What happened to Jimmy?
Daniel
The actor who plays the role of Jimmy is not the same actor of the first
series. What happened to the original actor?
Robert Phelps
says...
>
> The actor who plays the role of Jimmy is not the same actor of the first
> series. What happened to the original actor?
>
>
list (not to be confused with this newsgroup's FAQ). You can find the
LOISCLA list FAQ at: http://home.earthlink.net/~rcphelps/index.html
Bob Phelps
Hollydream
"superman" look or something to that effect. Whether that is true or not, I do
not know.
Seraphis1
He looked too much like Dean Cain, according to the info at the time. The
audience was having a difficult time separating the two and was cutting into
DC's star power. So they obted for a blond, short stocky guy.
Seraphis1
There was a major rebellion among the fans at the time including me! No one
could come up with who couldn't tell the difference. Or how they came up with
the notion. I've always thought DC's mother was involved. Just a hunch, she
must have hung around the set a lot and watched the show. She, also, made two
cameo appearances, one as a nun, the other as a crazed shopper fighting over
the rats in the Christmas story....I don't recall the name of it off hand. One
thing about the rat toy....DC had one in his office when he did his special and
was talking to the audience. Only the fans were in on the inside joke (or
know).
Seraphis1
was always about to go off the deep end yet luck and S-Man always came to his
rescue. Sorry I don't remember the actors name and am to lazy to look it up:
but, the replacement Jimmy just seemed too tough. To competent. There could
never be a comic relief from the replacement guy. But, everyone got used to
him. You can tell that in the old days we really got into this controversy.
It's still with me. Three messages about Jimmy!! Wow!!!
SilvrBrwne
>>>I heard that the orignal actor who played Jimmy was dropped because he had
>>>the
>>>"superman" look or something to that effect. Whether that is true or not, I
>>>do
>>>not know.
>>>He looked too much like Dean Cain, according to the info at the time. The
>>audience was having a difficult time separating the two and was cutting into
>>DC's star power. So they obted for a blond, short stocky guy.
I just have one thing to say:
HOW IN THE WORLD CAN ANYONE HAVE DIFFICULTY IN SEPERATING HIM AND DEAN
CAIN???????
I know they had some similarities, but come on!!!!
Liz
Seraphis1
>
> HOW IN THE WORLD CAN ANYONE HAVE DIFFICULTY IN SEPERATING HIM AND DEAN
>CAIN???????
>
>I know they had some similarities, but come on!!!!
>
>Liz
>
That's exactly what the true fans said!!! The original Jimmy was wonderfully
right for the role. Vulnerable and comic, but, not too idiotic. But, the guy I
would have perferred above all others would have been the comedian Carrot Top.
He would have really put some laughs into the show.
Mike Jones
>>
>>>I heard that the orignal actor who played Jimmy was dropped because he had
>>>the
>>>"superman" look or something to that effect. Whether that is true or not, I
>>>do
>>>not know.
>>>
>>
>>He looked too much like Dean Cain, according to the info at the time. The
>>audience was having a difficult time separating the two and was cutting into
>>DC's star power. So they obted for a blond, short stocky guy.
>
Some of the people that were involved with the show have advanced more
than one reason for Michael Landes' dismissal. The 'Looked too much
like Dean Cain' was only one. Another reason was that TPTB thought
that the Jimmy character, and Michael in particular, should generate
some interest with younger fans. By their reckoning, Michael was not
doing that. So...They brought in Justin, who already had a following
in teen magazines.
>There was a major rebellion among the fans at the time including me! No one
>could come up with who couldn't tell the difference. Or how they came up with
>the notion. I've always thought DC's mother was involved. Just a hunch, she
>must have hung around the set a lot and watched the show.
I don't know if Dean's Mom had anything to do with casting the show.
As far as appearing on the show, she was an actress who hadn't worked
much on TV in quite a while. I think a guy can get his Mom a job, if
he wants. But as far as the decision on Jimmy, and other cast
members, Robert Singer was perfectly capable of screwing up decisions
like that on his own.
