Re: John Spencer is dead of heart attack

5 views
Skip to first unread message

JC

unread,
Dec 16, 2005, 9:39:29 PM12/16/05
to
bc wrote:
> BC-APNewsAlert,0030
> LOS ANGELES (AP) -- A publicist for "West Wing" star John
> Spencer says the actor has died of a heart attack at a Los Angeles
> hospital.

X-No-Archive:yes

Also announced on the Nightly News with Brian Williams. Hard to
believe although I felt that Leo had aged on TWW. Always seemed like a
nice guy - someone you would like to know. Condolences to his family
and co-workers.

Marc Dashevsky

unread,
Dec 16, 2005, 10:28:03 PM12/16/05
to
JC <jcmu...@aol.com> writes in article %:

Yep. I was aware of him only on LA LAW and THE WEST WING, but his
congeniality always showed through his characters' crustiness.
I was noticing how frail he looked on last Sunday's episode. He
appeared much older than his 58 years.

--
Go to http://MarcDashevsky.com to send me e-mail.

nhv

unread,
Dec 17, 2005, 12:00:58 AM12/17/05
to
I was completely shocked by the news, and really saddened. I'm a big
fan of "The West Wing". I just tried to email to NBC condolences for
the cast, crew and family, but the address they gave for WW stuff didn't
work (bounced). I don't know what to say. Rest in peace, John. I so
respected your work. You will be missed.

Nicole

Big Tex

unread,
Dec 17, 2005, 12:58:40 AM12/17/05
to
I too was saddened to hear the news of his passing. I don't remember much
of his work on L.A.Law, I was not a fan of the show. But his work on TWW
was outstanding. He was a better quality actor than most of the rest. And
I feel he deserved more Emmy's than he won. My heart felt condoliences to
his family and my pity to the writers of the show who must now hustle to
explain his passing and his replacement on the ticket.
"JC" <jcmu...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1134787169.7...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...

EGTea

unread,
Dec 17, 2005, 1:01:12 PM12/17/05
to

"Big Tex" <big_...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:kONof.34149$dO2....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...

> I too was saddened to hear the news of his passing. I don't remember much
> of his work on L.A.Law, I was not a fan of the show. But his work on TWW
> was outstanding. He was a better quality actor than most of the rest.
And
> I feel he deserved more Emmy's than he won. My heart felt condoliences to
> his family and my pity to the writers of the show who must now hustle to
> explain his passing and his replacement on the ticket.


It will be interesting to see reactions from people in public life. When the
fictional character "Mrs. Dolores Landingham" died on the show, it brought
reactions in real-life editorial columns and even in a speech on the floor
of the California Legislature. You'd think a real person had died, even
though the actress Kathryn Joosten was and reamains alive and well.
This time it's different. Leo McGarry is dead because John Spencer isn't
alive to play him. Both men will be missed.


Rich Clark

unread,
Dec 17, 2005, 6:30:55 PM12/17/05
to

"EGTea" <EG...@spamless.com> wrote in message
news:InYof.37361$6e....@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...

> This time it's different. Leo McGarry is dead because John Spencer
> isn't
> alive to play him. Both men will be missed.

That remains to be seen. Not all unseen characters are automatically dead.

RichC


David Johnston

unread,
Dec 17, 2005, 6:45:26 PM12/17/05
to

Yes, the running mate can just wander off and nobody will notice.


Rich Clark

unread,
Dec 17, 2005, 7:12:03 PM12/17/05
to

"David Johnston" <rgo...@block.net> wrote in message
news:43a44ac5...@news.telusplanet.net...

How many times have you seen Bush and Cheney together in the same place? If
they have a story they want to tell about the campaign process and the
transfer of power, it could be a legitimate choice to not be forced to tell
a different story (what happens when the VP candidate dies) instead.

Not that I really believe they have a plan. But they could.

There have been several episodes this season where Spencer didn't appear, or
was peripheral. That didn't mean Leo was dead. And nobody thought he'd
wandered off, either.

The character isn't dead until the writers kill him.

RichC


David Johnston

unread,
Dec 17, 2005, 9:05:38 PM12/17/05
to
On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 19:12:03 -0500, "Rich Clark"
<rdclar...@TRAPcomcast.net> wrote:

>
>"David Johnston" <rgo...@block.net> wrote in message
>news:43a44ac5...@news.telusplanet.net...
>> On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 18:30:55 -0500, "Rich Clark"
>> <rdclar...@TRAPcomcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"EGTea" <EG...@spamless.com> wrote in message
>>>news:InYof.37361$6e....@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
>>>
>>>> This time it's different. Leo McGarry is dead because John Spencer
>>>> isn't
>>>> alive to play him. Both men will be missed.
>>>
>>>That remains to be seen. Not all unseen characters are automatically dead.
>>
>> Yes, the running mate can just wander off and nobody will notice.
>
>How many times have you seen Bush and Cheney together in the same place? If
>they have a story they want to tell about the campaign process and the
>transfer of power, it could be a legitimate choice to not be forced to tell
>a different story (what happens when the VP candidate dies) instead.
>
>Not that I really believe they have a plan. But they could.

They could except for two episodes, the election and the inauguration.


ANIM8Rfsk

unread,
Dec 17, 2005, 10:10:34 PM12/17/05
to
in article Qbydnevo7Jf...@comcast.com, Rich Clark at
rdclar...@TRAPcomcast.net wrote on 12/17/05 5:12 PM:

Of course, the last episode they showed was all about how Leo was gonna take
over the campaign. I'm not sure how many they have in the can, but it would
be even harder to write him out given his new position.

