Very Good Sign "The Simpsons" Movie is a Bomb - - - >
rst
Don't believe me? Look at your history....
Or ask Jeffrey Lyons... who said the same thing this moring.
Juan F. Lara
That's a bomb sign? I thought a bomb sign was if they don't screen the
movie to critics at all.
- Juan F. Lara
Anim8rFSK
Same difference. If they don't let them see it until it's too late for
them to get their stories on air/in print before opening weekend, odds
are they're hiding it. On the other hand, if they don't preview it at
ALL, with a party and perks, 'critics' like Schikel will write a bad
review because of that. Without actually seeing it anyway.
--
"No man ever notices a woman's shoes, unless they have boobs on them."
-- Mark Nobles
David
wrote:
>In article <f7jj6q$ed5$1...@hubcap.clemson.edu>,
> lj...@ces.clemson.edu (Juan F. Lara) wrote:
>
>> In article <1184711542.6...@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
>> rst <senn...@ziplip.com> wrote:
>> >Studio is not letting reviewers see it until a week before release.
>>
>> That's a bomb sign? I thought a bomb sign was if they don't screen the
>> movie to critics at all.
>>
>> - Juan F. Lara
>
>Same difference.
Probably more of a sign that they don't want reviews and/or spoilers
being posted too far in advance. Although I have seen some reviews at
sites like AICN so they must have let test audiences see it.
Anyway, the show's popular in 200 countries. The chances of it being a
bomb are unlikely.
Derek Janssen
>
> Anyway, the show's popular in 200 countries. The chances of it being a
> bomb are unlikely.
...Yeah, I'd trust a Baywatch Movie, wouldn't you? :)
Derek Janssen (if they watch it in Kuala Lampur and call it American,
that's good enough for me!)
eja...@comcast.net
David
<eja...@nospam.comcast.net> wrote:
>David wrote:
>>
>> Anyway, the show's popular in 200 countries. The chances of it being a
>> bomb are unlikely.
>
>...Yeah, I'd trust a Baywatch Movie, wouldn't you? :)
"Baywatch" may be more of a privacy-of-your-own-home experience, but
not surprisingly the movie is being made.
Uniblab
news:l6pq93p9bpp82uu6j...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 17:49:38 -0700, Anim8rFSK <ANIM...@cox.net>
> wrote:
>
>>In article <f7jj6q$ed5$1...@hubcap.clemson.edu>,
>> lj...@ces.clemson.edu (Juan F. Lara) wrote:
>>
>>> In article <1184711542.6...@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
>>> rst <senn...@ziplip.com> wrote:
>>> >Studio is not letting reviewers see it until a week before release.
>>>
>>> That's a bomb sign? I thought a bomb sign was if they don't screen
>>> the
>>> movie to critics at all.
>>>
>>
>
> Probably more of a sign that they don't want reviews and/or spoilers
> being posted too far in advance. Although I have seen some reviews at
> sites like AICN so they must have let test audiences see it.
>
> Anyway, the show's popular in 200 countries. The chances of it being a
> bomb are unlikely.
And, letting the critics see it a week ahead of time gives them plenty of
time to get those reviews into the media. Fox isn't hiding it.
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Alric Knebel
Is that right? Why would giving only a week be a bad sign? All critics
need is a single day, if it's early enough in the day.
--
_________________
Alric Knebel
http://www.ironeyefortress.com/C-SPAN_loon.html
http://www.ironeyefortress.com
jayembee
> lj...@ces.clemson.edu (Juan F. Lara) wrote:
>
>> rst <senn...@ziplip.com> wrote:
>>> Studio is not letting reviewers see it until a week before release.
>>
>> That's a bomb sign? I thought a bomb sign was if they don't
>> screen the movie to critics at all.
>
> Same difference. If they don't let them see it until it's too late
> for them to get their stories on air/in print before opening weekend,
> odds are they're hiding it.
The original post (quoted above) says that the reviewers won't get
to see it UNTIL A WEEK BEFORE RELEASE. If that's not enough time
for them to get their reviews on air or in print before the film's
release, they have more important problems to deal with than
missing a chance to review THE SIMPSONS.