On the Jimmy character, it seemed to me that the Michael Landes Jimmy
was a totally different character than we had ever seen as Jimmy
Olsen. He had been in reform school ('a bum rap' he said) and had
some decidedly unsavory friends ('I know somebody that knows
somebody'). Jack, the homeless boy that Clark gets a job at the Daily
Planet in the first season, and Jimmy made a good team. I thought
there were some possibilities with their characters that should have
been explored in the second season. When they fired Michael and got
rid of Jack, the 'new' Jimmy had none of the rough edges that he had
in the first season. Indeed, this Jimmy was later endowed with his
own 'super powers' in the forms of computer genius and graphics
design. Comedy? There were elements of comedy in both Jimmys, but
when they rewrote the character, everything changed. They had to make
the new Jimmy a loser with woman, but I could never figure out why the
girls left him (neither could Lois until she spent the night at
Jimmy's apartment). I hope the teeny-boppers liked what was done for
them.
--
Mike Jones <aka Boomer>
Seraphis1
>that the Jimmy character, and Michael in particular, should generate
>some interest with younger fans.
Yes I remember that. They were competing against a guy in the Seaquest...I
think...who was getting all the teen girls ga, ga.....so they needed someone
who could take some of those demographics from Seaquest.
>I've always thought DC's mother was involved. Just a hunch, she
>>must have hung around the set a lot and watched the show.
I've always (hunch) thought she might be involved since its the kind of thing a
relative or a close advisor would notice. Who is competing with my star.
Since they both had long straight brunette hair and were about the same height
the casual viewer might get mixed up in their mind. It IS always better to
have a lot of contrast to get the focus on the person you want it on. I think
Meg Ryan was in a movie recently wherein she was by casting the ONLY blond.
>On the Jimmy character, it seemed to me that the Michael Landes Jimmy
>was a totally different character than we had ever seen as Jimmy
>Olsen. He had been in reform school ('a bum rap' he said) and had
>some decidedly unsavory friends ('I know somebody that knows
>somebody'). Jack, the homeless boy that Clark gets a job at the Daily
>Planet in the first season, and Jimmy made a good team.
Right, but, the important thing I liked about Landes he had the right amount of
vulnerability. He was not likely to overwhelm a villian, but, the villian
could trip on a banana peel while chasing him and knock HIMSELF out! That kind
of thing. Justin just seemed a little to tough for the roll. He had the look
of a guy you wouldn't want coming after you in a dark alley.
The superhero janre always likes to have only one really tough character. All
others have to create the contrast by being less capable, less strong
physically and strength of character.
NY WRITER
audience was having a difficult time separating the two and was cutting into
DC's star power. So they obted for a blond, short stocky guy.>
Personally, I never liked the original Jimmy...thought #2 was extremely cute.
Seraphis1
>
If you are female then TPTB were right about the demographic reason for the
shift. The problem was it was very disruptive for the true fans. It took
almost six months for the diehards to accept Justin, including me.
gar...@rit.edu
I watched the show from the Pilot, and I didn't care that they changed
Jimmys, and got rid of Cat and Jack, they could've changed Martha,
Jonathon, Perry, and even Lex. The show is Lois & Clark, it's a show
about two people, not an ensemble like ER.
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Juul
> I watched the show from the Pilot, and I didn't care that they changed
> Jimmys, and got rid of Cat and Jack, they could've changed Martha,
> Jonathon, Perry, and even Lex. The show is Lois & Clark, it's a show
> about two people, not an ensemble like ER.
I totally disagree. If it was a show about two people, then it would be
quite dull, I guess. I mean, what would happen if there were no others?
Lois and Clark kiss and cuddle throughout each and every episode? Yech!
Lois and Clark is just about the two of them placed in high densed area
(Metropolis), where Clark wants to live between 'normal' people.
Actually, this desire of Clark to blend in a society with normal people,
gives superman a more human and more social character, and that's just
what I like about the series. Superman is not about dealing with
catastrofes only, it's also about living an everyday-life. And in that
sense it's essential for the series to have Clark surrounded with his
own 'family' and friends. And it looks kinda silly (to say the least)
when these family and friends are constantely changed.
Juul.
