they are instructed to run on a specific date. Well, a
fan posted this to LOISCLA the e-mail discussion list:
>>In the TV section of a local newspaper, it gave a short bit about season
finalies, and there was a largish shot of Dean and Teri, in an embrace,
with Dean's hand on her.....um....lower back (yeah, that works! ;) The
caption reads, "NEWLY MARRIED Lois Lane (Teri Hatcher) and Clark Kent
(Dean
Cain) again face danger in the season finale at ABC's LnCTNAOS on Sunday."
Whoa! Newly married?!<<
As you can see, something really STRANGE is going on, or 'went' on
actually. I know it happened, and no amount of official denial is going to
change my mind on that. Why would a local newspaper (certainly not a
tabloid) decide to 'invent' Lois and Clark being married? Something
happened where the episode that was supposed to follow Double Jeopardy, a
script titled 'Memory Lane' was changed to Seconds. In the original
premise, Lois, in a very waffy scene, regains her memory, and she has a
new aspect to her personality, a 'seize the day' resolve. She says that
she and Clark should just go out and elope, and they did, and then had a
congratulations party at the Daily Planet. I know when I watched Teri's
episode, it seemed to have been originally conceived as a 'married' Lois
and Clark. A fan who won a copy of Teri's script from the AOL contest said
there were a lot of change pages, and they all seemed to center on pages
where 'engaged' was used. In the script, L&C were the only engaged couple,
everyone else was losing a 'spouse'. In TAGD Clark says, "Lois, you're the
one who wants me to be more spontaneous, 'carpe dium' seize the day" That
sounds like something that would have been said by Lois to Clark in the
aborted Memory Lane script. Also, I can't believe that whole scripts would
be filmed, and then scrapped. That's an incredible waste of money, unless
Mt. Oympus decreed it (ABC). I guess it doesn't matter in the long run,
because just like last year, ABC finally relented, and the revelation
appeared in 3rd season's premier. Just as it seems to be that ABC has
relented and we'll see a marriage early on in 4th season when it should
have been in 3rd.
It just bothers me because it leads to a lot of handwringing angst from
the fans, gives a writer or writers a bad rep that they didn't deserve,
and it can damage the characters, and thus the show's credibility. All
because a bunch of executives with butts shaped like their chairs suddenly
decide they're creative :P I can never say for sure that ABC was
responsible for what happened with the wedding that never happened, but I
can't see why a writing staff would write and then the cast film a
wedding, and that it would suddenly not get used. It was filmed, it was
shelved and that's the truth. There is just too much evidence out there to
back up the fact that a wedding was to be real, and then suddenly it
wasn't. ABC has 3 jobs it should attend to 1) promote the show more
aggressively. Even Fox with less money promotes their shows better 2)
spread out the re-runs more judiciously. They know the show will have to
run 10-12 re-runs throughout the season (September-May), and when they had
a month with no new episode (OW march 24 being the last first run episode
until IASWAA aired on April 28th) that hurt the show. and 3 (and most
important) ABC executives should stay the !@#$ out of the story planning
or creative direction of the show.
Sandra McDermin
I'm sorry, but I haven't watched BGDF recently.
I don't *think* Zara said that Nor wasn't a Kryptonian, did she? (I
thought she said that *Tez* wasn't a Kryptonian.) Why would an annulment
of Zara's marriage to Kal-El lead to a marriage to Nor then? I suppose
it is possible that she could have been promised to a noble of another
race if Kal-El could not fulfill his duties, so to speak. But, I just
don't recall this. I thought this marriage business was all an issue
between the Kryptonians -- and the upper classes at that.
On another subject, since I don't have AOL, I only read the transcript of
the ERL/BB interview rather than participate. Anyway, did anyone else
feel as if they had entered the Twilight Zone after that discussion?
I was particularly amused by the following:
Q.: Is it difficult taking over production of a series and characters
that have already been established? And are there any specific
directions (besides the wedding) that you've wanted to take L&C in but
haven't been able to?
A.: We were given pretty much carte blanche in the 3rd season, to deal
with the twist and turns of the L&C romance. There really were no rules.
Pretty much everything we've wanted to do, we've been able to do.
WHAT!!!! This is crap. What were we talking about for weeks, but the
interference of the Network into the creativity of the show! Who wanted
the marriage delayed (let alone have it happen at all)???!!! Hmmm? Was
it the writers, Mr. and Ms. Executive Producer? The entire season from
INPY was screwed around with in such an obvious fashion that plotlines
don't make sense anymore. FMN was a filler episode -- totally useless.
OW was a slap at "the interlopers." IASWAA was clearly meant to be an
episode written for a married couple. TAGD and BGDF would have had twice
the punch with L&C married -- leaving aside what some of you thought of
the last episode on every other level. -> Oh, and speaking of that....
(Although, I didn't get into the earlier debate you guys were having
about BGDF because I didn't want to risk having my totally illogical
female brain further confused by you "manly men," I must say, some of it
was terribly amusing. Thank you for the entertainment. ;->)
Sandy (in D.C.)
smcd...@nas.edu
Matthew Joseph Brooks
It came to me in the middle of the night, a casting coup that will solve
riddles, delight fans, and assure intrigue for episodes to come: Lord Nor
will be played by....Michael Landes.
Paul Ozga
zoo...@aol.com (Zoomway) wrote:
> This seems too much of a coincidence to me.
>Two California WB stores showing footage from an EXTRA segment that never
>aired of a wedding that never took place? Come on<g> Here is what my
>friend wrote me in her letter:
>>>Hi Zoom!
>I'm writing because I saw something in a Warner Brothers store last week
>that caught my attention and which I'm quite confused about. At first I
>blew off what I saw, but later when I thought about it, I thought, "WHY?"
mentioned seeing a clip from the wedding in a WB store in Chicago.
When I told her they weren't married she was thouroughly confused,
wondering why they had shown the clip. From what I was able to gather,
it wasn't the same clip as INPY- though she couldn't tell for sure.
> No doubt now that it has been made public that a WB
>store was showing the clip, the WB store managers will have had a stern
>talking to as well as their employees, and will adopt the X-File motto
>"deny everything" This will make a poor hapless fan like my friend into
>the liar, but she knows what she saw, and has seen INPY enough to know
>they were not clips from INPY, but she's no one important, so who'll
>believe her? There's also a funny bit of evidence that a wedding took
>place, but was pulled at the last minute.
bloody wedding!
>. ABC has 3 jobs it should attend to 1) promote the show more
>aggressively. Even Fox with less money promotes their shows better 2)
>spread out the re-runs more judiciously. They know the show will have to
>run 10-12 re-runs throughout the season (September-May), and when they had
>a month with no new episode (OW march 24 being the last first run episode
>until IASWAA aired on April 28th) that hurt the show. and 3 (and most
>important) ABC executives should stay the !@#$ out of the story planning
>or creative direction of the show.
more marketable because of their movies, etc.
2. The reruns are a problem. I liked an idea that was discussed about
doing two shows in that timeslot & switching off.
3. agreed
>Zoo...@aol.com
Good comments, Zoom
Katherine