With only a week's advance, about the only critics who wouldn't
have time to air a review before release are Ebert-substitute and
Roeper.
-- jayembee
Invid Fan
Janssen <eja...@nospam.comcast.net> wrote:
> David wrote:
> >
> > Anyway, the show's popular in 200 countries. The chances of it being a
> > bomb are unlikely.
>
> ...Yeah, I'd trust a Baywatch Movie, wouldn't you? :)
>
I'd trust it to make money, which is the point he's making. Whether
it's good or not is a different matter.
> Derek Janssen (if they watch it in Kuala Lampur and call it American,
> that's good enough for me!)
What do you have against Malays?
--
Chris Mack "Refugee, total shit. That's how I've always seen us.
'Invid Fan' Not a help, you'll admit, to agreement between us."
-'Deal/No Deal', CHESS
Derek Janssen
>>
>>>Anyway, the show's popular in 200 countries. The chances of it being a
>>>bomb are unlikely.
>>
>>...Yeah, I'd trust a Baywatch Movie, wouldn't you?
>>
>
> it's good or not is a different matter.
Yep, we can hear that fanboy standby-defense even now--
"But look how much it grossed WORLDWIDE! :-P "
Derek Janssen (if you never understood why people objected to that
before, now you have a better idea...)
eja...@comcast.net
AZ Nomad
>On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 17:49:38 -0700, Anim8rFSK <ANIM...@cox.net>
>wrote:
>>In article <f7jj6q$ed5$1...@hubcap.clemson.edu>,
>> lj...@ces.clemson.edu (Juan F. Lara) wrote:
>>
>>> In article <1184711542.6...@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
>>> rst <senn...@ziplip.com> wrote:
>>> >Studio is not letting reviewers see it until a week before release.
>>>
>>> That's a bomb sign? I thought a bomb sign was if they don't screen the
>>> movie to critics at all.
>>>
>>> - Juan F. Lara
>>
>>Same difference.
>Probably more of a sign that they don't want reviews and/or spoilers
>being posted too far in advance. Although I have seen some reviews at
>sites like AICN so they must have let test audiences see it.
And a sign that they don't want the movie posted to the file pirating
networks.
timeOday
They've completed over *400* episodes, by now we should all pretty well
know what to expect.
Paul Bartram
"timeOday" <timeOda...@theknack.net> wrote
> They've completed over *400* episodes, by now we should all pretty well
> know what to expect.
As long as it doesn't include the bit where Homer skateboards over
Springfield Canyon, we've seen that enough times already...
Paul
Invid Fan
Janssen <eja...@nospam.comcast.net> wrote:
I've always understood, just thought it was a stupid thing to object
to. Some films made in the US aren't intended for the US market. Money
is money, regardless of where it comes from.
Now, FOX expects The Simpsons to do well here, but if it flops
domestically but brings in $400 million overseas, do you think they'll
care?
> eja...@comcast.net
trotsky
> Invid Fan wrote:
>
>>>
>>>> Anyway, the show's popular in 200 countries. The chances of it being a
>>>> bomb are unlikely.
>>>
>>>
>>> ...Yeah, I'd trust a Baywatch Movie, wouldn't you?
>>>
>>
>> I'd trust it to make money, which is the point he's making. Whether
>> it's good or not is a different matter.
>
>
> Yep, we can hear that fanboy standby-defense even now--
> "But look how much it grossed WORLDWIDE! :-P "
I thought that was your yardstick, Derek. Are you sure you didn't mean
"gayboy's defense..."?
Ubiquitous
>Studio is not letting reviewers see it until a week before release.
I cannot imagine why they greenlit this project.
It's about ten years too late.
Anim8rFSK
jayembee <jayembe...@snurcher.com> wrote:
This assumes the critics haven't already written this weeks columns and
there aren't any other movies opening that they've already reviewed.
