I guess I'm in the minority, BUT I LOVED THIS EPISODE!!

28 views
Skip to first unread message

Robert Ojalvo

unread,
Feb 12, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/12/96
to
Zoomway wrote:
>
> I Now Pronounce You was episode #15 this season. Last year, episode #15
> was Return of the Prankster, and first season #15 was Ides of Metropolis.
> Some didn't like Return of the Prankster, some did, Ides of Metropolis was
> just kind of boring, but this episode...oh boy (as Sam would say) I loved
> this episode. The interaction between Lois and Clark with the "honey" bit,
> and their private toasts where Clark is so overcome he can't finish. Lois
> says to him, tearfully, "You're the man I never thought I would meet." You
> know, this reminded me of something a very neurotic Lois said way back in
> first season when she thought she was going to be killed by Trask. She
> explains the nature of the novel she had in her computer, "It's a romance
> novel about a woman who dies without ever knowing her true love." Clark
> says, "Lois, that's not going to happen." And sure enough, Clark's words
> were prophetic.
>
> I know fans are upset by the clone/frog ending, but you know, the writer
> of this episode, Chris Ruppenthal, used to write for The X-Files, and that
> was about the most X-File-ish ending I've ever seen<g> I thought he did a
> great job with the characters, and it was kind of nice that Perry
> partnered them at the Daily Planet, and in life at their wedding. Was the
> wedding real? Who can say :) There's a lot more to come. I know it may be
> a bit like what the Scarecrow said in the Wizard of Oz, "I think it'll get
> darker before it gets lighter" but I'm willing ot take the dark before the
> light as long as it's clever, and engaging. This episode was funny,
> romantic and suspenseful, with a nice SF/comic book touch. This is so much
> more refreshing when I recall what we had this time back in first season.
> First season was great, but there was almost never a sense of 'urgency' to
> the show, except for the two-part finale. The closer this couple becomes,
> the more urgent and important their actions, reactions and interactions
> become.
>
> It increases bit by intriguing bit. When Lois found out the secret, it
> increased the urgency. She knew where he was going during his mysterious
> disappearances and wanted to go along, and then had to concede that that
> was not a good option for both their sakes. She has to cover for him now.
> She has to be alone in an exile with him that she can't share with anyone
> else but his parents. We get to see their 'bond' in action, which is
> always touching, but you can see the potential for the agony of it as
> well. Once they do get married for real, the stakes are upped again. It's
> one thing for a woman who isn't married to be caught kissing Superman, but
> quite another for a married woman<g> How will a woman explain her husband
> not being home at 3:00 in the morning if someone calls? How will she
> explain his absence from events like birthdays, Christmas, etc.?
>
> I'm glad the staff at Lois and Clark never seem to take the easy way out
> of anything, but manage to get us where we want to be in the long run.
> Believe me, if this whole story arc turns into 'le grand bummer' I'll be
> hollering along with everyone else, but they've done great so far, so I
> will reserve judgment until the roller coaster has come to a complete
> stop, and the safty-bar has been lifted :)
>
> Zoom (the three most repeated words at carnivals and amusement parks are,
> "Here we go!" :)I totally agree!!

Zoomway

unread,
Feb 12, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/12/96
to

Kelly Zweifel

unread,
Feb 13, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/13/96
to
Here, here, Zoomway! Totally agree with you on all counts.
Thoroughly enjoyed this episode and felt it had more spark than
the last 3 or 4. I'm not at all worried about what will happen
next - just sitting back and waiting in delicious anticipation.
Always enjoy reading your posts!
-Kelly


Zoomway

unread,
Feb 13, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/13/96
to
>>What you've written really perplexes me. It appears to be a 180 degree
change of opinion on this episode from the post you made a few days ago
which appears below. What changed your mind when they did exactly what
your worst prediction was? The outcome is precisely what you wrote
below--Clark married the clone!!! <<<

Leigh, read again what I wrote. It says 'if' Clark...blah blah blah. It's
speculation. I had not seen the episode when I wrote what I had below.
Having seen the episode, I love it, and have confidence that this arc will
be fun. I know Double Jeopardy will be mostly a WHAM (painful) episode,
but there is more to come, and isn't having Clark wait a bit to finally
have Lois going to make the 'dancing in the sheets' that much hotter<g>
Sorry, didn't mean to stray into the gutter there...well, okay, I ALWAYS
stray into the gutter :) The majority of the episode before the wedding
is warm, funny, and very romantic, Leigh. So, none of the good feelings
there need be wasted or re-set. I will be disappointed if the vows were
exchanged with a clone, but I'm still not convinced (despite overwhelming
evidence from the promo for DJ) that he has. We'll just have to wait and
see, and until then, I'm having fun...I can't help it :)

Zoom

S Asif Husain

unread,
Feb 13, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/13/96
to
I also like the episode. How could you not expect something to happen
at the end... something HAD to happen. In a way, I think the show would
have been a disappointment if nothing did happen. I hope everything
works out in the end of L-n-C, but they still have a ways to go for this
season.

You knew she would be cloned when that guys pulled her away to sign the
marriage licence, but the last scene where she eats the frog was
something else. It was cool! I can't wait to see what happens next.

One small gripe I had about the episode... I thought the plot with the
villains wasn't stressed enough, and they were caught too easily... but
then we find out at the end of the episode the Lex is free and the
cloning isn't over yet. The writers did a good job!