NY WRITER
<<If you are female then TPTB were right about the demographic reason for the
shift. The problem was it was very disruptive for the true fans. It took
almost six months for the diehards to accept Justin, including me.>>
I am (female.) Watching was more fun w/Jimmy #2. Now I had two gorgeous guys
to watch. It was a relief when they stopped airing episodes w/that gossip
reporter. Never did like her.
Seraphis1
>sense it's essential for the series to have Clark surrounded with his
>own 'family' and friends. And it looks kinda silly (to say the least)
>when these family and friends are constantely changed.
>
>Juul.
Amen!! It would be ridiculous to change actors constantly. They only did what
they did for reasons they believed would enhance the shows rating. It was
imperitive to TPTB for advertising dollars to get the favored demographic.
Therefore, Landes had to go in their eyes. The actress who played Cat was said
to have annoyed some "suits" with her antics so they got rid of her. She was a
great comic relief source and over sexual energy which they couldn't have Lois
engage in for obvious reasons. TPTB made every possible mistake with the show
that they could make and destroyed it in the end. The show could have been a
top ten show and gone on for at least 7 years. But, the nitwits, botched a
going franchise which is their want.
Seraphis1
>reporter. Never did like her.
That's not surprising....Cat was not for the females. She was there to get a
rise out of the males (pardon the unintended pun).
David Kime
Little did they know that most men found Lois sexier all along, even in
her conservative first season attire. Too bad they decided to change her
character, change her wardrobe, and she decided to change her body. After
all of that, Lois wasn't nearly the babe she was that first season.
Seraphis1
>her conservative first season attire. Too bad they decided to change her
>character, change her wardrobe, and she decided to change her body. After
>all of that, Lois wasn't nearly the babe she was that first season.
>
That is true, but, had Cat stayed then Lois would not have been allowed to get
into the sex kitten mode, because it was this contrast which was suppose to be
the reason CK was so in love with LL.
Seraphis1
>character, change her wardrobe, and she decided to change her body
TH seemed to be quite foolish to persue this enchanue (sp) path. I think she
has acting abiliy on a par with Strep, Thomson, (Ethel Barrymore) etc. But,
there is no way she can get roles that will move her in to the running to be
considered a great, serious actress (possibly Oscar contention) following the
career path shes decided to follow. Its really quite sad. This woman has a
great actress sitting in her soul!
7shm
Juul wrote:
> gar...@rit.edu wrote:
>
> > I watched the show from the Pilot, and I didn't care that they changed
> > Jimmys, and got rid of Cat and Jack, they could've changed Martha,
> > Jonathon, Perry, and even Lex. The show is Lois & Clark, it's a show
> > about two people, not an ensemble like ER.
>
> I totally disagree. If it was a show about two people, then it would be
> quite dull,
Hear, hear.
As the Superman comic writing staff have stated many, many times, it's
the supporting cast of the comics (and, by extension, the series) that makes
Superman work. Without the Kents, there's no moral core to Clark - why the
hell doesn't he just go on a crime spree? (Answer: Because his parents
instilled in him a moral core... and they keep him grounded). That type of
stuff is important for someone of Supes' stature.
Remember the subtitle: the further adventures of Superman. Even though
ABC over-emphasised that during the last season to atrocious results, the
show needs focus, which the lack of a main villain cost it. Then again,
casting people for Luthor always seems to come easy (Hackman, Shea - are
there *really* that many people like these in Hollywood?). It's like that
with every modern day hero: the villian is necessary in order to remind the
reader / viewer precisely why the lead character is a hero.
Bit of a ramble for a first post, but anyways...
Sven Mascarenhas
NY WRITER
has acting abiliy on a par with Strep, Thomson, (Ethel Barrymore) etc. But,
there is no way she can get roles that will move her in to the running to be
considered a great, serious actress (possibly Oscar contention) following the
career path shes decided to follow.>
I am an L&C fan, but, really-TH on the par w/Streep? I don't think so.
Seraphis1
You watch TH work. Look at the nuances she captures even in this frivolous
role. Imagine what could do with a challenging role. I think she has a great
dramatic performance in her.
Mike Jones
You know, whenever I see someone say that one actor is not as good as
another, I have to wonder. Once you get past a certain level of
competence, how can you really judge unless you see the two people in
the same roles? I believe you can only respond to the characters they
create. Meryl Streep is an Oscar-winning actress, but in weak roles
early in her career, she was no standout. Anybody remember "The
Seduction of Joe Tynan"? I do. I watched them film part of it in
Annapolis. Nobody knew who she was and nobody cared; "Kramer vs.