Alric Knebel
Well, because it's 2-D animation, it'll be a profitable movie, whether
or not it makes as much money as SPIDER-MAN 3. And I think it'll do
pretty good. The show has been a hit for years, and a lot of people
will see it just because it's there, because they just want to go out
for some light entertainment.
Brett A. Pasternack
The daily newspapers run as many reviews as there are major movies
opening that weekend (plus minor movies if the newspaper is big enough).
They'll have plenty of time to get reviews in.
TV and radio reviewers and internet sites will have no problem, as well.
Weekly periodicals (e.g. Time, Newsweek, People, Entertainment Weekly)
may be delayed in reviewing it, but only by a week. The bigger deal is
when they don't let the dailies see it in time, and the review comes out
after the opening night (and in the less-read Saturday paper).
V01TeK
>
> Yep, we can hear that fanboy standby-defense even now--
> "But look how much it grossed WORLDWIDE! :-P "
Why shouldn't that be a defense? Why should it be so US-centric?
--
________________________
"Your signature quote is not as funny/clever as you think it is."
Chris
Derek Janssen
>>
>> Yep, we can hear that fanboy standby-defense even now--
>> "But look how much it grossed WORLDWIDE! :-P "
>
> Why shouldn't that be a defense? Why should it be so US-centric?
Because other countries don't send us THEIR crap to make up for lost
grosses when they overestimate the domestic audience, and we don't all
blindly flock to them over here thinking, cool, it's a real movie from
Hong Kong, where they make them! :)
Derek Janssen (well, okay, bad example, but, y'know...)
eja...@comcast.net
V01TeK
> Because other countries don't send us THEIR crap to make up for lost
> grosses when they overestimate the domestic audience, and we don't all
> blindly flock to them over here thinking, cool, it's a real movie from
> Hong Kong, where they make them! :)
>
But there's a big difference: Hollywood films dominate the Western market
whereas Australian films (for example) do not. It's not a matter of the USA
sending us crap to make up for lost revenue when we get most of your movies
BY DEFAULT (and they usually make more than local movies anyway).
Derek Janssen
>
>>>>Yep, we can hear that fanboy standby-defense even now--
>>>> "But look how much it grossed WORLDWIDE! :-P "
>
>> grosses when they overestimate the domestic audience, and we don't all
>> blindly flock to them over here thinking, cool, it's a real movie from
>> Hong Kong, where they make them! :)
>
> But there's a big difference: Hollywood films dominate the Western
> market whereas Australian films (for example) do not. It's not a matter
> of the USA sending us crap to make up for lost revenue when we get most
> of your movies BY DEFAULT (and they usually make more than local movies
> anyway).
It's still a question of perception--
If you'd lived in Australia most of your life, it would be too easy to
think that Americans must've *LIKED* "Godzilla", "Tomb Raider", "Evan
Almighty" or even a Simpsons movie in 2007--after all, here they were
making such a big deal of sending them over--and judge them on the same
scale as *actual* US movies...
Aside from the Internet, who would be there to tell you different?--The
studios?
Yes, they really DO believe that other countries are really that
gullible about North American pop culture, and that Singapore will pay
them all the money that we more accustomed people at home didn't want to.
Derek Janssen
eja...@comcast.net
bent lee
Cool. Then I'll love this movie. I just know it. I'm not going to
see it on the Big screen either. I'll wait until it is on the net
Anim8rFSK
bent lee <fil...@heavybell.org> wrote:
Okay, I asked somebody in a position to know last night why it was held
up, and he says they're still WORKING on the damn thing. Layout people,
who you'd expect to be done with their job months ago, were still
working up until a couple weeks ago, and apparently an entire character
was replaced. No information on actual suckage.
V01TeK
> Aside from the Internet, who would be there to tell you different?--
I'm well aware of how movies do in the US. Why would I need anything APART
from the Internet? I only use it, like, all day, every day.
Brett A. Pasternack
I can tell you with certainty that the Straits Times in Singapore (the
major daily paper) reports on US box office results as regularly as a
typical American paper. People there are as aware as we are of what does
well here. I can't imagine that's atypical.