- Asif

Leigh 4CK

unread,
Feb 13, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/13/96
to
In article <4foind$e...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, zoo...@aol.com (Zoomway)
writes:

>I know fans are upset by the clone/frog ending, but you know, the writer
>of this episode, Chris Ruppenthal, used to write for The X-Files, and
that
>was about the most X-File-ish ending I've ever seen<g> I thought he did a
>great job with the characters, and it was kind of nice that Perry
>partnered them at the Daily Planet, and in life at their wedding. Was the
>wedding real? Who can say :)

What you've written really perplexes me. It appears to be a 180 degree


change of opinion on this episode from the post you made a few days ago
which appears below. What changed your mind when they did exactly what
your worst prediction was? The outcome is precisely what you wrote
below--Clark married the clone!!!

I agree with everything you posted BELOW; those are my precise sentiments.
The real Lois will now be the second woman he goes through a marriage
ceremony, the second woman to share his bed even though the clone won't
consummate the marriage--not if they want to keep any loyal fans. And I
find it mighty hard to work up any enthusiam about going through another
wedding again on this show after the last one unless we can put Lois'
parents in a space capsule orbiting the Earth until everything is
completed. <g>

Your change of heart reminds me of the way the President (in INPY) decided
to lower the taxes the day after he announced he was gong to raise them.
Um, no offense but are you sure you haven't been cloned yourself? <g>


>>Subject: Re: THE SPOILER OF THE YEAR!!!!
From: zoo...@aol.com (Zoomway)
Date: 10 Feb 1996 02:55:11 -0500


Well, I keep hearing the powers that be saying relax, so that at least
sounds like no one should worry, however, it also means the powers that be
should also be careful. If the wedding we see this Sunday turns out to be
phony, they may already be in trouble. I'm sure the wedding may be set up
to leave the answer ambiguous, that is; "Did Clark marry the real Lois, or
the frog-eating clone?" This can be left up in the air, and give a bit of
suspense, and if handled well could be the best writing in the show's
history. If handled poorly...uh oh. That is, if Clark did marry the clone,
then he's married, and it matters little if later she dies (making him a
widower?) he gets divorced or it is called null and void, the fact is, the
altar-cation still happened, and that means the real Lois becomes the
'second' woman Clark will exchange vows with. Not to mention fans just
flat out don't want to suffer through a second wedding. It becomes The Boy
Who Cried I Do, and have the 'been there done that' feeling. Worst of all,
it will turn all emotions fans garner from the first wedding into one big
lie. I just don't think they'd do that to the fans, not if they want the
show to survive.

Zoom<<

Leigh Raglan
New York, NY
leig...@aol.com

<<The hardest lesson to be learned is love can be so fair to some and so
cruel to others...>>

Sue Tremblay

unread,
Feb 15, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/15/96
to zoo...@aol.com
It took a second screening last night but...it's true the show was
great!
Did you notice the lead in with the wedding invitation - PFA!
I had to pause to read it, but loved it anyway.
Sue

Freda F.

unread,
Feb 16, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/16/96
to
In article <4fqaug$k...@lace.colorado.edu>
Count me in. I had a small "Lois And Clark" party at my place, last
Sunday. My two friends and I loved it. People were mentioning missing
comedy bits, well it looked to me like they were starting to make a comeback.
<i.e. Clark zooming over to Lois' place with the phone still in his hand, and
his transforming himself so fast the chips kept rotating for a few seconds
after he was gone. - it was great.> Of course, there was the two motorist who
were so busy arguing, they didn't realize that it was Superman offering to
mediate thier dispute. Then the total surprize from onlookers when Supes.
cleared the traffic, was priceless. I fell out of my chair, when Perry
announced that he was a Minister for the `Church Of Blue Swade Deliverence'.
I don't know if there IS such a animal, but Perry is an Elvis Outoko, so if
any one could be a minister for such a church, he could. Way to go Perry!

As for Lois getting kiddnapped moments before the wedding, whoa, what a
true tribute to Lex's boldness. Who else, but Lex could pull this off?
Kiddnapping Lois right out from under Clark's (a.k.a. Superman's though Lex
doesn't know it yet) nose. We all agree that Lex is the best advisary Clark as
Superman has faced to date, this is why. Lex has the cunning, to acomplish
what no other criminal can. With or without Kryptonite, Lex can alway hit
Supes right where it hurts him the most, and almost always walk away unscathed.

tagline
---------
"Is that Kryptonite in your pocket, or are you just glad to see me?" Lex
Luthor

Freda F.

VARTOX

unread,
Feb 17, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/17/96
to
In article <4fr2qv$a...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, zoo...@aol.com (Zoomway)
writes:

>>>What you've written really perplexes me. It appears to be a 180 degree
>change of opinion on this episode from the post you made a few days ago
>which appears below. What changed your mind when they did exactly what
>your worst prediction was? The outcome is precisely what you wrote
>below--Clark married the clone!!! <<<
>

>Leigh, read again what I wrote. It says 'if' Clark...blah blah blah. It's
>speculation. I had not seen the episode when I wrote what I had below.
>Having seen the episode, I love it, and have confidence that this arc
will
>be fun. I know Double Jeopardy will be mostly a WHAM (painful) episode,
>but there is more to come, and isn't having Clark wait a bit to finally
>have Lois going to make the 'dancing in the sheets' that much hotter<g>
>Sorry, didn't mean to stray into the gutter there...well, okay, I ALWAYS
>stray into the gutter :) The majority of the episode before the wedding
>is warm, funny, and very romantic, Leigh. So, none of the good feelings
>there need be wasted or re-set. I will be disappointed if the vows were
>exchanged with a clone, but I'm still not convinced (despite overwhelming
>evidence from the promo for DJ) that he has. We'll just have to wait and
>see, and until then, I'm having fun...I can't help it :)
>
>Zoom
>
>

Hate to poke my nose into this semi-private argument, but I've gotta go
with Leigh on this one.