Kramer" hadn't come out yet. KvK was a writing and acting masterpiece
that earned Meryl her first Oscar (Supporting). Teri has yet to
appear in anything even approaching KvK's power. I don't think that's
for lack of ability. It may be part bad judgement; it may be that
they don't write movies like that anymore. "Two Days In The Valley"
is about the best movie I've seen Teri in and there's two things wrong
with it from the standpoint of advancing Teri's star power: 1-It's
more of an ensemble piece, various separate story lines rotated
through the movie; and 2-Teri is the villain, the bad guy, the person
who hires the hit men. Not a sympathetic role at all. But it is a
good movie.
My point is that while I believe that Teri has potential to be perhaps
better than very good, I don't think she'll ever find the right role
to showcase her talents now that she has passed on the perfect role
for her (L&C).
Juul
One question: what means 'TPTB'? I have no clue.
Although Cat never annoyed me, I didn't miss her as well. If she was
ment to attract men, then she failed in my case. Lois was much more fun
to watch. I must say that I found Mayson Drake (Farrah Forke) a better
competitor for Lois...
I agree the show got worse over the years. And the storylines became far
too farfetched. I mean, an episode like 'Toy Story'; how can someone
watch without becoming cynical? Or the episode (I forgot the title) in
which Superman and some other man are transformed to tiny figures by an
old schoolmate of Lois... Please!
The stories with Lex Luthor, from the first season, were much better. To
my opinion, of course. It always surprised me that Teri said in several
interviews that the scripts of L&C were getting better. She said that
during the third season. Was she serious about that? Or was she forced
to say that? Or was she just pleased that she could write one script by
herself?
Juul.
Seraphis1
>appear in anything even approaching KvK's power.
This is the key to TH's dilema. She either is a victim of momemtum in which
she started as a sex kitten and can't pull out of it or she likes that kind of
role (as in TDITV). Or she has never had a comprehensive concept of just
exactly where she wanted her career to take her. She's the type of actress who
always worked and will always work. She has the connections now to be able to
take any kind of job (barring bad behavior which is slowing surfacing as one of
her interrelational problems).
Seraphis1
>the supporting cast of the comics (and, by extension, the series) that makes
>Superman work.
Exactly right!!
Seraphis1
The powers that be.
gar...@rit.edu
7shm <7s...@qlink.queensu.ca> wrote:
>
>
> Juul wrote:
>
> > gar...@rit.edu wrote:
> >
> > > I watched the show from the Pilot, and I didn't care that they changed
> > > Jimmys, and got rid of Cat and Jack, they could've changed Martha,
> > > Jonathon, Perry, and even Lex. The show is Lois & Clark, it's a show
> > > about two people, not an ensemble like ER.
> >
> > I totally disagree. If it was a show about two people, then it would be
> > quite dull,
>
> Hear, hear.
>
> the supporting cast of the comics (and, by extension, the series)
The comics staff had very little influence on the tv series, whether you
believe that to be a good or bad thing is up to you.
Now let me address a BIG misunderstanding. I never said that the CHARACTERS
of Perry, Jimmy, Martha, Jonathon, Lex, etc were not important. I said
the actors who portrayed them were not important (assuming the actor is
reasonable competent.)
gar...@rit.edu
sera...@aol.com (Seraphis1) wrote:
> >Too bad they decided to change her
> >character, change her wardrobe, and she decided to change her body
>
> has acting abiliy on a par with Strep, Thomson, (Ethel Barrymore) etc. But,
> there is no way she can get roles that will move her in to the running to be
> considered a great, serious actress (possibly Oscar contention) following the
> great actress sitting in her soul!
>
Yes, but she has to be who she is, not what you, or I, want her to be.
Seraphis1
>believe that to be a good or bad thing is up to you.
>
Not absolutely true. They had a laison individual on the set at all times and
he made cameo appearances as an inside joke that only aficianados knew about.