(Of course, that doesn't mean that moviegoers there necessarily care
about that when deciding what films to see.)
Tony Harding
>> rst <senn...@ziplip.com> wrote:
>>> Studio is not letting reviewers see it until a week before release.
>> movie to critics at all.
>>
>
> Same difference. If they don't let them see it until it's too late for
> them to get their stories on air/in print before opening weekend, odds
> ALL, with a party and perks, 'critics' like Schikel will write a bad
> review because of that. Without actually seeing it anyway.
A week before the public sees a new work is hardly not enough time for
the critics to publish/broadcast/post their reviews.
mc
> Anim8rFSK wrote:
> > In article <f7jj6q$ed...@hubcap.clemson.edu>,> >> In article <1184711542.628223.109...@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> >> rst <senni...@ziplip.com> wrote:
> >>> Studio is not letting reviewers see it until a week before release.
> >> That's a bomb sign? I thought a bomb sign was if they don't screen the
> >> movie to critics at all.
>
> >> - Juan F. Lara
>
> > Same difference. If they don't let them see it until it's too late for
> > them to get their stories on air/in print before opening weekend, odds
> > are they're hiding it. On the other hand, if they don't preview it at
> > ALL, with a party and perks, 'critics' like Schikel will write a bad
> > review because of that. Without actually seeing it anyway.
>
> A week before the public sees a new work is hardly not enough time for
>
> - Show quoted text -
What century are you living in?
mc
mc
> senni...@ziplip.com wrote (on TOPIC for once!):
>
> >Studio is not letting reviewers see it until a week before release.
>
> I cannot imagine why they greenlit this project.
> It's about ten years too late.
You got that right. I would have been standing in a long line back
then. Now, I'm debating renting the dvd.
mc
Tony Harding
Interesting question - why do you ask?
nni/g...@nni.com
>
> With only a week's advance, about the only critics who wouldn't
> have time to air a review before release are Ebert-substitute and
> Roeper.
>
Exactly!
In the "Bad Old Days," a decent critic would review a Broadway Play and it
would be in print in the following morning's paper. If significant changes
were made in the play or the casting, it would be reviewed again. If
things were slow a critic might check out a play a second time to see if it
got better or worse with the passage of time.
Some folks like being "first nighters," and others would jump at a chance
for a "sneak preview" but in a rational world, critics don't have a week to
think over things before taking a stand.
At far as the OT is concerned: what keep The Simpsons going (IMO) is that
there is so much going on in each 20+ minute show that when you view it a
second (or third or fourth) time, you pick up something you pissed the
previous time(s).
Some of the "spoof" movies like Airplane are like that.
Since there is no accounting for taste I would not venture to say whether
The Simpsons movie will do OK at the box office. The series is a tough
act to follow. Somehow I am reminded of the Star Trek movies.
R Flowers
news:BPSdnWKa1b9Ckj7b...@nni.com...
> At far as the OT is concerned: what keep The Simpsons going (IMO) is that
> there is so much going on in each 20+ minute show that when you view it a
> second (or third or fourth) time, you pick up something you pissed the
> previous time(s).
That's a very good point. I think what it all boils down to is that, knowing
what we know about The Simpsons franchise, the movie would have to be
horrible indead to not be worth the price of admission. And a DVD purchase.
-- R Flowers
R Flowers
> horrible indead...
"Indead?" What an odd typo.
Sorry,
R Flowers
Brett A. Pasternack
>
> "R Flowers" <rflo...@Tinbowlinggreen.com> wrote
> > horrible indead...
>
> "Indead?" What an odd typo.
Not as odd as the one you were replying to! B^)
("something you pissed the previous time", in case you pis--er, missed
it.
R Flowers
news:46A3B0...@gmail.com...
Are you sure that was a typo? :)
-- R Flowers
Ubiquitous
>Ubiquitous wrote:
>> I cannot imagine why they greenlit this project.
>> It's about ten years too late.