The only episode that ticked me off even more than this one (I grant that
it was well-done, and some parts were even enjoyable - but then the first
five bites of an apple can be enjoyable until you find half a worm after
the sixth) was "Tempus Fugitive".

The problem with both is the seeming unwillingness of the production staff
to make a bold move without first floating a trial balloon, which, in the
case of the "Tempus" ballon, cheapened the "real" revelation when it
occurred in "We Have A Lot To Talk About".

When the show began, an eventual wedding seemed inevitable. Now, it seems
less so. Should it happen, it will be nice, but not as spectacular an
event (in the humble opinion of this longtime Superman fan) as it should
have been.

All they need to do now to really promote bitter feelings is to veer away
once again from the relationship to focus on action and superheroics. I'm
beginning to be afraid that might actually happen (ironic for a - as
mentioned above - longtime Superman fan, who, even more ironically, thinks
this show would be MUCH better without Superman).

Zoomway

unread,
Feb 18, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/18/96
to
In article <4g4he8$p...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, var...@aol.com (VARTOX)
writes:

>The only episode that ticked me off even more than this one (I grant that
>it was well-done, and some parts were even enjoyable - but then the first
>five bites of an apple can be enjoyable until you find half a worm after
>the sixth) was "Tempus Fugitive".
>
>The problem with both is the seeming unwillingness of the production
staff
>to make a bold move without first floating a trial balloon, which, in the
>case of the "Tempus" ballon, cheapened the "real" revelation when it
>occurred in "We Have A Lot To Talk About".<<<

It would seem unlikely that a 'trial balloon' episode would be set aloft
by a one-shot writing team. Jack Weinstein & Lee Hutson wrote Tempus
Fugitive, and not one episode before, nor after that one. I believe they
submitted a romantic, humorous script, and the showrunner, or maybe even
Singer himself thought it a good episode to stick in between the Scardino
arc to break up the 'downer' tone with a a fun respite, and nothing deeper
than that. The episode, and Tempus himself, proved so popular, that the
'history' from that episode crossed into other episodes and Tempus was
brought back as a villain.

The senior writers last year (and they may even have functioned as the
showrunners) were Paul Jackson, and his partner Tony Blake. At any rate,
whatever their official designation, Jackson and Blake wrote more scripts
than the others (Madame Ex, The Source, Metallo, The Phoenix, And the
Answer Is..) You'll note that they also seemed to choose the 'event'
scripts; the premiere, the beginning of the romance arc, and the
finale/proposal. It would seem to me, if Tempus Fugitive were a 'test
balloon' episode they would have written it, or it would have been written
by one of the other in house writers from last year (John McNamara, Chris
Ruppenthal, or Kathy McCormick) I get the feeling that Tempus Fugitive was
written by freelancers who had a very fanciful idea that was accepted and
produced.

Leigh can back me up when I say that I wrote a story where a future and
past Clark get tranposed in time. The Clark from the future is married to
Lois, the Clark from the past is basically first season Clark (since
that's when I wrote the story) There was no real villain, just a moral
dilemma; would Clark from the past, thrown into a future where Lois loves
him, and is married to him, willingly go back to the past where he
belongs, but does not have Lois? Anyway, I wrote the story, definitely not
as a test balloon, but because I thought it was a fun idea. It had
elements like Tempus, Lois being in on Clark's secret, Lois calling him
Clark while in the costume, etc. I think if anything, it mainly qualified
as a wish fulfillment on my part, but nothing a lot deeper. You may be
correct, Tempus Fugitive may have been a test balloon, but it seemed an
odd placement so close to an episode where Lois would decide that Clark is
the one she loves (Whine Whine Whine, the best episode from 2nd season in
my opinion) Or, Tempus Fugitive may have served as a reassurance "Look,
the future says Lois and Clark will be married, Lois will know the secret,
they'll have kids, so don't be upset by setbacks, they won't prevail, and
the romance will not be reset."

Personally, the biggest thing I wanted, was Lois knowing that Clark is
Superman, I knew once that happened the last barrier between them would be
shattered, and they could approach each other honestly. So, to tell the
truth, the only future script that scared me was the one where Lois lost
her memory, but if it is only a brief subplot, I'm fine with that. What
I'd genuinely like, is not a second wedding, but to see the first one
pieced back together. I mean Perry says, "Jimmy, the ring" well, that bit
of dialogue could have come after an extensive ceremony, including the
excange of personal vows. I'd like to hear Clark finish that groom's toast
he was too overcome to finish. This is only if the 'real' Lois married
Clark, and not a clone, of course. I'd like one of the upcoming episodes
to show us the whole wedding, and the reception. I know it looks like
Clark married the clone, but I think it would be quite a twist if he had
not, and a whole wedding was filmed, but just 'cut up'. I know I'm
probably dreaming, but hey, there's no law against it :)

Zoom (oh my gosh, I think I have 'homonisity' :)

VARTOX

unread,
Feb 19, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/19/96
to
In article <4g6q93$l...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, zoo...@aol.com (Zoomway)
writes:

>>The problem with both is the seeming unwillingness of the production
>staff
>>to make a bold move without first floating a trial balloon, which, in
the
>>case of the "Tempus" ballon, cheapened the "real" revelation when it
>>occurred in "We Have A Lot To Talk About".<<<
>
>It would seem unlikely that a 'trial balloon' episode would be set aloft
>by a one-shot writing team.