>
> RichC
>
>

--

You Can't Stop the Signal
SERENITY on DVD December 20th
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000BW7QWW


Ryan Robbins

unread,
Dec 18, 2005, 1:53:10 AM12/18/05
to
"ANIM8Rfsk" <ANIM...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:BFCA213A.614E7%ANIM...@cox.net...

> Of course, the last episode they showed was all about how Leo was gonna
> take
> over the campaign. I'm not sure how many they have in the can, but it
> would
> be even harder to write him out given his new position.

New position? Josh is still campaign manager. Leo declined to replace him
and went on to tell Santos that Josh had taken Santos as far as he could and
it would be up to Santos to reach voters in the final six weeks before
Election Day.


The Watch Dog

unread,
Dec 18, 2005, 4:03:20 AM12/18/05
to

ANIM8Rfsk wrote:
>
> Of course, the last episode they showed was all about how Leo was gonna take
> over the campaign. I'm not sure how many they have in the can, but it would
> be even harder to write him out given his new position.

Actually, they showed him refusing to take over the campaign.

And not matter what his position, it would be very easy to write the
character out of the show: he dies. Art imitates life. I think it would
be very interesting to see how the show deals with the death of the VP
candidate only a few weeks before the election.

I'm a big fan of Spencer's, and I was very sorry to hear the news. I
think he was a fantastic actor who brought a lot of complexity and
depth to his characters. Barlett once said of McGarry, "He has a face
like a map of the world." It was a great description of John Spencer.

David Johnston

unread,
Dec 18, 2005, 4:30:03 AM12/18/05
to
On 18 Dec 2005 01:03:20 -0800, "The Watch Dog" <tir...@aol.com>
wrote:

>
>ANIM8Rfsk wrote:
>>
>> Of course, the last episode they showed was all about how Leo was gonna take
>> over the campaign. I'm not sure how many they have in the can, but it would
>> be even harder to write him out given his new position.
>
>Actually, they showed him refusing to take over the campaign.
>
>And not matter what his position, it would be very easy to write the
>character out of the show: he dies.

Yes but there's a minority who are offended by the idea that the
character can die when the actor dies.

Pat Farrell

unread,
Dec 18, 2005, 9:19:42 AM12/18/05
to
Ryan Robbins wrote:

Right, Leo the wise told Matt that it was too late for
any of the staffers to matter. It is Matt that matters.
Time to step up.


--
Pat


bkl...@yahoo.com

unread,
Dec 18, 2005, 1:34:04 PM12/18/05
to


Did you mean CAN die or CAN'T? I think more people would be offended by
carrying on a charactor after an actor's demise. I'm sure they don't
have that many episodes left to film, that they could make references
to Leo campaigning in another state and have it believeable.

But killing McGarry off would bring a lot of drama to the last few
episodes.

David Johnston

unread,
Dec 18, 2005, 2:55:37 PM12/18/05
to
On 18 Dec 2005 10:34:04 -0800, "bkl...@yahoo.com" <bkl...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>
>David Johnston wrote:
>> On 18 Dec 2005 01:03:20 -0800, "The Watch Dog" <tir...@aol.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >ANIM8Rfsk wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Of course, the last episode they showed was all about how Leo was gonna take
>> >> over the campaign. I'm not sure how many they have in the can, but it would
>> >> be even harder to write him out given his new position.
>> >
>> >Actually, they showed him refusing to take over the campaign.
>> >
>> >And not matter what his position, it would be very easy to write the
>> >character out of the show: he dies.
>>
>> Yes but there's a minority who are offended by the idea that the
>> character can die when the actor dies.
>
>
>Did you mean CAN die or CAN'T?

I mean can die. Same thing happened with Ritter.

tan...@bellsouth.net

unread,
Dec 18, 2005, 4:12:25 PM12/18/05
to
>>> Yes but there's a minority who are offended by the idea that the
>>> character can die when the actor dies.
>>
>>
>>Did you mean CAN die or CAN'T?
>
> I mean can die. Same thing happened with Ritter.

and don't forget Will Geer (Grandpa Walton) they wrote him out as dying
after the actor died in real life.
I'm not offended in the least.....death happens...to me, recasting the role
after a death makes me feel the writers or PTB think the viewers stupid that
we wouldn't "notice" a change of acting style, etc.

Cyn


********************************************
"Even the smallest person can change the course of the future."
- Galadriel, The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring


bkl...@yahoo.com

unread,
Dec 18, 2005, 4:30:23 PM12/18/05
to

tan...@bellsouth.net wrote:
> >>> Yes but there's a minority who are offended by the idea that the
> >>> character can die when the actor dies.
> >>
> >>
> >>Did you mean CAN die or CAN'T?
> >
> > I mean can die. Same thing happened with Ritter.
>
> and don't forget Will Geer (Grandpa Walton) they wrote him out as dying
> after the actor died in real life.
> I'm not offended in the least.....death happens...to me, recasting the role
> after a death makes me feel the writers or PTB think the viewers stupid that
> we wouldn't "notice" a change of acting style, etc.


And this seems more offensive to the actor, in my mind, as though the
actor brought so little to the role that anyone could do it. Dallas
found that wasn't the case when they re-cast Miss Ellie. Even as played
by the beloved Donna Reed fans just missed Barbara Bel Geddes all the
more.

Not that either way to go is an especially BIG deal.