They also controlled the wedding, its timing and its execution to coincide with
the wedding in the comic book. Unfortunately, they did not oversee or
understand the TV medium because if they had they might have killed the five
parts from hell and we would all be watch a top ten show right now!!!
Seraphis1
Unfortunately, you are correct. Tho, we can take heart. Everyone thought Kim
Basinger was thru in hollywood, but, she won an Oscar! So, TH (has hard
sledding ahead) is not done yet. I'm not writing her epitaph.
gar...@rit.edu
sera...@aol.com (Seraphis1) wrote:
> >The comics staff had very little influence on the tv series, whether you
> >believe that to be a good or bad thing is up to you.
> >
>
> Not absolutely true.
I didn't make an absolute statement.
>They had a laison individual on the set at all times and
Big Deal, there were lots of people "on the set" and they have
little influence. If he/she was a writer or producer instead
of a "laison" then one could say the TV show was influenced by
the comics staff.
> he made cameo appearances as an inside joke that only aficianados knew about.
> They also controlled the wedding, its timing and its execution to coincide
with
> the wedding in the comic book. Unfortunately, they did not oversee or
> understand the TV medium because if they had they might have killed the five
> parts from hell and we would all be watch a top ten show right now!!!
>
How many people left when Ross and Rachel broke up on Friends? Not many,
why? because it is an ensemble show and not Rachel & Ross: The New Adventures
of Friends.
Nicholas Gardner
her
> >character, change her wardrobe, and she decided to change her body.
After
> >all of that, Lois wasn't nearly the babe she was that first season.
> >
>
> That is true, but, had Cat stayed then Lois would not have been allowed
to get
> into the sex kitten mode, because it was this contrast which was suppose
to be
> the reason CK was so in love with LL.
In some respect,Lois changed because she was to become the "main
attraction" if you will for the male audience. If you notice, all the
characters get a make-over after season one, including Clark, who gets new
glasses and a haircut, but still retains the power ties from hell.
For some viewers, like myself, I liked both variations on Lois, although I
have to admit, that the sleeker one from the last couple of seasons and
that short haircut was the clincher. She dropped the "I'm top banana"
attitude and adopted a more realistic approach, rathar than the pimadonna
attitude she had in the early episodes
Nick G
ps. don't you hate having to write yur name and address at the bottom of
each letter, or is just me?
NY WRITER
if you will for the male audience. If you notice, all the
Though I'm female, I though Lois was much sexier w/longer hair.
Seraphis1
>little influence. If he/she was a writer or producer instead
>of a "laison" then one could say the TV show was influenced by
>the comics staff.
Then how so you explain the fact that the wedding in the TV show was
coordinated with the wedding in the Comic book. That for a long time DC comics
would NOT even agree to a wedding until the TV fans made such a big stink about
it.
Seraphis1
>have to admit, that the sleeker one from the last couple of seasons and
>that short haircut was the clincher. She dropped the "I'm top banana"
>attitude and adopted a more realistic approach, rathar than the pimadonna
>attitude she had in the early episodes
>
I preferred her early persona which was more in keeping with the comic book
Lois.
OmegaMan69
(Seraphis1) writes:
>>Another reason was that TPTB thought
>>that the Jimmy character, and Michael in particular, should generate
>>some interest with younger fans.
>
>Yes I remember that. They were competing against a guy in the Seaquest...I
>think...who was getting all the teen girls ga, ga.....so they needed someone
>who could take some of those demographics from Seaquest.
Must have worked, considering seaQuest sunk out of sight in it's
second season.
Kalel3667
Too bad that's true for Teri. Even if that Tardes bitch hadn't done all she
could to kill Lois and Clark, along with ABC's forced storyline's making
non-FoLCs cynical, the show never would've got passed the 5th season anyways.
Teri Hatcher was dying to get off the show, and the only thing keeping her
there was contract.
Oh yes, and DC did not get the wedding in the show to tie in with the comics.
In fact, TPTB gave DC news at the last minute, making them rush into the
wedding.
Greg-El
Kalel3667
>In fact, TPTB gave DC news at the last minute, making them rush into the
>wedding.
A few minutes ago I posted that, and I just realized how wrong I am. Although
the higher powers got DC to rush a wedding for Lois and Clark in the comics to
tie in with the show (Lois and Clark were temporarily seperated in the comics
at the time), but of course DC Comics had some say in the matter.