I didn't say anything about writers sending up a trial balloon - I said
the production staff. No matter what the reasoning, the net effect to me
is still the same.

Also, as to hoping that Clark somehow did marry the real Lois, I just
rechecked the preview and saw an apparently captured Lois with another
Lois walking toward her wiht the first-mentioned lois asking "Is this what
Clark married?"

Not really likely from that that the real couple got married, but as of
this writing, we'll know in less than 10 minutes.

Zoomway

unread,
Feb 19, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/19/96
to
>>>I didn't say anything about writers sending up a trial balloon - I said
the production staff. No matter what the reasoning, the net effect to me
is still the same.<<<

I think you'll find that with Lois and Clark, the production staff and the
writers are one and the same. Look for the names of producers; you'll find
Eugenie Ross-Leming and Brad Buckner, Ruppenthal, Rosenberg, McNamara,
Simkins, etc.

>>Also, as to hoping that Clark somehow did marry the real Lois, I just
rechecked the preview and saw an apparently captured Lois with another
Lois walking toward her wiht the first-mentioned lois asking "Is this what
Clark married?"<<

All I can add is a new acronym; NULL (Never Underestimate Lex Luthor :)

Zoom

Zoomway

unread,
Feb 20, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/20/96
to
In article <4g4he8$p...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, var...@aol.com (VARTOX)
writes:

>The only episode that ticked me off even more than this one (I grant that
>it was well-done, and some parts were even enjoyable - but then the first
>five bites of an apple can be enjoyable until you find half a worm after
>the sixth) was "Tempus Fugitive".
>

>The problem with both is the seeming unwillingness of the production
staff
>to make a bold move without first floating a trial balloon, which, in the
>case of the "Tempus" ballon, cheapened the "real" revelation when it
>occurred in "We Have A Lot To Talk About".<<<

It would seem unlikely that a 'trial balloon' episode would be set aloft

VARTOX

unread,
Feb 20, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/20/96
to
(Before you start reading this, if it comes out snotty, I apologize. It's
certainly not my intent, but I'm really confused by the following.......)

In article <4gask1$3...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, zoo...@aol.com (Zoomway)
writes:

>>>>I didn't say anything about writers sending up a trial balloon - I
said
>the production staff. No matter what the reasoning, the net effect to me
>is still the same.<<<
>
>I think you'll find that with Lois and Clark, the production staff and
the
>writers are one and the same. Look for the names of producers; you'll
find
>Eugenie Ross-Leming and Brad Buckner, Ruppenthal, Rosenberg, McNamara,
>Simkins, etc.

????????????????????

I'm sorry, I must've missed something here. First I blame the production
staff for floating trial balloons - example (for brevity's sake): "Tempus
Fugitive". Then you tell me that a one-shot writing team wouldn't float a
trial balloon - see above example. Then I reiterate that I never blamed
the writers, I blamed the production staff. Now you tell me that the
writers ARE the production staff.

One of us got off the track here. Just in case it was me, let me try this
one more time (not that I ever intended this to go past my first post,
BTW): I don't care if a story that serves as a trial balloon (like
"Tempus" or "INPY") was written by a one-shot writer, a staff writer, a
writer-producer, Shuster & Siegel, John Grisham or whoever you'd like to
cite as example here; writers (defined as people who perform the function
of writing) don't get a tv show on the air. Producers make the decisions
on which scripts get produced. That's probably why they call them
producers.

Now, I could care less if some staffers have both responsibilities. I was
only talking about those people perfoming the function of producing these
programs - and whether they actually wrote the scripts or not, the
producers have, in effect, on two occasions (at least) now declined to
boldly present a situation (revelation/wedding) in favor of a
"run-through".

The fact that the writers of "Tempus Fugitive" were one-shot writers (you
know much more about these things than I do, so I defer to you on the
facts) and apparently not producers (at least, you didn't say they were
last time) only reinforces my position. To wit, if the producers read the
script, but didn't want to float the balloon, they didn't have to air it.

Part of the responsiblity in choosing scripts (written by whomever) would
seem to include selecting those scripts that advance the overall storyline
along those parameters that were no doubt set prior to the season's actual
production. Apparently "Tempus" did fit in in some way to those plans (no
matter how much I despised it), if not, then I can't see how the decision
to produce it should have been made in good conscience.

Ipso facto, the production staff CHOSE to, in effect, float a trial ballon
regarding the revelation of the secret identity in "Tempus" AND they did
it again with "INPY". And I resent it, though if you likedit, fine. This
is America, after all (well, it is where I am anyway).

(This is my brain......this is my brain on Lois & Clark......<G>)

>
>>>Also, as to hoping that Clark somehow did marry the real Lois, I just
>rechecked the preview and saw an apparently captured Lois with another
>Lois walking toward her wiht the first-mentioned lois asking "Is this
what
>Clark married?"<<
>
>All I can add is a new acronym; NULL (Never Underestimate Lex Luthor :)
>
>Zoom

?????????????????????????????????? - again???????????

I never underestimate Lex Luthor. If anything, I overestimated the ethics
(if that's not too strong a word) of the producers and ABC. I know Lex
doesn't play fair. For the first half of the season, I thought THEY did.