ANIM8Rfsk

unread,
Dec 18, 2005, 5:54:06 PM12/18/05
to
in article qekpf.13014$kP5....@bignews5.bellsouth.net,
tan...@bellsouth.net at tan...@bellsouth.net wrote on 12/18/05 2:12 PM:

>>>> Yes but there's a minority who are offended by the idea that the
>>>> character can die when the actor dies.
>>>
>>>
>>> Did you mean CAN die or CAN'T?
>>
>> I mean can die. Same thing happened with Ritter.
>
> and don't forget Will Geer (Grandpa Walton) they wrote him out as dying
> after the actor died in real life.
> I'm not offended in the least.....death happens...to me, recasting the role
> after a death makes me feel the writers or PTB think the viewers stupid that
> we wouldn't "notice" a change of acting style, etc.

That depends entirely on the role. For instance, you pretty much have to
recast Darren on Bewitched, or the series premise is out the window
(although some would argue that would have been better than what did happen
there).

Or John-Boy -- you couldn't kill off JB, since the whole series is a
flashback told by him as an old man.

In the case of Leo, the big question is, have the future flashback episodes
told us he's still alive?

Clell Harmon

unread,
Dec 18, 2005, 8:05:50 PM12/18/05
to
On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 16:12:25 -0500, <tan...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>>>> Yes but there's a minority who are offended by the idea that the
>>>> character can die when the actor dies.
>>>
>>>
>>>Did you mean CAN die or CAN'T?
>>
>> I mean can die. Same thing happened with Ritter.
>
>and don't forget Will Geer (Grandpa Walton) they wrote him out as dying
>after the actor died in real life.
>I'm not offended in the least.....death happens...to me, recasting the role
>after a death makes me feel the writers or PTB think the viewers stupid that
>we wouldn't "notice" a change of acting style, etc.

They could do it, TV's done it before...

>
>Cyn
>
>
>********************************************
>"Even the smallest person can change the course of the future."
>- Galadriel, The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring
>

--
Fudd's First Law of Opposition: If you push something hard enough, it will fall over.

Rob Jensen

unread,
Dec 19, 2005, 3:27:51 AM12/19/05
to
On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 15:54:06 -0700, ANIM8Rfsk <ANIM...@cox.net>
wrote:

>> I'm not offended in the least.....death happens...to me, recasting the role
>> after a death makes me feel the writers or PTB think the viewers stupid that
>> we wouldn't "notice" a change of acting style, etc.
>
>That depends entirely on the role. For instance, you pretty much have to
>recast Darren on Bewitched, or the series premise is out the window
>(although some would argue that would have been better than what did happen
>there).

In Bewitched's defense, the somewhat surrealistic nature of the show
actually supported recasting any part except Samantha and Endora at
will without explanation. Moreover, by the time the Darren switch had
happened, they'd already recast Mrs. Kravitz, so it's not like the
precedent hadn't already been set in that series. Charmed would
probably also be able to get away with such recasting with nary a
twitch of the nose, too.

But I think the people who are quite misguidedly suggesting that
Spencer could be recast are forgetting is that prime time shows are
held to a *much* more IMO rigorous standard by both the makers of the
show and by the audiences than soap operas are regarding recasting. In
prime-time, particularly in the one-hour dramas, where the mode is far
more realistic (even in the one-hour dramedies) than either sitcoms
(which, Bewitched notwithstanding, also don't weather recasting well)
or soap operas (which have turned recasting into near-science), for
all intents and purposes, the character *is* that actor -- audiences
invest in that character being played by that actor. Recasting will
jerk the audience out of the show, so it's just *not* ever done in any
show done in a realistic mode after the first episode has aired. I
say that in the sense that it's a rule of thumb, (a very strong
thumb), not absolute fact.

But even in soap operas, they can only go so far with the recasting --
recasting iconic characters and/or iconic actors is pretty much
verboten. Why, for instance, DOOL ever thought it was wise to recast
either Bo or Hope even at the time confounded a lot of the people I
know that have followed that soap for decades. Conversely, Roman
Brady has been recast so many times and for so many stupid in-story
and out-story reasons that he's pretty much meaningless as a
character.

IMO, the solution for TWW is simple: have Leo pass away with Spencer
(that part is IMO a given) and reshoot and/or recontextualize the
season premiere's flash-forward (maybe even as a dream sequence) for
the repeats and the DVDs to account for his passing. Spencer's Leo is
a *huge* part of the show and just writing around him, as if Leo is
simply never in the room, would insult the viewers' intelligence. IMO,
Fans and other viewers of the show are going to understand and,
moreover, embrace a graceful in-story acknowledgment of his passing,
even if they have to change something in an already-aired episode to
make it work artfully.

-- Rob
--
LORELAI: In the movie, only boy hobbits travel to Mount
Doom, but that's only because the girls went to do something
even more dangerous.
GIRL: What?
LORELAI: Have you ever heard of a Brazilian Bikini Wax?

Larc

unread,
Dec 19, 2005, 1:00:14 PM12/19/05
to
On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 02:27:51 -0600, Rob Jensen <Shut...@aol.com> wrote:

| IMO, the solution for TWW is simple: have Leo pass away with Spencer
| (that part is IMO a given) and reshoot and/or recontextualize the
| season premiere's flash-forward (maybe even as a dream sequence) for
| the repeats and the DVDs to account for his passing. Spencer's Leo is
| a *huge* part of the show and just writing around him, as if Leo is
| simply never in the room, would insult the viewers' intelligence. IMO,
| Fans and other viewers of the show are going to understand and,
| moreover, embrace a graceful in-story acknowledgment of his passing,
| even if they have to change something in an already-aired episode to
| make it work artfully.