>
>Well, because it's 2-D animation, it'll be a profitable movie, whether
>or not it makes as much money as SPIDER-MAN 3. And I think it'll do
>pretty good. The show has been a hit for years, and a lot of people
>will see it just because it's there, because they just want to go out
>for some light entertainment.
The Simpsons, a hit?
Rick
"mc" <mcsqu...@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:1184930466....@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Save your money it's only 70min long.
Alric Knebel
Well, YEAH. Where the hell have you been? It's one of Fox's most
popular shows, and it's been on for twenty years.
R Flowers
> Ubiquitous wrote:
>> The Simpsons, a hit?
>
> Well, YEAH. Where the hell have you been? It's one of Fox's most popular
> shows, and it's been on for twenty years.
>
"Simpsons", eh? That's a show I won't soon forget!
-- R Flowers
cocoa
jayembee
>> The show has been a hit for years, and a lot of people will see
>> it just because it's there, because they just want to go out
>> for some light entertainment.
>
> The Simpsons, a hit?
Let's see...
Eighteen seasons. Check.
Four hundred episodes. Check.
Still getting about 9 million viewers an episode. Check.
First season DVD set is still one of the top-selling TV on DVD
sets ever released. Check.
It's already passed THE ADVENTURES OF OZZIE AND HARRIET as the
longest-running sitcom in American TV history. If it makes it
into the 2009/2010 season, it'll pass GUNSMOKE as the longest-
running scripted series (comedy *or* drama) in American TV
history.
So, yup. It's a hit.
-- jayembee
Jude Cormier
"jayembee" <jayembe...@snurcher.com> wrote in message
news:Xns99828E4685278...@140.99.99.130...
> Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
> It's already passed THE ADVENTURES OF OZZIE AND HARRIET as the
> longest-running sitcom in American TV history.
In terms of seasons......in terms of actual episode output--that will happen
in the next two seasons?
jayembee
> "jayembee" <jayembe...@snurcher.com> wrote:
>> It's already passed THE ADVENTURES OF OZZIE AND HARRIET as the
>> longest-running sitcom in American TV history.
>
> In terms of seasons......in terms of actual episode output--that
> will happen in the next two seasons?
Yes, in terms of seasons. But then, how else would you assess
"longest-running"? OZZIE & HARRIET was on the air for 14 years,
and THE SIMPSONS for 18, regardless of how many episodes per
year each one had.
OZZIE & HARRIET had 435 episodes altogether, so yes, THE SIMPSONS
will pass that after two more seasons.
Similar situation with GUNSMOKE. If THE SIMPSONS lasts into the
2009/2010 season, it'll pass GUNSMOKE in terms of the number of
years it will have run. But it would need to be on the air a
further 8 seasons, plus or minus, to match the number of episodes.
-- jayembee
Audie Murphy's Ghost
<jayembe...@snurcher.com> wrote:
I don't think you need to consider the number of episodes. The number
of episodes per season in the Ozzie Nelson era was a creature of
necessity, not quality. Every series did 39 or so, regardless of how
good the show was, how long it had been running, and so forth.
Further: If a soap opera runs for five years, it will have broadcast
five episodes per week. That's 1300 episodes. Would anyone seriously
argue that a five-year soap ran three times longer than "Gunsmoke"?
Jeßus
Yes. Perfectly logical reason not to watch it.
--
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?
- Epicurus
Anim8rFSK
and then, what, another 20 years to match the air time?
Audie Murphy's Ghost
<ANIM8Rfsk-B6CD1...@news.phx.highwinds-media.com>,
Anim8rFSK <ANIM...@cox.net> wrote:
That's another good point. Why would the number of episodes matter,
but the aggregate length of episodes not matter?
You have to draw the line somewhere, and "number of seasons" is a
pretty useful one.
Wiseguy
news:Xns99828E4685278...@140.99.99.130:
>
> It's already passed THE ADVENTURES OF OZZIE AND HARRIET as the
> longest-running sitcom in American TV history. If it makes it
> into the 2009/2010 season, it'll pass GUNSMOKE as the longest-
> running scripted series (comedy *or* drama) in American TV
> history.