("Oh, dopey me" - Robin Willlams, "Mork and Mindy")

Zoomway

unread,
Feb 20, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/20/96
to
>>Apparently "Tempus" did fit in in some way to those plans (no
matter how much I despised it), if not, then I can't see how the decision
to produce it should have been made in good conscience.<<<

Then tell me how Return of the Prankster fit into the romance arc, and
advancing that storyline. The only mention of the relationship at all in
that episode was Lois saying she wouldn't feel comfortable staying at
Clark's because they were 'almost' dating, and Clark agreeing with Jimmy
that Lois is a class act. Not all episodes in the uberarc, if you want to
call it that, have to deal, or impact on that theme. It's the same with
The X-Files.

>>Ipso facto, the production staff CHOSE to, in effect, float a trial
ballon
regarding the revelation of the secret identity in "Tempus" AND they did
it again with "INPY". And I resent it, though if you likedit, fine. This
is America, after all (well, it is where I am anyway).<<<

That's still assuming *they* saw it as a test balloon.

>>I never underestimate Lex Luthor. If anything, I overestimated the
ethics
(if that's not too strong a word) of the producers and ABC. I know Lex
doesn't play fair. For the first half of the season, I thought THEY
did.<<<

I guess what I'm not getting here is what's not fair?

>>("Oh, dopey me" - Robin Willlams, "Mork and Mindy")<<

"KayO, Hold the Pectate"---Robin Williams, "Mork and Mindy" (can we do the
Dick Van Dyke show next ;)

VARTOX

unread,
Feb 21, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/21/96
to
("What we have here is a fail-ure to communicate." - Strother Martin,
"Cool Hand Luke")

(Maybe I'll get to the Van Dyke stuff later) ;)

In article <4gcjnc$n...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, zoo...@aol.com (Zoomway)
writes:

>Then tell me how Return of the Prankster fit into the romance arc, and
>advancing that storyline

I can't. I also despised both Prankster stories. (But let's not go there
now...)

>That's still assuming *they* saw it as a test balloon.

Now I get it! You're focusing on the "intent" of TPTB, while I'm focusing
on the "effect" of the decisions they made. We're basically comparing
apples and oranges here. I don't know the staff, I don't know what they
think and I don't care. All I care about is what I see on the screen and
what I see on the screen is...aw, never mind, I said it all before.

>I guess what I'm not getting here is what's not fair?

One, ABC advertised that Lois & Clark would be getting married in that
episode. They didn't. That's not fair. That would be considered
deceptive advertising if it were, say, the local supermarket advertising
something they knew they weren't going to deliver. (Boy, I hope I'm not
accidentally starting another thread there...OK, forget that last
sentence.)

Two, though I doubt that anyone sets out to tell a bad story, IMHO, these
first two stories have been really bad. Maybe you've got some inside
scoop on what the next installment has in store, and I hope it's great,
but I still don't think it fair that I have to sit through two really
(make that thoroughly) bad, if not poorly conceived, stories to get to one
(hopefully) good one.

("Oh, Zoo-oo-oo-mmmmmm...." - Sorry, that was the closest I could get to
Van Dyke. You can sign up for my course in "How Not To Paraphrase" at...)

;)

VARTOX

unread,
Feb 21, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/21/96
to

VARTOX

unread,
Feb 21, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/21/96
to

Zoomway

unread,
Feb 21, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/21/96
to
>>One, ABC advertised that Lois & Clark would be getting married in that
episode. They didn't. That's not fair. That would be considered
deceptive advertising if it were, say, the local supermarket advertising
something they knew they weren't going to deliver.<<<

Well, the ads for That Old Gang of Mine showed Clark getting killed, but I
guess it was like the Princess Bride, he was only *mostly* dead ;) I think
our disappointment level depends on what we want to be true, or false. I
didn't want Clark to be dead, so I was glad the ad was deceptive. The
wedding is a muli-episode arc. If they had made the thing into a
mini-movie, you wouldn't have so much trouble with this, I suspect,
because the answer would be there in one sitting. I don't know what is
planned as the payoff for this arc, but I hope it ends with a 'bang' (wink
wink nudge nudge ;) If nothing else, maybe the producers can take all of
the mewling and moaning posts and show them to ABC, and remind the
alphabet network that we live in a nation of instant gratification and
heaven help a show that tries to do something that keeps the fans guessing
and waiting<g>

Zoom
"Sally, you keep an eye on the kids in the kitchen, I'll watch the kids in
the bedroom, Buddy, you take the livingroom, and Laura can float through
the house"
"Wow! Can she do that?"

VARTOX

unread,
Feb 21, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/21/96
to
YIKES!!!

Sorry folks, according to the response from AOL when I tried to send my
(final, not counting this - I promise!) post on this subject, it didn't
take the first two times. Imagine my surprise to find it here twice
today. If I can't get the third try killed, I apologize for the two extra
posts.

And if I can, I apologize for the one extra.
Vartox (who is looking for Danny Thomas-brand walnuts)

Leigh 4CK

unread,
Feb 22, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/22/96
to
In article <4gfl83$a...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, zoo...@aol.com (Zoomway)
writes:

> I don't know what is
>planned as the payoff for this arc, but I hope it ends with a 'bang'
(wink
>wink nudge nudge ;)

Well, I'm afraid it doesn't, not in #17 Seconds which is what they've been
saying is the end of the trilogy although supposedly some stuff carries
over in the following episodes through #19. Looks like all the alarm about
#18 and Lois' memory resent (however temporary it may be--it's now will be
a total of 3 episodes) have proven correct for that one episode (#18) at
least.

SPOILER BELOW

P

O

I

L

E

R


Although by the end of Seconds Lex and the clone are killed [how
predictable considering the clone and possibly Lex as well--judging from
the previews--know Clark is Superman], Lois still has amnesia.