With five unaired episodes of TWW supposedly "in the can," we can probably
expect to see more of Leo. I doubt producers would be willing to junk complete
episodes and go to the expense of making new ones for a series that is already
suffering in the ratings. Of course, some judicious editing may be possible
along with a few new scenes being shot to fill in here and there. But if Leo
has a lot of front and center time in those existing episodes, it would be very
hard — and probably too expensive — to show any major change in his status
before those episodes have been aired.

One upcoming episode definitely shows a lot of Leo since it will evidently
involve the debate between candidates for vice president. I guess there would
be some TWW staffers about ready to join John if they had planned to do that
episode "live" as they did the presidential candidates debate.

Larc

§§§ - Change planet to earth to reply by email - §§§

bkl...@yahoo.com

unread,
Dec 19, 2005, 1:09:28 PM12/19/05
to

Larc wrote:
> With five unaired episodes of TWW supposedly "in the can," we can probably
> expect to see more of Leo. I doubt producers would be willing to junk complete
> episodes and go to the expense of making new ones for a series that is already
> suffering in the ratings. Of course, some judicious editing may be possible
> along with a few new scenes being shot to fill in here and there. But if Leo
> has a lot of front and center time in those existing episodes, it would be very
> hard - and probably too expensive - to show any major change in his status

> before those episodes have been aired.

I doubt they'd junk the episode either. It seems kind of sad anyway,
what actor would want his scenes cut after his death? Isn't the point
of pursuing fame the idea of "living forever?"

The easiest solution would be to have art imitate life and have Leo
suffer a fatal heart attack also. It's already set up he has a heart
condition. It would add some amazing drama to the storylline as well,
watching Josh & Santos scramble to keep it together at the last minute.

Rob Jensen

unread,
Dec 19, 2005, 6:43:20 PM12/19/05
to
On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 18:00:14 GMT, Larc <larc...@jupiterlink.net>
wrote:

Dude, of *course* they aren't going to junk five full episodes -- IMO,
all they have to do is either reshoot or recontextualize the season
premiere's flash-forward, plus a scene or two here or there that may
need to be tweaked, then let Leo pass away be the main subject of the
next episode to be shot and finally let the various lead characters
coping with Leo's passing be one of the recurring themes of the
remainder of the episodes.

They can still air all the episodes in the can, including the upcoming
Leo-centric VP-debate storyline and *still* have Leo pass away before
the election. Leo's previous heart attack allows them to do so
relatively seamlessly (other than whatever issues the flash-forward
might have brought up, which is a simple one-scene reshoot or redub).
Having Leo pass away will be IMO the best kind of "Hanging a Lantern"
on the situation for the show and for the viewers.

_- Rob

Brett A. Pasternack

unread,
Dec 19, 2005, 8:47:54 PM12/19/05
to

You don't mean can die. You mean MUST die.

Brett A. Pasternack

unread,
Dec 19, 2005, 8:51:14 PM12/19/05
to
tan...@bellsouth.net wrote:
>>>>Yes but there's a minority who are offended by the idea that the
>>>>character can die when the actor dies.
>>>
>>>
>>>Did you mean CAN die or CAN'T?
>>
>>I mean can die. Same thing happened with Ritter.
>
>
> and don't forget Will Geer (Grandpa Walton) they wrote him out as dying
> after the actor died in real life.
> I'm not offended in the least.....death happens...to me, recasting the role
> after a death makes me feel the writers or PTB think the viewers stupid that
> we wouldn't "notice" a change of acting style, etc.

I don't think recasting is an option. But depending on how much of the
season has been filmed and where the storylines are going, it may be
entirely possible to conclude the season with the character of Leo kept
off-screen. And there seems to be a very good chance that concluding
this season would amount to concluding the series.

Of course, there's really one person who should make the decision of how
to deal with the situation. "Aaron will know what to do." I was already
hoping he could be persuaded to write the series finale; now, even more so.

Scott Stevenson

unread,
Dec 19, 2005, 9:30:51 PM12/19/05
to
On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 20:51:14 -0500, "Brett A. Pasternack"
<bret...@erols.com> wrote:

>tan...@bellsouth.net wrote:
>>>>>Yes but there's a minority who are offended by the idea that the
>>>>>character can die when the actor dies.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Did you mean CAN die or CAN'T?
>>>
>>>I mean can die. Same thing happened with Ritter.
>>
>>
>> and don't forget Will Geer (Grandpa Walton) they wrote him out as dying
>> after the actor died in real life.
>> I'm not offended in the least.....death happens...to me, recasting the role
>> after a death makes me feel the writers or PTB think the viewers stupid that
>> we wouldn't "notice" a change of acting style, etc.
>
>I don't think recasting is an option. But depending on how much of the
>season has been filmed and where the storylines are going, it may be
>entirely possible to conclude the season with the character of Leo kept
>off-screen. And there seems to be a very good chance that concluding
>this season would amount to concluding the series.

If they wanted to keep the character alive, there would be a way to
do it and explain why he's not at functions he normally would attend.


At some point during the campaign, we hear that Leo has done a Jerry
Ford going down the steps from the campaign plane. He suffers a
broken leg, which requires surgery. Given Leo's fairly precarious
health, this might require quite a long recuperation away from the
campaign. This leaves us with a live Leo, who physically can't be
places he would be expected to be (for example, don't candidates and
their VP's to be often make a joint appearance on election night?)

I'm not saying that's what I want to happen--I'm just saying that
would be one possible way to keep the character alive, and plausibly
explain why he's not out on the hustings.

>Of course, there's really one person who should make the decision of how
>to deal with the situation. "Aaron will know what to do." I was already
>hoping he could be persuaded to write the series finale; now, even more so.