>
>
> -- jayembee
Don't forget LASSIE. The original series was on 19 full seasons
(Simpsons' first season was only a half-season) for a total of 591
episodes.
Not to mention 11 movies (theatrical and made-for-TV) and two sequel series
(two seasons each, adding another 103 episodes).
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Anim8rFSK
Wiseguy <epw...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Are all 19 seasons original programming, or were some of them reruns of
earlier seasons? I get confused between the first run stuff and the
simultaneous reruns of early seasons, sometimes renamed.
Wiseguy
news:ANIM8Rfsk-BCFE6...@news.phx.highwinds-media.com:
All first-run episodes, on CBS 1954-71 and first-run syndication 1971-
73.
There was a "20th season" in syndication (1973-74) but these were all
rebroadcasts from previous seasons.
Some of the earlier episodes have been renamed in reruns:
1954-57 (Seasons 1-3) renamed "Jeff's Collie"
1957-64 (Seasons 4-10) often renamed "Timmy and Lassie"
Also some Saturday morning reruns on CBS were broadcast as "The
Adventures of Lassie."
I neglected to mention that Lassie had an animated series as well,
"Lassie's Rescue Rangers" on Saturday morning on ABC in the 1973-74
season. Ted Knight was one of the voices. Produced by the same company
and premiering on the same day as the Star Trek animated series,
September 8, 1973. An hour-long pilot and 15 episodes were made.
Anim8rFSK
Wiseguy <epw...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Wow, great info, thanks.
What were the two revival series? I remember seeing one episode of one
that had the original kid reunited with June Lockhart who apparently not
only left Lassie behind, she forgot the kid as well . . .
Wiseguy
news:ANIM8Rfsk-BC2DC...@news.phx.highwinds-media.com:
> In article <Xns9983B3D3981...@66.150.105.47>,
> Wiseguy <epw...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Anim8rFSK <ANIM...@cox.net> wrote in
>> news:ANIM8Rfsk-BCFE6...@news.phx.highwinds-media.com:
>>
>> >
>> > Are all 19 seasons original programming, or were some of them
>> > reruns of earlier seasons? I get confused between the first run
>> > stuff and the simultaneous reruns of early seasons, sometimes
>> > renamed.
>> >
>>
>> All first-run episodes, on CBS 1954-71 and first-run syndication
>> 1971- 73.
>>
>> There was a "20th season" in syndication (1973-74) but these were all
>> rebroadcasts from previous seasons.
>>
>> Some of the earlier episodes have been renamed in reruns:
>>
>> 1954-57 (Seasons 1-3) renamed "Jeff's Collie"
>> 1957-64 (Seasons 4-10) often renamed "Timmy and Lassie"
>>
>> Also some Saturday morning reruns on CBS were broadcast as "The
>> Adventures of Lassie."
>>
>> I neglected to mention that Lassie had an animated series as well,
>> "Lassie's Rescue Rangers" on Saturday morning on ABC in the 1973-74
>> season. Ted Knight was one of the voices. Produced by the same
>> company and premiering on the same day as the Star Trek animated
>> series, September 8, 1973. An hour-long pilot and 15 episodes were
>> made.
>
> Wow, great info, thanks.
>
> What were the two revival series? I remember seeing one episode of
> one that had the original kid reunited with June Lockhart who
> apparently not only left Lassie behind, she forgot the kid as well . .
> .
>
The first series was called "The New Lassie" and was only shown in
syndication. The two seasons were spread out between Sept. 1989 and
March 1992.
The episode with June Lockhart was called "Roots":
"A woman from Steve's past claims Lassie. June Lockhart of the original
"Lassie" series appears as the collie's former owner, who comes looking
for her pet and finds her long lost son. This episode reveals the way
the McCulloughs got Lassie, when as a puppy, Steve had pulled her out of
a burning car." Apparently Steve was Timmy's middle name and was the
same person.
Another episode brought back Tommy Rettig as Jeff Miller (co-written by
Rettig), Lassie's original TV owner from 1954-57, now a computer
professor.