Greg-El
Seraphis1
>wedding.
That's not what I remember from all the messageboard traffic at the time, tho,
there was never any inside dope on this...so....you certainly could be right
about that.....I only remember all this stuff very vaguely.
Seraphis1
>to
>tie in with the show (Lois and Clark were temporarily seperated in the comics
>at the time), but of course DC Comics had some say in the matter.
It's hard to believe that DC the owner of the rights to the S-Man saga would
not have all kinds of if ands and but, in the contract for the sale of the TV
rights of the character. Otherwise what was the DC laison guy doing on the
set, if he was not there to pass on specific things. The other thing is that
apparently rights to the character did not include rights to all the characters
in the S-man pantheon. I seem to remember supergirl was not in the package to
be even a cameo in the TV series.
Darren Jones
> >Little did they know that most men found Lois sexier all along, even in
> >her conservative first season attire. Too bad they decided to change her
> >character, change her wardrobe, and she decided to change her body. After
> >all of that, Lois wasn't nearly the babe she was that first season.
Yeah, I think they really lost something when they had this overhaul.
Firstly, no offence to Justin Whalin, but I thought Michael Landes'
Jimmy was a much better character. Nothing ever seemed to go quite
right for him, but he'd just shrug it off wth another great
self-deprecating one liner. He had a brilliant rapport with the other
characters, esp Clark and Perry. I also thought his delivery and
timing in the humour bits was brilliant - eg when Clark and Lois won
some award - "CK! You are the man!" [Lois stares at him] "And you are
the woman..."
Justin's Jimmy seemed to exist just to fetch things for people and to
star in the occasional computer-genius storyline. No depth. Obviously
this was largely down to the gradual slump in the standard of writing,
but I also thought Landes was perfect for the role.
I was also disappointed to see Cat go. Her relationship with Lois was
an excellent contrast to the Clark/Jimmy one, and her constant verbal
sparring with Lois was great. A lot of Lois' early character
development seemed to be done through Cat by showing the differences
between them. I think there was still a lot of potential for her
character - gradual developing friendship with Lois; maybe getting
closer to Clark when he was having problems with Lois (a la Mayson
Drake)?
I think those four worked really well as a group (along with Lane
Smith of course) - there was a sort of "family" atmosphere between
them which seemed to disappear when Landes and Scoggins left.
And Lois' transition to a more "foxy" character was hugely
disappointing IMHO. Early on, she was brilliant - fiercely determined,
independent, and intelligent, without losing her "softer" side. But as
the outfits got more revealing her character moved towards being the
"damsel in distress". She started getting flustered and struggling in
situations that the old Lois would have taken control of; instead
relying on Clark to come along and save the day.
I remember reading a quote from Teri Hatcher when the producers were
trying to make her wear less clothes on screen - "my breasts are not
the show's biggest asset", or something like that. A pity they
couldn't see what she obviously could - the show's strength was the
great writing and acting, not Teri's body. Ironic that Lois always
wanted to be respected for her ability, not her appearance - TPTB
obviously weren't learning anything from their own show.
I've heard that Teri now refuses to discuss her time on the show; I
don't know anything about that situation but I can imagine how
frustrating it must have been for her to see her character fall from
being such a strong role-model to almost the token ratings-grabbing
prize female.
Finally, to be honest I was glad when the show finished as I felt it
had become such a shadow of it's former self. I'd rather have seen it
go out earlier with some dignity, than watch it gradually decline -
some of the later shows were really terrible. But I still remember the
first couple of series as some of (maybe *the*) best TV I've ever
seen.
--
Darren --- darrenj<at>enterprise.net
WWW --- http://homepages.enterprise.net/darrenj/
"It may be hot now, but at night-time, the temperature
here drops like a rocket" - Brian Moore
Seraphis1
>Jimmy was a much better character. Nothing ever seemed to go quite
>right for him, but he'd just shrug it off wth another great
>self-deprecating one liner. He had a brilliant rapport with the other
>characters, esp Clark and Perry. I also thought his delivery and
>timing in the humour bits was brilliant - eg when Clark and Lois won
>some award - "CK! You are the man!" [Lois stares at him] "And you are
>the woman..."
This is an incisive observation, because, that was always the point of the
Jimmy character in the S-Man plotting and writing devices. Jimmy added humor
and vulnerability as well as the lucky idiot element which juxtaposed itself
against the invulnerable, self-reliant S-Man. We always knew nothing could
happen to S-Man, but, plenty could happen to Jimmy. For this reason I've
always thought the best person to play Jimmy would have been the comedian
Carrot Top. He would have really hit a home run for the show.
Seraphis1
>star in the occasional computer-genius storyline. No depth. Obviously
>this was largely down to the gradual slump in the standard of writing,
>but I also thought Landes was perfect for the role.
Yes, in the first run days it was pointed out by various inside sources that
TPTB decide to focus on LnC instead of the ensemble model DJL had in mind when
she created the show. So in the second season all the supporting characters
became cardboard cutouts.
Seraphis1
>an excellent contrast to the Clark/Jimmy one, and her constant verbal
>sparring with Lois was great. A lot of Lois' early character
>development seemed to be done through Cat by showing the differences
>between them. I think there was still a lot of potential for her
>character - gradual developing friendship with Lois; maybe getting
>closer to Clark when he was having problems with Lois (a la Mayson
>Drake)?
You are truly a brilliant observer. Yes, Cat was DJL's design to make this
show reach a sophisticated UPPY audience. Sharp wit, and rapportee. Sexual
tension with double entendre. DJL was intent on reaching a sharp segment of
the viewing public.
My own story is that I didn't watch LnC at first because I thought it was going
to be a cartoon. I happen to catch the pilot on a Christmas rerun because I
had nothing else to do. That was it I was hook, instead of a kids show I saw
an adult reality based smart series.
Then they fired DJL and TPTB decide to go younger and dumber! The rest is
history!
Seraphis1
>Smith of course) - there was a sort of "family" atmosphere between
>them which seemed to disappear when Landes and Scoggins left.
>
This was truly a family group. It gave you a WAFFY buzz the see them working
together. They were truly a family. Because, underneath the surface you feel
they loved and respected one another in the way family members can.
Seraphis1
>trying to make her wear less clothes on screen - "my breasts are not
>the show's biggest asset", or something like that.
Teri is a fine actress. Just watch her work very carefully and you'll realize
as I do she is as good as Meryl Strep, Shirley Maclaine, Ethel Barrymore or any
of the greats.
>A pity they
>couldn't see what she obviously could - the show's strength was the
>great writing and acting, not Teri's body.
They knew it alright. They were just stuck in the rut of going for the right
demographic.
>Finally, to be honest I was glad when the show finished as I felt it
>had become such a shadow of it's former self. I'd rather have seen it
>go out earlier with some dignity, than watch it gradually decline -
>some of the later shows were really terrible. But I still remember the
>first couple of series as some of (maybe *the*) best TV I've ever
>seen.
Amen, brother! Its going to be along time before another powerful concept like
this comes along and gets at least good execution in the first season.
OmegaMan69
(Seraphis1) writes:
But DC Comic is owned by Warner Bros., the producer of Lois & Clark.
DC Comics is just a division of Warner Bros. I sort of doubt they had any
real say so to their corporate owners. In your job are you allowed to
over-rule decisions made by your boss?
Seraphis1
>DC Comics is just a division of Warner Bros. I sort of doubt they had any
>real say so to their corporate owners. In your job are you allowed to
>over-rule decisions made by your boss?
I wasn't aware the WB owned DC comics, but, nonetheless most of these
complicated conglomerate structures are difficult to fathom from the outside,
but, many times the holding company lets the people directly controling the
destiny of the business (comic) run that business, thats why they hire them
because they should know what they are doing better than a front office. But,
without knowledge of how the buyouts were structured I'd be spinning my wheels
speculating about it. So I won't.
j62...@bellatlantic.net
> Jimmys, and got rid of Cat and Jack, they could've changed Martha,
> Jonathon, Perry, and even Lex. The show is Lois & Clark, it's a show
> about two people, not an ensemble like ER.