Agreed.

take car,e
Scott

ANIM8Rfsk

unread,
Dec 19, 2005, 9:33:06 PM12/19/05
to
in article dtadnacPbMI...@rcn.net, Brett A. Pasternack at
bret...@erols.com wrote on 12/19/05 6:51 PM:

They said on the news tonight that Leo was SHOWN in the '3 years into the
future' episode. I don't recall that, but if he was, they're sorta stuck.

--

You Can't Stop the Signal

SERENITY on DVD TOMORROW!!
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B000BW7QWW/tvshowsondvdcom


Tess Millay

unread,
Dec 19, 2005, 9:50:26 PM12/19/05
to
"ANIM8Rfsk" <ANIM...@cox.net> wrote

> They said on the news tonight that Leo was SHOWN in the '3
years into the
> future' episode. I don't recall that, but if he was,
they're sorta stuck.

Nah. Three years hence that could be Leo's brother, or
cousin, or even a nephew. These are TWW writers, after all,
who just "Mandy" out any ol' notion that seems objectionable
and won't be missed too much.

I mean, these guys don't even care about the number of
troops in a battalion, which evidently is a real crisis to
many viewers. So you think they give a fig about Leo coming
back from the dead?

I know: That man three years hence is Leo's love child, now
all grown up, from his tour of duty in Vietnam.

These people offed the most evil character in "ER" by
dropping a helicopter on him. We've had a record number of
murders, attempted murders, and kidnappings in Bartlet's
eight years as President. Come on now... Anything goes.


David Johnston

unread,
Dec 19, 2005, 10:33:18 PM12/19/05
to
On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 20:47:54 -0500, "Brett A. Pasternack"
<bret...@erols.com> wrote:


>>>Did you mean CAN die or CAN'T?
>>
>>
>> I mean can die. Same thing happened with Ritter.
>
>You don't mean can die. You mean MUST die.

If you're going to get it wrong, don't tell me what I mean.

Patty Winter

unread,
Dec 19, 2005, 10:46:52 PM12/19/05
to
In article <dtadnacPbMI...@rcn.net>,

Brett A. Pasternack <bret...@erols.com> wrote:
>
>I don't think recasting is an option. But depending on how much of the
>season has been filmed and where the storylines are going, it may be
>entirely possible to conclude the season with the character of Leo kept
>off-screen.

Possible, perhaps, but personally, I think it would be disrespectful.

>Of course, there's really one person who should make the decision of how
>to deal with the situation. "Aaron will know what to do."

I had the exact same thought a couple of days ago. I hope the show's
current producers are thinking the same thing.


Patty

--
========= pa...@wintertime.com ===== N6BIS ===== Sunnyvale, Calif. ========
"Too expensive for the Army?" "I don't think they ever tried to
market it to the billionaire base-jumping, spelunking market."
===========================================================================

Rob Jensen

unread,
Dec 20, 2005, 3:12:18 AM12/20/05
to
On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 19:33:06 -0700, ANIM8Rfsk <ANIM...@cox.net>
wrote:

>They said on the news tonight that Leo was SHOWN in the '3 years into the


>future' episode. I don't recall that, but if he was, they're sorta stuck.

Not if they reshoot the scene to account for his passing or
recontextualize it with a new voiceover to make it a dream sequence.

Seinfeld did quite a bit of redubbing and even a bit of reshooting for
the syndication package, particularly (but not only) in regards to
replacing with Wayne Knight's voice the offstage v/o's of Newman that
were shot using some other actor's voice before Knight was cast in the
role.

-- Rob

Rob Jensen

unread,
Dec 20, 2005, 3:12:18 AM12/20/05
to
On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 02:30:51 GMT, almostf...@UCKSAY.comcast.net
(Scott Stevenson) wrote:

> If they wanted to keep the character alive, there would be a way to
>do it and explain why he's not at functions he normally would attend.

Theoretically, yes. But in reality, this is known as talking around
the 800 lb. elephant in the middle of the room -- it's avoiding the
issue, not embracing it. It's the exact antithesis of "hanging a
lantern on it."

Anthony Cerrato

unread,
Dec 20, 2005, 5:39:39 AM12/20/05
to

"Rob Jensen" <Shut...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:t1heq1dr24mrfe8vk...@4ax.com...
> >hard - and probably too expensive - to show any major


Yes, they should absolutely air all the eps in the can--I'm
sure if they consult with Spencer's family they would
agree...they would want his last performances to be seen as
would Spencer I'm sure. The next ep would have him die
suddenly off-stage with the attendant shock and grief his
friends know in real life. The ensuing eps would be riveting
and fascinating since this situation has, to my knowledge,
has never occurred in real life. I for one will be glad to
see WW continue on in memory of John's life and will be
watching all future eps. May John RIP! ...tonyC

Rich

unread,
Dec 20, 2005, 9:25:41 PM12/20/05
to
On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 03:33:18 GMT, rgo...@block.net (David Johnston)
wrote:

Santos had Spencer offed in real-life because he wants the sympathy
votes. Apparently, they are going to hold some kind of "real"
election for this and it really is him against Alda. Who do you
suppose would win if that is the case? :) Smits doesn't want to
lose the tv job!

Brett A. Pasternack

unread,
Dec 20, 2005, 11:30:40 PM12/20/05
to

I apologize for thinking that you understood what you were talking about.

If you meant "can die", you didn't. No one on the thread said that they
couldn't have Leo die, just that they had the option of doing otherwise.