The second series was just called "Lassie" and was seen on Discovery
Channel's Animal Planet beginning in March 1997.
Still ANOTHER series called "Meiken Lassie" (Famous Dog Lassie) was an
anime series produced in Japan which ran for 26 episodes. Based on the
book "Lassie Come Home." (as was the 1943 and 2006 Lassie movies) it had
no connection with any of the previous series.
Anim8rFSK
Wiseguy <epw...@yahoo.com> wrote:
I realize I'm overthinking this . . . but wouldn't this be like 30 years
later? Was it actually supposed to be the same dog??
>
> Another episode brought back Tommy Rettig as Jeff Miller (co-written by
> Rettig), Lassie's original TV owner from 1954-57, now a computer
> professor.
>
> The second series was just called "Lassie" and was seen on Discovery
> Channel's Animal Planet beginning in March 1997.
>
> Still ANOTHER series called "Meiken Lassie" (Famous Dog Lassie) was an
> anime series produced in Japan which ran for 26 episodes. Based on the
> book "Lassie Come Home." (as was the 1943 and 2006 Lassie movies) it had
> no connection with any of the previous series.
--
Captain Bob
<ANIM8Rfsk-CA48C...@news.phx.highwinds-media.com>,
Anim8rFSK <ANIM...@cox.net> wrote:
> > "A woman from Steve's past claims Lassie. June Lockhart of the original
> > "Lassie" series appears as the collie's former owner, who comes looking
> > for her pet and finds her long lost son. This episode reveals the way
> > the McCulloughs got Lassie, when as a puppy, Steve had pulled her out of
> > a burning car." Apparently Steve was Timmy's middle name and was the
> > same person.
>
> I realize I'm overthinking this . . . but wouldn't this be like 30 years
> later? Was it actually supposed to be the same dog??
I saw that one, a long time ago. No, it wasn't supposed to be the same
dog; June Lockhart's character refers to "our Lassie" in the sense of
another, earlier, now-departed dog. The Lassie in this series was a
descendant of the Lassie from the Jon Provost show. I don't remember
the basis of June's claim on Lassie. Maybe she owned her, and Lassie
had been missing ever since that car crash.
Uncle Steve was indeed Timmy. As I recall, the reunion episode had it
that the Martins had surrendered Timmy back to the system and, at some
point, had divorced. (I'm not sure which came first.) The Martins'
departure in the original series was explained by the three of them
moving to a farm in Australia (Lassie couldn't go along, of course),
but none of that business was mentioned during the reunion episode.
Anim8rFSK
Captain Bob <ah...@matey.com.invalid> wrote:
> In article
> <ANIM8Rfsk-CA48C...@news.phx.highwinds-media.com>,
> Anim8rFSK <ANIM...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > > "A woman from Steve's past claims Lassie. June Lockhart of the original
> > > "Lassie" series appears as the collie's former owner, who comes looking
> > > for her pet and finds her long lost son. This episode reveals the way
> > > the McCulloughs got Lassie, when as a puppy, Steve had pulled her out of
> > > a burning car." Apparently Steve was Timmy's middle name and was the
> > > same person.
> >
> > I realize I'm overthinking this . . . but wouldn't this be like 30 years
> > later? Was it actually supposed to be the same dog??
>
>
> I saw that one, a long time ago. No, it wasn't supposed to be the same
> dog; June Lockhart's character refers to "our Lassie" in the sense of
> another, earlier, now-departed dog. The Lassie in this series was a
> descendant of the Lassie from the Jon Provost show. I don't remember
> the basis of June's claim on Lassie. Maybe she owned her, and Lassie
> had been missing ever since that car crash.
Ah, okay, that makes more sense.
>
> Uncle Steve was indeed Timmy. As I recall, the reunion episode had it
> that the Martins had surrendered Timmy back to the system and, at some
> point, had divorced. (I'm not sure which came first.) The Martins'
> departure in the original series was explained by the three of them
> moving to a farm in Australia (Lassie couldn't go along, of course),
> but none of that business was mentioned during the reunion episode.
Thanks!