When Lois wakes up in the hospital she no longer believes she's Wanda
Detroit and remembers she's Lois Lane, however has no idea who Clark is.
She says to him, "Do I know you?"

For the record, the ending for #17 was off the reel-to-reel for the
musicians to score Seconds and is indisputable.

Zoomway

unread,
Feb 22, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/22/96
to
>>>
Well, I'm afraid it doesn't, not in #17 Seconds which is what they've been
saying is the end of the trilogy although supposedly some stuff carries
over in the following episodes through #19. Looks like all the alarm about
#18 and Lois' memory resent (however temporary it may be--it's now will be
a total of 3 episodes) have proven correct for that one episode (#18) at
least.<<<

I've seen the spoilers some time ago, Leigh, and I know that fans won't be
happy, at least until Oedipus Wrecks, though there may be elements in #18
that might surprise you. These are basically the same writers you enjoyed
earlier this season and from late last season, so that means one thing, if
the show is taking a direction that isn't in keeping with what fans
want/like, don't look to the writers, look to the network. ABC is the
ultimate master of Lois and Clark, and ABC is notoriously uncreative, and
so when an uncreative force like the network, clashes with a creative
force like the writing staff, the resulting collision makes the writers
look bad and keeps ABC off the hook. It was exactly the same thing last
year when fans wanted a revelation. You'll recall the article where Dean
was quoted as saying that he had argued with an ABC executive for a couple
of hours trying to convince him that the show could explore uncharted
territory if Lois knew the secret, even told the executive that he'd take
responsibility if the direction didn't work, but the executive balked.
Fans wrote ABC. Write 'em again ;)

Zoom

Leigh 4CK

unread,
Feb 24, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/24/96
to
In article <4gilcl$e...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, zoo...@aol.com (Zoomway)
writes:

>These are basically the same writers you enjoyed
>earlier this season and from late last season, so that means one thing,
if
>the show is taking a direction that isn't in keeping with what fans
>want/like, don't look to the writers, look to the network.

I fail to see how the writers are blameless or how the network, albeit
responsible for how L&C is advertised, is responsible for the L&C scripts
beyond accepting or rejecting them AFTER after they are written or when a
storyline is presented to them. Surely, ABC is not the ones who came up
with the storyline. I doubt ABC approached L&C and said to them, "We want
you guys to write a story arc in which there is a wedding, but Clark
actually marries someone else, Lois gets amnesia," etc. While they may
have to approve scripts before they can get made and may make suggestions,
aren't the L&C writers the ones responsible for coming up with story ideas
including this trilogy? For example, did Dean Cain dream up the idea of
writing a story about virtual reality and pitch it to the the producers
and/or ABC or did ABC come to Dean and say we want a virtual reality story
if you want to write another episode for L&C. Cain said about Season's
Greedings last season that came up with that storyline himself which he
pitched to the producers. Some other writers also pitched story ideas to
the producers. L&C accepted his. Now at that point he may have gotten
input from others, but the basic story was his. And he certainly claims
Virtually Destroyed is his original story and not a story by ABC which he
wrote. So, if fans like or dislike VD, then it is not ABC who they would
praise or blame, but Dean Cain.

Also, just because *I* liked one script by a writer does not mean I will
like a later script or all scripts by that writer. For example I liked
most of "Ordinary People" (excepting some of Spencer Spencer) but was not
overly fond of "Home Is Where The Hurt Is."

>>.You'll recall the article where Dean was quoted as saying that he had


argued with an ABC executive for a couple of hours trying to convince him
that the show could explore uncharted territory if Lois knew the secret,<<

I do recall all of this but I do not see how this all applies to the
current story arc. Again, is L&C trying to convince ABC to let them have a
wedding now or did ABC go to L&C and tell them to write a phoney wedding
scenario now to boost the February ratings? There really is nothing in
this current story arc that I can see which compares to the situation last
spring when L&C wanted to have a revelation and ABC didn't. Lois being in
on the secret versus Lois and Clark being married is like comparing apples
and oranges.

Zoomway

unread,
Feb 24, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/24/96
to
>>I fail to see how the writers are blameless or how the network, albeit
responsible for how L&C is advertised, is responsible for the L&C scripts
beyond accepting or rejecting them AFTER after they are written or when a
storyline is presented to them. Surely, ABC is not the ones who came up
with the storyline.<<<

Oh, Leigh, you'd be surprised what goes on in network executroid brain
pans ;) According to Deborah Joy LeVine herself, in an article about women
producers, she said that executives of ABC, near the end of first season
told her to dump Lex Luthor and put in more Superman. She said that was
not the show she had set out to do, and so was replaced by Robert Singer.
The first half of season 2 reflects clearly ABC' s mandate (or as it's
known in the business 'committee banging') The one thing that allowed the
show to be turned around, and to refocus on Lois and Clark was the fact
that the ABC's idea of what the show should be about was a major flop in
the ratings.