Brett A. Pasternack

unread,
Dec 20, 2005, 11:31:23 PM12/20/05
to
Patty Winter wrote:
> In article <dtadnacPbMI...@rcn.net>,
> Brett A. Pasternack <bret...@erols.com> wrote:
>
>>I don't think recasting is an option. But depending on how much of the
>>season has been filmed and where the storylines are going, it may be
>>entirely possible to conclude the season with the character of Leo kept
>>off-screen.
>
>
> Possible, perhaps, but personally, I think it would be disrespectful.

Why?

Brett A. Pasternack

unread,
Dec 20, 2005, 11:32:08 PM12/20/05
to
ANIM8Rfsk wrote:
> in article dtadnacPbMI...@rcn.net, Brett A. Pasternack at
> bret...@erols.com wrote on 12/19/05 6:51 PM:

>>Of course, there's really one person who should make the decision of how


>>to deal with the situation. "Aaron will know what to do." I was already
>>hoping he could be persuaded to write the series finale; now, even more so.
>
>
> They said on the news tonight that Leo was SHOWN in the '3 years into the
> future' episode. I don't recall that, but if he was, they're sorta stuck.

There's a wire servive story that says this, but it's incorrect. He
wasn't in the scene.

Scott Stevenson

unread,
Dec 20, 2005, 11:48:43 PM12/20/05
to
On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 02:12:18 -0600, Rob Jensen <Shut...@aol.com>
wrote:

>On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 02:30:51 GMT, almostf...@UCKSAY.comcast.net


>(Scott Stevenson) wrote:
>
>> If they wanted to keep the character alive, there would be a way to
>>do it and explain why he's not at functions he normally would attend.
>
>Theoretically, yes. But in reality, this is known as talking around
>the 800 lb. elephant in the middle of the room -- it's avoiding the
>issue, not embracing it. It's the exact antithesis of "hanging a
>lantern on it."

Agreed, and remember that I said it wasn't what I would hope for,
but it is a theoretical possibility. Personally, I think they should
let the character pass away, just like the actor.

take care,
Scott

ANIM8Rfsk

unread,
Dec 21, 2005, 12:24:06 AM12/21/05
to
in article L-SdnctT54pbRzXe...@rcn.net, Brett A. Pasternack at
bret...@erols.com wrote on 12/20/05 9:32 PM:

Okay. I didn't recall him, and couldn't figure out HOW we'd see him without
it giving away who won. But did they mention him? Anything like "I talked
to Leo earlier"?

--

You Can't Stop the Signal

SERENITY on DVD TODAY!!
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B000BW7QWW/tvshowsondvdcom


David Johnston

unread,
Dec 21, 2005, 12:51:43 AM12/21/05
to
On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 23:30:40 -0500, "Brett A. Pasternack"
<bret...@erols.com> wrote:

>
>If you meant "can die", you didn't. No one on the thread said that they
>couldn't have Leo die,

I wasn't talking about this thread in particular. But people have
popped up objecting to the idea of killing Leo because that would be
"profitting from Spencer's death".

David M. Nieporent

unread,
Dec 21, 2005, 1:06:42 AM12/21/05
to
In article <43a89505...@news.telusplanet.net>,

Not "people," so much as TZ.

David Johnston

unread,
Dec 21, 2005, 1:07:19 AM12/21/05
to
On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 22:24:06 -0700, ANIM8Rfsk <ANIM...@cox.net>
wrote:

>>> They said on the news tonight that Leo was SHOWN in the '3 years into the


>>> future' episode. I don't recall that, but if he was, they're sorta stuck.
>>
>> There's a wire servive story that says this, but it's incorrect. He
>> wasn't in the scene.
>
>Okay. I didn't recall him, and couldn't figure out HOW we'd see him without
>it giving away who won. But did they mention him? Anything like "I talked
>to Leo earlier"?

No, nothing like that. Leo was neither shown nor mentioned in any
way. The problematic bit was the "retrospective" which showed Leo
being interviewed. Then again, that's the same one that said CJ Craig
served two full terms as press secretary so I blame hypertime.

Tess Millay

unread,
Dec 21, 2005, 1:12:10 AM12/21/05
to
"David M. Nieporent" <niep...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote

> rgo...@block.net (David Johnston) wrote:
> >"Brett A. Pasternack" <bret...@erols.com> wrote:
>
> >>If you meant "can die", you didn't. No one on the thread
said that they
> >>couldn't have Leo die,
>
> >I wasn't talking about this thread in particular. But
people have
> >popped up objecting to the idea of killing Leo because
that would be
> >"profitting from Spencer's death".
>
> Not "people," so much as TZ.

That makes you feel big, doesn't it, DaMN?

Good lord you are an embarrassment to the law, your parents,
your alma mater...


Rob Jensen

unread,
Dec 21, 2005, 1:14:54 AM12/21/05
to
On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 23:31:23 -0500, "Brett A. Pasternack"
<bret...@erols.com> wrote:

>Patty Winter wrote:
>> In article <dtadnacPbMI...@rcn.net>,
>> Brett A. Pasternack <bret...@erols.com> wrote:
>>
>>>I don't think recasting is an option. But depending on how much of the
>>>season has been filmed and where the storylines are going, it may be
>>>entirely possible to conclude the season with the character of Leo kept
>>>off-screen.
>>
>>
>> Possible, perhaps, but personally, I think it would be disrespectful.
>
>Why?

Because of all the characters on the show, Leo and Josh are the two
most important ones to the meaning of it. Therefore, simply ignoring
the character would be disrespectful to both the actor and the
audience that's invested a lot in the character and want to say a
proper goodbye to both the actor and the character within the context
of the show's story itself.

Ultimately, ignoring Leo/writing around Spencer's passing is thwarted
catharsis/closure.