I totally agree. Although i like the show better with the Whalen
"Jimmy", and sans Kat and Jack. But i is about Lois and Clark. At first
i wouldn't have minded if they even changed Lois', but Dean and thatcher
are a great team and make a great show. Expecially Dean.. Damn. :)
_Jewels
Suriv Rellik
j62...@bellatlantic.net wrote in message
<35FDA2...@bellatlantic.net>...
>> I watched the show from the Pilot, and I didn't care that they changed
>> Jimmys, and got rid of Cat and Jack, they could've changed Martha,
>> Jonathon, Perry, and even Lex. The show is Lois & Clark, it's a show
>> about two people, not an ensemble like ER.
Could somebody refresh my memory -- who was "Jack"?
=:o) Lev
levd...@bigfoot.com
Suriv Rellik
Seraphis1 wrote in message
<199809110506...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
>>But DC Comic is owned by Warner Bros., the producer of Lois & Clark.
>>DC Comics is just a division of Warner Bros. I sort of doubt they had any
>>real say so to their corporate owners. In your job are you allowed to
>>over-rule decisions made by your boss?
Well, actually, in this situation, DC Comics remains the supreme authority
on the Superman characters and concept because of a little thing called
intellectual property. WB has the rights to sell/market the character. This
(and other things), however, puts WB in a position to make or break DC as
they wish, the result being that most companies in DC's position would be
doing their best to please momma. Legally, however, DC (as intellectual
property owners) can resist any changes the big guys may want to make. Doing
so, however, may not be the smartest thing to do....
=:o) Lev (hoping to become a regular on this list)
levd...@bigfoot.com
PS: Rumour has it that WB is in turn owned by Lex Corp.
Seraphis1
>Well, actually, in this situation, DC Comics remains the supreme authority
>on the Superman characters and concept because of a little thing called
>intellectual property. WB has the rights to sell/market the character. This
>(and other things), however, puts WB in a position to make or break DC as
>they wish, the result being that most companies in DC's position would be
>doing their best to please momma. Legally, however, DC (as intellectual
>property owners) can resist any changes the big guys may want to make. Doing
>so, however, may not be the smartest thing to do....
I always thought that good business for the holding company is to let your
hired hands who are expert in their arenas run their show.
Seraphis1
>Could somebody refresh my memory -- who was "Jack"?
Jack was a street kid who stole Clark's Krytonian globe in a house robbery in
the Episode called Strange Visitor (I think). In later eps he seems to have
figured out that CK is S-Man and in a knowing look at the end of the episode
they seem to come to a mutual understanding. The code of the underworld to
which the kid belonged required him to keep his mouth shut. But, they drop his
character when they drop Landes.
Gary
>
> Seraphis1 wrote in message
> <199809110506...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
> >>But DC Comic is owned by Warner Bros., the producer of Lois & Clark.
> >>DC Comics is just a division of Warner Bros. I sort of doubt they had any
> >>real say so to their corporate owners. In your job are you allowed to
> >>over-rule decisions made by your boss?
>
> on the Superman characters and concept because of a little thing called
> intellectual property. WB has the rights to sell/market the character.
Warner Bros.-TV (not 'The WB' aka the Frog Network)has the television
rights to
the characters and can do whatever it wants to them so long as it's
restricted
to TV and not otherwise forbidden by the contract, until said contract
expires.
DC Comics retains the print, commericial endorsement, and animated
rights.
The film rights are owned by Warner Bros. Studios...
Get the picture...?
OmegaMan69
writes:
>
>Well, actually, in this situation, DC Comics remains the supreme authority
>on the Superman characters and concept because of a little thing called
>intellectual property. WB has the rights to sell/market the character. This
>(and other things), however, puts WB in a position to make or break DC as
>they wish, the result being that most companies in DC's position would be
>doing their best to please momma. Legally, however, DC (as intellectual
>property owners) can resist any changes the big guys may want to make. Doing
>so, however, may not be the smartest thing to do....
>
> =:o) Lev (hoping to become a regular on this list)
>levd...@bigfoot.com
>
>PS: Rumour has it that WB is in turn owned by Lex Corp.
>
A little known fact is that in reality Ted Turner is actually Lex Luthor.
[ ]
[ Impeach Ken Starr ]
[ ]