>>I doubt ABC approached L&C and said to them, "We want
you guys to write a story arc in which there is a wedding, but Clark
actually marries someone else, Lois gets amnesia," etc. While they may
have to approve scripts before they can get made and may make suggestions,
aren't the L&C writers the ones responsible for coming up with story ideas
including this trilogy?<<<<

What I believe is ABC approached them and said "drag it out" In other
words, they can get married, but... Now, the writers have a parameter put
around their 'imagination' within which they must now work. What if also
ABC said the wedding must come first, but, it can't be the 'real' wedding,
or not be perceived as the real wedding...yet. This impacts on the next
episode of course, because Lois and Clark want to wait for marriage to
consumate their love intimately. So, how would you work the story under
those guidelines? That is, how would you have Lois and Clark 'look' like
they got married, but really didn't? You could do something undramatic
like say that Perry's credentials as minister weren't good, and therefore
they weren't legally married, but that cetainly is pretty boring, not to
mention there isn't much to do in a way of 'dragging it out' further. You
could have Lois kidnapped 'after' the wedding...well, okay, then it just
becomes a matter of finding the bad guy, and getting her back. This is
okay, it's certainly been done tons on the show. We'd also know that Lois
would be trying to escape, and Clark would be looking for her, but it
ain't exactly dripping with suspense<g>

With Lois not functioning in her 'right mind', we're left guessing what
she'll do. We know 'Lois' wouldn't do this or that, but would 'Wanda' do
this or that? There is also the clone random element thrown in, and she
wants Clark. What will 'she' do to sabotage the hero's efforts to get the
'real' Lois back? This will all come to a head this Sunday, and of course,
to drag it out till #19, yet another clod will be tossed in the churn, and
it may likely be the straw that breaks credulity's back with fans like
yourself who already hate this story arc. All I'm trying to say is that it
doesn't always matter if you are a show's creator (LeVine) or the
Executive Producer (Singer) when the network says, "Jump through the
following hoops" you have 2 options, you can comply, or you can quit. If
you quit, they find someone who 'will' comply, and you're at the same
place anyway.

>>And he certainly claims
Virtually Destroyed is his original story and not a story by ABC which he
wrote. So, if fans like or dislike VD, then it is not ABC who they would
praise or blame, but Dean Cain.<<

I'm afraid a 'one-shot' script that has nothing to do with a story arc,
not to mention an episode that is not produced for a sweeps period is
going to be of big interest to the network, no more than Teri's one-shot
airing in April. There was no 'arc' during the November sweeps, so the
ratings kind of dipped up and down. Don't Tug on Superman's Cape is a
great episode (at least to me, I really love that one) but didn't score as
high as it should have in the ratings, which is too bad, it's the kind of
episode I'd like first time viewers to get a taste of. Ultrawoman, on the
other hand (still in the November sweeps) did great. Teri was seen in
tights in the promo, and having super powers, it hit some *bing* out there
in TV land, and thus pulled down great ratings. I'm glad of this too,
because it was a great episode as well. The lesson learned from November
was to make an arc of episodes that would hook viewers throughtout the
month, and that meant the wedding. That meant 'starting' with the wedding.
And that meant the wedding had to be phony.

Sometimes I think for a fan who has very specific guidelines of what
he/she wants to see, and not see, the arc is aggravating, and so the
writing takes a shot in the chops by that group of fans. But, when I read
a post on Compuserve by a first-time viewer of the show, he *loved* Double
Jeopardy, and found none of it stupid or contrived. The New York Daily
News ran a glowing review of the current arc as well. So, I don't really
think it's a matter of writing, but a matter of expectations on the part
of some fans. For me, I know Lois and Clark are fated to be together, so
I'm enjoying this arc, and know it will turn out all right. I guess the
show could have gone the way of the comic book, and had Lois and Clark
break up temporarily before getting back together for the wedding, but I
think that type of storyline would not hook new viewers, and fans would
have been equally, if not more unhappy than they are now.

What I want out of the show is a certain emotional impact. This 'impact'
for me is Lois and Clark's love and devotion to each other, even when they
can't be together. It is there in INPY when Clark is so overcome with
emotion he can't finish the groom's toast, but Lois rubs his cheek and
lets him know that it doesn't matter, because she knows exactly how he
feels even if he can't express it. The impact was there for me in Double
Jeopardy when Lois cried, spit on Lex, and kicked him in the face. Nothing
was going to keep her from the man she loves. I know the third installment
will lead to a new round of outrage, just as #19 will put things where
some fans wanted them 5 episodes ago, but I liked the arc last year where
Lois had to choose between Dan, Clark and Superman. It made Whine Whine
Whine all the more WAFFy for me. It has never been about the villains for
me, because as great as Lex Luthor is, even he couldn't save a weak
episode like Smart Kids, and as over-the-top as Spencer Spencer was, he
couldn't ruin a very revealing, and emotionally satisfying episode like
Ordinary People, at least not for me. Also, having a villain on the
humorous side allowed for humor in dealing with him.
"You can be my sex slave"
"Kill me"

"I'm Superman."
"No he's not."
"Lois--"
"I think you should know this man's insane"
"You're right, I'm not Superman."
"He's not Superman"
"A passing resemblance perhaps"
"It's a thing he does at parties"

And though I'm in the minority where Baby Gunderson is concerned, I
thought she was a perfect representation of how he undoubtedly treated
Lois and Ellen throughout his relationship with them "You're right, I
gotta be more sensitive, Baby, get in the closet." He didn't have to show
her kindness, warmth, or even interact with her when he didn't feel like
it, he merely had to command her, and consigned her to the closet when he
couldn't deal with her. He bought Lois a fake tree, the Kents bought a
real one. Just some nice imagery, including a billboard advertising a nose
spray that reduces flu symptoms being used to 'give' Superman the flu. Oh
well, that's just how I view the show, and why I love it, including the
current arc. I know I'll have to do a lot of dancing for Sunday's episode,
but I've got my helmet all polished <g>

Zoom

Leigh 4CK

unread,
Feb 26, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/26/96
to
In article <4goh4r$c...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, zoo...@aol.com (Zoomway)
writes:

>All I'm trying to say is that it
>doesn't always matter if you are a show's creator (LeVine) or the
>Executive Producer (Singer) when the network says, "Jump through the
>following hoops" you have 2 options, you can comply, or you can quit. If
>you quit, they find someone who 'will' comply, and you're at the same
>place anyway.