-- Rob

Rob Jensen

unread,
Dec 21, 2005, 1:14:54 AM12/21/05
to

In theory, yes, they do, but in practice, no, they don't.

Tess Millay

unread,
Dec 21, 2005, 1:18:40 AM12/21/05
to
"Rob Jensen" <Shut...@aol.com> wrote

> <bret...@erols.com> wrote:
> >Patty Winter wrote:
> >> Brett A. Pasternack <bret...@erols.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>I don't think recasting is an option. But depending on
how much of the
> >>>season has been filmed and where the storylines are
going, it may be
> >>>entirely possible to conclude the season with the
character of Leo kept
> >>>off-screen.
> >>
> >>
> >> Possible, perhaps, but personally, I think it would be
disrespectful.
> >
> >Why?
>
> Because of all the characters on the show, Leo and Josh
are the two
> most important ones to the meaning of it. Therefore,
simply ignoring
> the character would be disrespectful to both the actor and
the
> audience that's invested a lot in the character and want
to say a
> proper goodbye to both the actor and the character within
the context
> of the show's story itself.

Short of some kind of poll, you have no proof whatsoever of
exactly what way "the audience" wishes to say "a proper
goodbye" to Mr. Spencer or the fictional Leo. Some people
simply object to exploiting a person's death, regardless of
who has passed.

Don't use "therefore." It implies a logical thought.

> Ultimately, ignoring Leo/writing around Spencer's passing
is thwarted
> catharsis/closure.

Speak for yourself.


Clell Harmon

unread,
Dec 21, 2005, 4:01:09 AM12/21/05
to
On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 06:07:19 GMT, rgo...@block.net (David Johnston)
wrote:

>On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 22:24:06 -0700, ANIM8Rfsk <ANIM...@cox.net>

Wasn't that 'interview' supposed to have taken place during
the Bartlett administration, but held for broadcast until after the
security concerns were past?

--
Fudd's First Law of Opposition: If you push something hard enough, it will fall over.

Clell Harmon

unread,
Dec 21, 2005, 4:02:56 AM12/21/05
to

Still sniping from behind your kill filters Elle? You
pathetic softball cheat you...

Rob Jensen

unread,
Dec 21, 2005, 10:01:53 AM12/21/05
to
On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 06:18:40 GMT, "Tess Millay"
<elle_n...@earthlink.net> wrote:

>Short of some kind of poll, you have no proof whatsoever of
>exactly what way "the audience" wishes to say "a proper
>goodbye" to Mr. Spencer or the fictional Leo. Some people
>simply object to exploiting a person's death, regardless of
>who has passed.
>
>Don't use "therefore." It implies a logical thought.

I use "therefore" whenever and however I damn well please. FTR, I am a
stage manager and dramaturg -- and have the degree to prove it -- so I
am, in fact, qualified to evaluate how audiences generally wish to
regard the passing of an actor. If you think that it is not logical,
then you are, in fact, not logical. And a jerk. FOAD.

Tess Millay

unread,
Dec 21, 2005, 11:09:06 AM12/21/05
to
"Rob Jensen" <Shut...@aol.com> wrote

> On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 06:18:40 GMT, "Tess Millay"
> <elle_n...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >Short of some kind of poll, you have no proof whatsoever
of
> >exactly what way "the audience" wishes to say "a proper
> >goodbye" to Mr. Spencer or the fictional Leo. Some people
> >simply object to exploiting a person's death, regardless
of
> >who has passed.
> >
> >Don't use "therefore." It implies a logical thought.
>
> I use "therefore" whenever and however I damn well please.

Uh huh.

> FTR, I am a
> stage manager and dramaturg -- and have the degree to
prove it -- so I
> am, in fact, qualified

Nope. More bad logic.

You get /a/ vote. period.


Clell Harmon

unread,
Dec 21, 2005, 3:11:18 PM12/21/05
to
On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 16:09:06 GMT, "Tess Millay"
<elle_n...@earthlink.net> wrote:

You know Elle, for a chain smoking blob in a muu-muu who
cheats at softball, you sure are a judgmental prig.

Transition Zone

unread,
Dec 21, 2005, 5:14:01 PM12/21/05
to

Tess Millay wrote:
> "David M. Nieporent" <niep...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote
> > rgo...@block.net (David Johnston) wrote:
> > >"Brett A. Pasternack" <bret...@erols.com> wrote:
> >
> > >>If you meant "can die", you didn't. No one on the thread
> said that they
> > >>couldn't have Leo die,
> >
> > >I wasn't talking about this thread in particular. But
> people have
> > >popped up objecting to the idea of killing Leo because
> that would be
> > >"profitting from Spencer's death".
> >
> > Not "people," so much as TZ.
>
> That makes you feel big, doesn't it, DaMN?

Why a NJ lawyer would be taking middle-school-aged snippets at someone
he's never met or been professionally affected by before, is somewhat
odd.

(but then I'm not privvy to NJ bar associations or their connections)

> Good lord you are an embarrassment to the law, your parents,
> your alma mater...

By now, we can all be sure that that's his goal.

(self-defacing)

Tess Millay

unread,
Dec 21, 2005, 7:58:17 PM12/21/05
to
"Transition Zone" <mog...@hotmail.com> wrote
> Tess Millay wrote:
DaMN blithered:

> > > Not "people," so much as TZ.
> >
> > That makes you feel big, doesn't it, DaMN?
>
> Why a NJ lawyer would be taking middle-school-aged
snippets at someone
> he's never met or been professionally affected by before,
is somewhat
> odd.

You're too nice. It's pathological.

What I like most is that he is helping humiliate every other
lawyer on the planet with his rants and harassment.

> (but then I'm not privvy to NJ bar associations or their
connections)
>
> > Good lord you are an embarrassment to the law, your
parents,
> > your alma mater...
>
> By now, we can all be sure that that's his goal.

lol


Hunter Rose

unread,
Dec 21, 2005, 7:43:30 PM12/21/05
to
On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 06:07:19 GMT, rgo...@block.net (David Johnston)
wrote:

> No, nothing like that. Leo was neither shown nor mentioned in any

> way. The problematic bit was the "retrospective" which showed Leo
> being interviewed. Then again, that's the same one that said CJ
> Craig served two full terms as press secretary so I blame hypertime.

Naw, you can blame that one sloppy research by a lazy press.
<g>

(Or maybe CJ will screw up so bad she'll be fired from the COS
job and resume her duties as press secretary...)

HR


Brett A. Pasternack

unread,
Dec 23, 2005, 5:53:25 PM12/23/05
to
Transition Zone wrote:
> Tess Millay wrote:
>
>>"David M. Nieporent" <niep...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote
>>
>>> rgo...@block.net (David Johnston) wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Brett A. Pasternack" <bret...@erols.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>If you meant "can die", you didn't. No one on the thread
>>
>>said that they
>>
>>>>>couldn't have Leo die,
>>>
>>>>I wasn't talking about this thread in particular. But
>>
>>people have
>>
>>>>popped up objecting to the idea of killing Leo because
>>
>>that would be
>>
>>>>"profitting from Spencer's death".
>>>
>>>Not "people," so much as TZ.
>>
>>That makes you feel big, doesn't it, DaMN?
>
>
> Why a NJ lawyer would be taking middle-school-aged snippets at someone
> he's never met or been professionally affected by before, is somewhat
> odd.

You think it's a snipe that he doesn't think that what you say is what
"people" say?

How many people do you think you are, exactly?

Message has been deleted

Transition Zone

unread,
Dec 25, 2005, 9:59:18 AM12/25/05
to
Tess Millay wrote:
>"Transition Zone" <mogu...@hotmail.com> wrote

>> Tess Millay wrote:
>DaMN blithered:
>> > > Not "people," so much as TZ.

> > > That makes you feel big, doesn't it, DaMN?

>>Why a NJ lawyer would be taking middle-school-aged
>snippets at someone
>>he's never met or been professionally affected by before,
>is somewhat
>> odd.

>You're too nice.

Oh Tess, I know.

I'm too proper. I just sit back all my life and just "hope" and "wait"
for things to just "happen", I guess. I'm too overly mannerly, too
caring for everyone and I've just been way, way too friendly and too
"giving" all my life. I've never been rash and I never take any bold
initiative to really go out and really do anything. I'm just not enough
of a "bad boy". That's why I always sleep alone. Its totally hopeless.
I'm just too nice.

Nice folk never go anywhere. Tell your sons never, ever to always be
nice. Always tell them to run at top speed with the pack of wolves,
because that's the only thing that's gonna do it, lady.

(Mr Nice Guy just won't cut it)

Brett A. Pasternack

unread,
Dec 26, 2005, 4:01:03 AM12/26/05
to
Transition Zone wrote:
> Tess Millay wrote:

>>You're too nice.
>
>
> Oh Tess, I know.
>
> I'm too proper. I just sit back all my life and just "hope" and "wait"
> for things to just "happen", I guess. I'm too overly mannerly, too
> caring for everyone and I've just been way, way too friendly and too
> "giving" all my life. I've never been rash and I never take any bold
> initiative to really go out and really do anything. I'm just not enough
> of a "bad boy". That's why I always sleep alone. Its totally hopeless.
> I'm just too nice.
>
> Nice folk never go anywhere. Tell your sons never, ever to always be
> nice. Always tell them to run at top speed with the pack of wolves,
> because that's the only thing that's gonna do it, lady.
>
> (Mr Nice Guy just won't cut it)

TZ, two years ago, I would have agreed with everything you said. (Heck,
I said some pretty similar things in a thread here, the one that led to
Toniann's "recommendation" letter.)

Little did I know that a couple of months later, I'd offer an online
flirt at post from someone named Dawnie, and that she'd already been
reading my posts here and been impressed, and that she would turn out to
be my dream come true.

I slept alone way too much before that, but in the end, this nice guy
finished first. Don't give up.

Transition Zone

unread,
Dec 26, 2005, 7:47:42 AM12/26/05
to

Thanks. Although, I must admit (for what its worth) that before I wrote
the above, I did have a few drinks.

Transition Zone

unread,
Dec 26, 2005, 7:57:16 AM12/26/05
to

Can you read minds ?? How do you know I thought that ??

This lawyer calls people names. That's taking middle-school-aged
snippets at people.

> How many people do you think you are, exactly?

One, I guess. How many did you think I was ??

Tess Millay

unread,
Dec 26, 2005, 11:08:01 AM12/26/05
to
"Transition Zone" <mog...@hotmail.com> wrote

This is why I killfile Brett: Guy rarely has anything to say
that logically follows or is meaningful.

Transition Zone

unread,
Dec 26, 2005, 1:21:32 PM12/26/05
to

Haha, well. I try to struggle through everything. Thanks.

David Johnston

unread,
Dec 26, 2005, 5:14:33 PM12/26/05
to
On 26 Dec 2005 04:57:16 -0800, "Transition Zone" <mog...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>
>Can you read minds ?? How do you know I thought that ??
>
>This lawyer calls people names.

Just you. And you richly deserve them.

Transition Zone

unread,
Dec 26, 2005, 5:57:20 PM12/26/05