The Wedding!
Seraphis1
of a May L&C wedding. I just heard on CNN Headline News that
Murder She Wrote is hanging it up, but not before the four final
episodes air during May sweeps. A post in the AOL section said
it would be running on Sunday nights, which wouldn't be surprising.<<
The wedding has already been shot. There is no way to turn a series
around on a dime
most of these stories are planned and written month's in advance and
certainly shot three
or four weeks in advance to allow all the editing, special effects and
sound stuff to get
done right up to the day it airs. Mistakes like a daylight flying S and a
LL going into the
basement at dusk are probably caused by the rush to completion at the end
and the loose
ends can't be picked up. I suspect the Krytonian heritage thing provides
a new
explanation of why S can propagate with a human female and the marriage
ceremony is
going to be punctuated by a major cliffhanger, unfortunately!
KalElFan
(Seraphis1) writes:
[KalElFan's Note: STOP READING NOW IF YOU DON'T WANT TO
READ SPOILERS. It's probably too late, but it's just a CYA thing
with me.]
S
P
O
I
L
E
R
S
P
A
C
E
>The wedding has already been shot. There is no way to turn a
>series around on a dime most of these stories are planned
>and written month's in advance and certainly shot three or four
>weeks in advance to allow all the editing, special effects and
>sound stuff to get done right up to the day it airs...
Well, I wasn't going to say anything about this because I'd only
seen it in two places. But thanks to you I've now seen it in three
places. Once I see something in three places that seem to be
independent, it qualifies as a really bona fide rumor worthy of
discussion. Even if it's only in one or two places, I still might
repeat it with appropriate caveats or "speculation" pasted all
over it. But I didn't with this one because it's just too juicy.
Rumor has it that the real small wedding has already been shot.
But nobody knows exactly when it's going to be used. I'm not
sure exactly how they've managed to achieve this, assuming it's
true. It may be like what they supposedly did with last year's
cliffhanger, shooting three different responses by Lois to Clark's
proposal. That way nobody on the show could snitch that this
or that was going to happen, because except for a very small
circle of people - in the editing room or wherever - they didn't
know for sure until the last minute.
If they've somehow kept everything else around the wedding
generic enough that references to the marriage aren't made,
which one supposes is at least theoretically possible, then
it may not be as difficult a logistical task as you suggest. They
might have planned and structured it so they could implement
Plan A, B or C with relative ease. It's still five and a half weeks
to the May 5 air date, so it isn't totally ridiculous to think that
current circumstances (the ratings, fan reaction, CBS's plans
for MSW, etc.) might get plugged into the equation and out
comes the final decision as to whether to use version A, B or
C, when to use it, etc. Anyway, that was my assumption
when I speculated about a May wedding: that they'd structured
flexibility into whatever they're doing and hadn't so defined
everything around the wedding that they'd passed the point of
no return.
BTW, an AP wire story today says the first of those last four
MSW episodes won't run until May 19. I guess they'll be running
two a week, one in the old and one in the new timeslot. This
presumably leaves May 5 and May 12 open for L&C to do
whatever they want, including a wedding in theory.
>I suspect the Krytonian heritage thing provides a new
>explanation of why S can propagate with a human female
>and the marriage ceremony is going to be punctuated by
>a major cliffhanger, unfortunately!
That could be part of the Kryptonian heritage thing, although
I'm sure there's more to it. If relatives or any Kryptonian is
involved, they could certainly reveal the ability to have kids
as part of that. Maybe there's a young girl on Earth who is
the product of human-kryptonian breeding, and that's where
the Big Girls Don't Fly title comes from. Maybe such cross-
breeds lose their power to fly in adulthood. Maybe we could
sit down and write the whole episode here. Maybe Elvis
really is working at a 7-Eleven in Kalamazoo...
Sorry. Mind just drifted off there for a second.
A marriage-related cliffhanger on the 12th certainly makes
sense. Perhaps CBS not running MSW until the 19th reflects
a desire on their part to stay away from L&C the first two
weeks. The May 12th ep, scheduled to be Big Girls Don't
Fly, was written by co-executive producers Eugenie
Ross-Leming and Brad Buckner, who are the highest-
ranking writers on the organization chart and would be
the logical team to write the wedding ep. I thought they'd
do it the first week in May to get more bang for their buck in
subsequent May sweeps weeks. I especially thought so
when the rumors of IaSMAA getting pushed back started,
because a wedding in "Teri Hatcher's" episode somehow
seemed a logical strategy.
But I hadn't really thought of a wedding cliffhanger, like we
had the engagement cliffhanger last year. Lois and Clark
are there ready to say "I do" for real when... what? The
earthquake hits? Lex Luthor barges in again? Lois gets
an amnesia relapse? The mind boggles.
Anyway, Seraphis, you sound really sure of yourself, which
is very rare in people who don't have an "edu" suffix <g>. Me,
I just make it up as I go along.
So, do you *know* that this rumor about the wedding is true?
Seraphis1
So, do you *know* that this rumor about the wedding is true?<,
It makes the most logical sense. The show is L&C and there HAS to be a
marriage. We
may have both seen the posting that makes it almost certain that the
marriage is in the can.
By the way, why are you so hung up on MSW. MSW is a advertising failure.
That's
why CBS has been dickering with it. They are a top ten household show
which
commands only $100,000/min in ad rates. While, L&C gets $100,000/min for
a
rerun!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Guy Sheldrake
But does he go down on her?
KalElFan
(Seraphis1) writes:
>By the way, why are you so hung up on MSW?
Truth is, I don't think I've ever seen an entire episode of it. I just
thought originally that the last four episodes might go head to
head with L&C on May 5-12-19-25. That could have been much
tougher competition for L&C, especially if you combine it with
3rd Rock From the Sun on NBC (somebody e-mailed me that
NBC was moving that show into Mad About You's slot, the latter
of which was to be moved to 9:00 p.m., all in time for May
sweeps.) I imagine 3rd Rock, which is supposed to be a hot
new show, would be right up L&C's demographic alley, a lot
closer than MSW.
Anyway, I think it just points out that L&C is more vulnerable
now than it's been for a while. Maybe that makes a May
wedding or at least a wedding cliffhanger a little more likely.
I wonder how people would react to another relationship-based
cliffhanger again this year? Would they want to tune in more
next year, or throw up their hands and say these guys are
never going to stop pulling our chain?
BTW, you mentioned another post. A post was one of the
other sources I remembered seeing, so if you're basing
what you said solely on that, it's a pretty weak basis for
a rumor (wasn't that the person who worked in the WB
store and said they were told the cast was out shooting
the wedding, and they were showing scenes of it on a
monitor or something?) I thought that was the weaker
of the two. There was another source that talked a bit
about the version A-B-C stuff and their attempt to keep
it under wraps (all in the sense that this was a rumor,
not a fact that so-and-so who knew for sure told them
this.) So in the end, even though it all sounds plausible,
there may be nothing to it at all.
Seraphis1
there may be nothing to it at all.<<
That is true but remember. ABC is only trying to stretch things out a
little. I'm sure they
know the show is only going to be on for two more seasons IF THAT. So
they want to
squeeze out as much pre-marital stuff as possible. The conventional
wisdom right or
wrong is that they will lose the demographic group they covet after the
marriage. You
have got to keep in mind that we diehard fans on only a very small slice
of the viewing
pie. The bulk of the numbers come from people who tune in when some
special event is
advertised and they become aware of it, in some way. This is even more
powerfully true
for a show which is more consistently in the high t 30's. Obviously,
Seinfeld is so
popular I think it could beat an NBA Championship or the final four series
or even the
Super Bowl. But, that is a horse of different color. As for L&C being
vulnerable. We've
gone way past that now no other show will compete favorable constitently
against L&C
unless they show Reiser and Hunt having sex without the covers on and
advertise it
broadly and how many times could they do that!!!!!!!!!!!!!
KalElFan
(Seraphis1) writes:
>I'm sure they [ABC] know the show is only going to be on for
>two more seasons IF THAT.
That's a rather pessimistic view, don't you think?
>The conventional wisdom right or wrong is that they will lose the
>demographic group they covet after the marriage.
Whose conventional wisdom is that? Because it's the first time
I've heard it in five weeks of [way too much] cybersurfing. And
what demographic will leave after a marriage? And why?
>You have got to keep in mind that we diehard fans [are] only a
>very small slice of the viewing pie.
I agree with that.
>The bulk of the numbers come from people who tune in when some
>special event is advertised and they become aware of it...
But I'm not sure I agree with that. They'll obviously get a big boost
from the wedding if and when it happens, just as they did with the
phony wedding in February. But even since the phony wedding,
they've still retained 80% of their viewers. They may not be happy,
but they're watching. I think the bulk of the numbers come from
casual but nevertheless loyal fans, people who aren't diehard
enough to be reading this but who have been with the show for
some length of time and who watch the show most, if not all weeks.
blankh
> The wedding has already been shot. There is no way to turn a series
> around on a dime
> most of these stories are planned and written month's in advance and
> certainly shot three
> or four weeks in advance to allow all the editing, special effects and
> sound stuff to get
> done right up to the day it airs. Mistakes like a daylight flying S and a
> LL going into the
> basement at dusk are probably caused by the rush to completion at the end
> and the loose
> ends can't be picked up. I suspect the Krytonian heritage thing provides
> a new
> explanation of why S can propagate with a human female and the marriage
> ceremony is
> going to be punctuated by a major cliffhanger, unfortunately!
Are you SERIOUS? They're going to leave us on the edge AGAIN?! Get them
MARRIED already!
Okay, Gina, calm down.
They promised us a wedding in 1996 (can't remember which post I read
that in. Think KalElFan wrote it), so they had better get married by
Christmas or I'm writing ABC! They've got 9 months from TODAY.
Sincerely,
Gina Blank =)
Seraphis1
>I'm sure they [ABC] know the show is only going to be on for
>two more seasons IF THAT.
:That's a rather pessimistic view, don't you think?:
According to DC the only reason he is doing the fourth season is because
he is
contractually required to go five seasons if ABC decides to go that long.
But, five seasons
is plenty for this type of show and neither DC nor TH will go seven
seasons from a
career standpoint.
KalElFan
(Seraphis1) writes:
>According to DC the only reason he is doing the fourth season is
>because he is contractually required to go five seasons if ABC
>decides to go that long.
I'm not suggesting what you say is true, but if it were, then perhaps
I'd speak for many FoLC if I said to DC...
"WELL EXCUUUUUSEEEEEE MEEEEEEEEEEE!
All of us ordinary working stiffs didn't understand that condescending
to appear in the fourth season of a hit TV series could be so gut-
wrenching a decision! We didn't realize how tough it can be to have
to accept those big TV star bucks, and put up with all that fan
adoration, only to be dragged kicking and screaming into ANOTHER
WHOLE YEAR OF IT !!!"
Anyway, Seraphis, I haven't been around long enough to know
whether your "by-the-way-these-are-the-facts" statements are indeed
facts or just opinions/rumors based on something you've read in the
tabloids. It would certainly be the *stereotypical* actor reaction,
whining about how they don't want to get typecast and how they
want to do serious movie roles and so on. For any actor playing
Superman, I'd tell him to read my "Just a Show?" post, consider
himself lucky, and even if he felt that way DON'T TELL ANYONE !
Say positive things about the show, keep the fans happy and make
them think you're happy and lucky to be doing what you do. Who
knows? Maybe the fans you've met on your way up, you might
be very happy to meet again on your way back down!
Take a cue from Harrison Ford, who's managed to stay on top for
a very long time by JUST DOING IT and keeping his mouth shut.
Or at least learn from Patrick Duffy, who quit a hit series and is
best remembered for playing a goat after that (oh, yeah, and
ending up back in the series after a year-long dream-shower or
whatever it was).
All of which is hypothetical advice, because everything else I've
read about Dean Cain (up until your post) has been very positive
when it comes to his appreciation and respect for the character
he's playing, and for the history and importance of that character
to many fans spanning several generations. I've seen material
that portrays him as being very mindful of that and genuinely
sincere about it.
But again, especially if you're the suits at Time Warner/WB/DC,
it highlights the importance of structuring things so that you aren't
held hostage to one or two actors. The Superman franchise can
enter the same multimedia league as Star Trek, and hopefully
Dean Cain and Teri Hatcher can continue to be a part of that. But
if they're even *potential* threats to it, then TPTB aren't doing their
job. They ought to have contingency plans. (I'm just a dumb ex-
accountant and even I have such a plan in my framework document
and too-good-to-post file! Surely, TPTB and highly-paid suits must!)
>... five seasons is plenty for this type of show and neither DC nor
>TH will go seven seasons from a career standpoint.
There you go again with those "by-the-way-these-are-the-facts"
statements. Even assuming DC and TH felt that way, who's to
say they won't have a Damascus experience at some point and
decide playing Superman/CK/LL in a hit series isn't the worse
thing an actor might have to - excuse me - suffer through?
Star Trek: TNG went seven seasons and I don't see why this
series couldn't go that. Assuming ABC doesn't botch it up,
this series could (and should) be enjoying its highest ratings
ever over the next few years. If you're TPTB and trying to map
it all out, there are ways to structure things so that you can
have your cake and eat it too: L&C, spin-off TV series, movie
series, an expanded and more prosperous comic line, toys
and merchandise, the whole nine yards. But how they handle
L&C will be critical to that. Right now, the most vivid memory
21.2 million viewers have (in the U.S. alone) is of being jerked
around by a fraudulent wedding after they'd waited three years
for the real one. And of a deafening silence from TPTB in its
aftermath. That's no way to build a franchise, folks.
Seraphis1
whether your "by-the-way-these-are-the-facts" statements are indeed
facts or just opinions/rumors based on something you've read in the
tabloids. It would certainly be the *stereotypical* actor reaction,
whining about how they don't want to get typecast and how they
want to do serious movie roles and so on. For any actor playing
Superman, I'd tell him to read my "Just a Show?" post, consider
himself lucky, and even if he felt that way DON'T TELL ANYONE !
Say positive things about the show, keep the fans happy and make
them think you're happy and lucky to be doing what you do. Who
knows? Maybe the fans you've met on your way up, you might
be very happy to meet again on your way back down!<<
I don't think DC was being particularly condescending. He was refering to
the painful
part of the filming that of hanging from the wires for the flying scenes.
This apparently
took a great toll on him physically. If you've ever done an Iron Cross on
the Roman
Rings you'll know what I mean. Early on he said if he (paraphrasing) had
to do this
series for more than two years he'd kill himself (I don't remember all
this exactly). I'm
sure he was kidding or exaggerating. But, it stands to reason that this
kind of comic book
character will certainly hurt his future as an actor just as it did to
Chris Reeves. They
can't live down or become disassociated from this kind of character.
Unlike Ted
Danson's Cheers character who is fairly generic and can blend into any
future direction
his career would take. There is no big "S" emblasoned on his forehead.
Fortunately, for
DC his greater goal is to be a screen play writer more than an actor
(maybe even a director
or producer) he's very well aware of his limitations as an actor, from
everything that I've
read. He's even stated in interviews that he was not a good actor when he
start and tho he
has improved he knows he doesn't compare to Lawrence Olivier or even John
Shea.
KalElFan
(Seraphis1) writes:
>I don't think [Dean Cain] was being particularly condescending...
Everything you wrote this time, Seraphis, such as the physical
demands of playing the part, puts it in a much better context. And
it's more consistent with everything I'd previously read about Cain's
attitude toward the part, which was without exception good. So
hopefully, he doesn't fall into the stereotypical actor category,
at least in terms of the attitudes we were discussing in the last
two posts.
>Early on he said if he (paraphrasing) had to do this series for more
>than two years he'd kill himself (I don't remember all this exactly).
>I'm sure he was kidding or exaggerating.
I've read a few other quotes in which it's also clear he was kidding
or exaggerating. It's said that he kids around on the set a lot, as
do other members of the cast. There was one interview where he
was asked about the so-called Superman jinx (mainly because of
George Reeves' suicide and Christopher Reeve's accident), and he
said he didn't give it any credence. Still, I read somehere that his
agent committed suicide. It's the kind of thing people probably
shouldn't talk or joke about any more.
>But, it stands to reason that this kind of comic book character will
>certainly hurt his future as an actor just as it did to Chris Reeve...
That's certainly the conventional wisdom, but I'm going to try and
refute it. Most of the people who have vanished into obscurity after
playing a comic-book-like character have done so for one of two
reasons, IMHO: (i) whatever they played in was really bad, like that
one Flash Gordon movie circa 1980 with Sam Jones (?), or the
Lone Ranger movie whose star I can't remember; or (ii) they
mismanaged their career by trying to play so far against type that
the audience most likely to be loyal to them - fans of their comic-
book portrayal - deserted them.
Christopher Reeve is a good example. (God bless him, I hope he
walks again, and he did a great job with Superman, but we're
talking career moves here). His second starring role after Superman
was Somewhere in Time with Jane Seymour. It wasn't enormously
successful by any means, but many fans went to see it and still
talk about it as being their favorite Reeve movie other than Superman.
But that was about the only move the guy made which appealed to
the Superman crowd. Almost everything else seemed to shout "I'm
the Anti-Superman." There was Monsignor and Death Trap, and on
Broadway there was Fourth of July, when he should have been
making more things like Somewhere In Time.
Actors make this mistake all the time. Michael J. Fox did it after
Back to The Future. He made one or two movies that appealed to
that audience, but then went off on a tangent with three or four
other "Mr. Serious Actor" darker-type pictures. (The Vietnam movie
with Sean Penn, and "Light of Day", and "Bright Lights Big City").
He eventually tried to come back to the right type of picture, but
by then he'd lost his audience. His career is being rebuilt now,
including that good supporting effort in An American President,
but it's taken several years for him to recover.
Sometimes it only takes one bad decision to send a career into
a tailspin. It's not comic-book related, but consider John Travolta
in that one he did with Lily Tomlin. What was he thinking when
he did that? He's back now, but he spent 15 to 20 years in
Hollywood purgatory mainly because of that movie.
Anyway, as long as Cain chooses the right vehicles - and the
right ones are those which *consistently* play to the fan loyalty
he's built up through Lois & Clark - I think he at least has a
chance of overcoming the typecasting. If he runs off to play a
gay priest who moonlights as a transvestite ax murderer, he'd
better be a damn good writer/director and he may want to use
a pseudonym.
>Fortunately, for DC his greater goal is to be a screen play
>writer more than an actor (maybe even a director or producer)
>he's very well aware of his limitations as an actor, from
>everything that I've read. He's even stated in interviews that
>he was not a good actor when he [started] and tho he has
>improved he knows he doesn't compare to Lawrence Olivier
>or even John Shea.
No one's comparing him to Lawrence Olivier. In fact trying to
be Lawrence Olivier is what would get him into trouble. John
Shea's very good, but so is everyone else in the cast including
Dean Cain, IMHO. He's improved a lot, and I think he's selling
himself short if he thinks he has no future acting.
BTW, I really liked Mel Gibson's Oscar acceptance speech
where he said "like most directors what I really want to do is
act" or something like that.