I'm well aware of ABC's dictates to L&C and in particular to DJL which
ultimately caused her to leave the show. But in my last post I was
responding to your original statement which was:

>> if the show is taking a direction that isn't in keeping with what fans
want/like, don't look to the writers, look to the network. <<

I was saying in short, that I do not believe the L&C writers are blameless
and that the blame for stories we dislike lies solely with ABC. Both L&C
and ABC are to blame and how L&C executes ABC's orders places the
responsibility for the *quality* of the scripts at their door, not ABC's.
For example, I don't believe ABC is responsible for making Clark into an
idiot IMHO in DJ, but L&C's scriptwriter (I'm not going to bother looking
up who scripted DJ for the purpose of this post, it isn't worth my time.)

I'm well aware that ABC has dictated to L&C what they can and cannot do
(I'm not unfamiliar with the process.) and what they want them to do, i.e.
more action and adventure the beginning of the second season, originally
no revelation in the third season. But I also know that L&C's writers take
ABC's dictates and write these scripts. The dialogue, the plots, etc., are
not written by the network, but by L&C's writers. Consequently, HOW they
choose the execute the orders they're given is ultimately their
responsibility and the blame for story lines or, in this case, story arc
falls at L&C's door as well as ABC's, not one or the other and certainly
not ABC alone.

>>What I believe is ABC approached them and said "drag it out" In other
words, they can get married, but... <<

Quite right. And how this order was executed lies at L&C's door. Just for
argument's sake how adversely would the story have been affected if Clark
had realized the DAY after the wedding he was with the wrong Lois that
evening back in his apartment after she'd been shopping when he kissed
her. And then, after she was surprised he was Superman, he had suspected
that his "wife" might be a clone . He still didn't know where Lois or Lex
were or that Lois had amnesia so he wouldn't be able to hold her. The rest
of the story could have played out much as it did except Clark would have
come out of it without looking totally clueless; he would have looked like
the award winning journalist he's suppose to be.

The end of the story has gotten LOTS of complaints even by people who
liked the episode about Clark's letting Lex drive off. Well, if at the
moment when Clark had grabbed Lex, the Lois clone had come over and
implied that if Clark didn't let Lex go she'd reveal his secret, the
ending would still have had the same outcome with Lex driving off, but it
would have been more powerful with Clark hamstrung and unable to stop him.
So, I would not blame ABC for what was actually done in this
episode--Clark taking 2 days instead of one and Clark just standing there
and letting Lex drive off (these are just two examples I'm using here) I
would blame L&C for writing this it this way.

As to the wedding itself, what if Lois had gotten abducted after the
wedding and then she still could have gotten amnesia and thought she was
Wanda Detroit. At least fans could know that since the couple were really
married (and the wedding would have been wonderful the FIRST time) they
would get back together and this story arc wasn't a reset of any kind.
Clark could still have wound up with the clone on his wedding night and
while the audience knew when the switch was made, Clark coul

Sandra Torchia

unread,
Feb 26, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/26/96
to
zoo...@aol.com (Zoomway) wrote:
>>>>
>Well, I'm afraid it doesn't, not in #17 Seconds which is what they've been
>saying is the end of the trilogy although supposedly some stuff carries
>over in the following episodes through #19. Looks like all the alarm about
>#18 and Lois' memory resent (however temporary it may be--it's now will be
>a total of 3 episodes) have proven correct for that one episode (#18) at
>least.<<<
>
....... It was exactly the same thing last
>year when fans wanted a revelation. You'll recall the article where Dean

>was quoted as saying that he had argued with an ABC executive for a couple
>of hours trying to convince him that the show could explore uncharted
>territory if Lois knew the secret, even told the executive that he'd take
>responsibility if the direction didn't work, but the executive balked.
>Fans wrote ABC. Write 'em again ;)
>
>Zoom


Yes, let's write again!

Does anybody remember where to write???


Sandra


Zoomway

unread,
Feb 26, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/26/96
to
>>I was saying in short, that I do not believe the L&C writers are
blameless<<

Maybe that's our big difference, you want someone to *blame* I want
someone to *praise*<g> I loved the wedding arc! The writing, directing and
particularly the acting were all top drawer stuff. When I go back and look
at Chi of Steel, or Smart Kids, or Illusions of Grandeur, *that's* when I
wanted someone to blame. Even episodes I enjoyed like The Phoenix, Whine
Whine Whine, Green Green Glow of Home, etc.none were as emotionally
charged as this arc, none generated a tenth of the bandwidth for
discussion. The newsgroup will go back to business as usual by the time
#19 airs, but I want to thank the PTB for the ride I had getting there.

Zoom

Colonel X

unread,
Feb 26, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/26/96
to
In article <4gs900$l...@newsbf02.news.aol.com> leig...@aol.com (Leigh 4CK) writes:
>For example, I don't believe ABC is responsible for making Clark into an
>idiot IMHO in DJ, but L&C's scriptwriter (I'm not going to bother looking
>up who scripted DJ for the purpose of this post, it isn't worth my time.)

It was Eugenie Ross-Leming and Brad Buckner, Leigh...you should know,
I mean, I've only publically stated that you should replace them on
the production team twice now...

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
On assignment in Athens, Georgia,
Colonel X.

Expect the unexpected.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages