Glen said:
As I don't fully know Canadian cliches, I might have missed such....
Perhaps. Or I was sensitive to it.
Glen said:
Vigilantes with odd powers aren't exactly anti-cliche in the USA, so maybe that is part of the difference in response - a vampire cop show was a refreshing twist for me.
True. And, in that light, "Angel" was pretty conventional. I just felt it was overall handled better. The "community of demons" Whedon created made a lot of sense, & the "vamp underground" in "FK" never felt real to me.
Glen said:
In general, one might think that vampires could accrue some decent loot over time...but this need not be the rule - there will be plenty of vampires who aren't particularly good business people, and remember too that the longer they live, the more chance they will live though some sort of disaster that could wipe out their holdings (natural or manmade).
Granted. It's just, I've never seen anything
but "life on the edge" types. (Could be this is impacted by show budget: making him look like Bill Gates costs more than making him look like a homeless guy.)
Glen said:
A slight point against honest business as a vampire is their need to keep night hours, which are not traditional business hours - this might be mitigated by the mid to late 20th century, but before then they would be at a distinct disadvantage in terms of finance. Then again, if they have hypnotic abilities, they might be 'persuading' people to do business at odd hours.
I had overlooked that. However, even disallowing hypnosis, it's possible to find humans who'll work for you & do the legwork in daylight. Nor is it impossible to do deals with people at night.... Explain it away by claiming to be eccentric, feeling daylight is unlucky, whatever. Consider: a vamp owns a house in London in, say, 1800. By 1900, how much more is the land worth? Even if he does nothing else? (Even if it's after a Great Fire.)
Glen said:
We shall agree to disagree.
Fair enough.
Glen said:
He was green, but he wasn't Lorne Greene.
And nobody did the Kermit joke.
Glen said:
You're entirely welcome.
Glen said:
I'm not certain that is so - it is more lamenting the lives they expected to have, but aren't.
There might be some of that, but, "my LaSalle" & "guys like us"? What blue collar guy could afford a LaSalle? Who in the '50s
drove a LaSalle? (In today's terms, it's a bit like driving a Benz 500 or an Aston, or something.
) Given Arch was in his '50s in 1973, he'd have been a kid when Hoover was President & at best might've driven a used LaSalle just before, or after, the War. Chances of him owning even a new Buick in the '50s strike me as slim. (It would've been in the same price range...unless I'm flipping the Olds/Buick again.
)
Brainbin said:
Every OTL version of the theme song kept the "LaSalle" stanza. Choosing to end the whole song with it, as in most versions, is a big mistake ("I don't know just what went wrong" is much stronger, as is "Where did all that beauty go", the closing line from the 1968 pilot).
It's the contradiction that's getting me.
As lyric
qua lyric, I like it. It beats "Oldsmobile", which fits the scansion & is more logical.
Brainbin said:
Assuming that the lyrics were meant for the WWI generation, it does explain what is otherwise the oddest line in the song: the longing for Hoover. Surely Calvin Coolidge would fit the meter just fine? But no, they're not talking about President Hoover; they're talking about "The Great Humanitarian" Hoover.
That's how it looks to me, which makes it odd Archie & Edith are singing it.
Brainbin said:
So I think you're right on the money.
I take you to mean you don't get the contradiction, either?
Brainbin said:
And it's not as if I picked Dreyfuss and Marshall's names out of a hat - both were finalists for their respective roles IOTL.
I like that aspect a lot: subtle but important changes,
rather than convenient morphic twins.
Brainbin said:
delicate balance of character and ideology...an intriguing sociological experiment.
Which makes how else it might have been done even more interesting.
Brainbin said:
Not a fan of "Schlemiel! Schlimazel! Hasenpfeffer Incorporated!", I take it?
Not a fan of the show at all.
Brainbin said:
Quite remarkable how big a star he was in the 1970s, isn't it? Now, are you formally suggesting Crystal for the role in Graffiti? Because I might just consider it...
It was the first name that came to mind, & he does remind me of Dreyfus some. I liked Crystal enormously in "Soap".
I've a hunch somebody bigger might get it: Dustin Hoffman? (Thinking of "Midnight Cowboy".) Your call, as always.
Brainbin said:
And as for Duddy Kravitz, I'm sure Richler won't care who plays him, as long as it's a Jewish actor.
That could make for
very interesting casting.
Let me make a formal request for a Canadian in this one, if at all possible.
Brainbin said:
What's interesting is that, IOTL, Dreyfuss took the role in Jaws as a direct result of his dissatisfaction with his portrayal of Duddy Kravitz.
Huh. So he probably doesn't do "Jaws" in any case. Which also makes for interesting choices...
Brainbin said:
you're definitely on the right track
TY.
Brainbin said:
Struthers' weakness as an actress (which is actually very common; it's the reason that a lot of actors are so uneven) is that she's only as good as the material she's given.
IMO, it's the mark of the "average" actor. The really good ones can bring even mediocre material to life. Point granted, however.
Brainbin said:
she was a baby boomer and a female in the era of women's liberation, and none of them had any idea how to write for that.
I got some sense she was a product of conflicted upbringing, too: the late '60s woman in a household with no clue what women's lib was, & it left her a bit at sea which way to be.
Glen said:
Hmm, she'd be an interesting choice, but really, we're talking about her for a TTL analogue of Laverne and Shirley, and who knows if that will happen or not ITTL.
True.
Glen said:
Something like that, yes - also, the son-in-law doesn't have to be in every episode of the series, so there can be times where he is filming a movie and only makes occasional appearances.
Also true, tho my sense is, for star's wages, they'd want him in every episode.
Glen said:
Could be any of the above, but I didn't have the same issues you seemed to have with these characters, especially Yar - they were constantly referencing her backstory and even had an episode dedicated to it, essentially.
Mentioning it, but never seeming to use it much. Compare Yar to Ronon, or to Dax: the backstory was central to them. Yar, not so much. And then she got written out, & so did Ford, & replaced by somebody with more room to grow: Worf & Ronon. Yes, some of it was bad writing. Some may've been casting actors who wanted out, IDK. Badly done in any case.
Glen said:
So basically he was unrealistic.
Shanks, for wanting more? I think so. He knew, or should have known, what he was getting when he signed up. And
they should have left him dead, or ascended, if he really
was that unhappy.
Glen said:
actually, I'm certain they all are
TYVM. I trust you'll approve. I could have kept looking, but it wasn't meant to be a list of every hot actress I've seen.
Some were obscure, not big stars, but...
Glen said:
LOVED Emma Samms! Yes indeed, I agree!!
Emma was the sole reason I started watching "GH". Actually, it was that accent alone.
And I will never forget Sheena Easton's first time on Carson. She went 10 minutes before I actually heard a word she said:
all I could think of was that delicious, brain-numbing accent.
(Never noticed in her singing voice, & never thought
that was exceptional.) I'd have happily listened to her read the phone book,
& I'd have done whatever she wanted.
On an unrelated note, I have a broad question, if anybody wants to take it on. My sense is, producers have a big impact on how a show looks & feels, even with the same cast & writers: "Dragnet" by Jack Webb isn't going to be "Dragnet" by Desilu. If that's true, would "TWTD" be as successful? More? Less? And is there any way to tell?