Thank you all for your replies to my latest update! As always, my responses to your replies, but first...
Congrats on the landmark, Brainbin.
Thank you, Falkenburg
Falkenburg said:
The next Update will be ready when it's ready and will certainly have been worth the wait.
Well, I hope you thought so
after the fact as well.
Falkenburg said:
Onwards to 10,000!
Whoa! We're... a quarter of... the way there! WHOA-OH!
Thank you, Nigel.
NCW8 said:
As Thande said, the 1966 movies were something of a continuity reboot, so can't be judged by the same standard of consistency. It would be like complaining that the Dark Knight doesn't fit the continuity of the Adam West tv series.
Or complaining that a certain recent reboot film doesn't fit the continuity of a decades-older original series?
NCW8 said:
This initial disbelief in the series is one reason why he killed off the Daleks at the end of that first story.
Funnily enough, and speaking of the Dark Knight, the Joker was very nearly killed off at the end of
his first appearance in the
Batman comic.
Now
that would make an
intriguing POD...
Hmmm, hard one...but, as much as I was let down by the 1996 telefilm, I think there was a good faith effort to stay true to the series while updating it and making it accessible to an American audience - it just failed, that's all. I still would have them do things differently, but I don't think it was as much of a blatant rip-off.
Being neither a fan of the original
Doctor Who nor the revival, and not having seen the 1996 telefilm, I can't offer my own input on the issue, though I
will say that you're probably cutting it too much slack (and, conversely, piling too hard on the Peter Cushing films). But I'm not one to judge; that would be the pot calling the kettle black.
When are we going to learn about the urban environment of the United States?
e of pi has it - the very next update will cover 1970s-era urbanity.
One wonders how Gene Roddenberry's Fort Apache IN SPACE will do ('will do' including here the question of if it will even get beyond the planning stage) - and how will the Trekkies (especially the Puritans, given their slight tendency towards Gene Roddenberry) take to it (assuming it gets shown)?
Excellent questions, LordInsane - and they
will be answered, in due time.
Well, that was a very good update, Brainbin. I rather liked it.
Thank you, Dan! I always appreciate your kind words
Anyway, as always a great update.
Thank you!
e of p said:
iAlso, as a resident of the Cincinnati area and a fan of the show, hooray for news about WKRP...er, WMTM! Interesting how much it survived in spite of the network both IOTL and apparently ITTL.
Well, now, I had a feeling I couldn't get away with leaving that one out. Call it... intuition
Gene Roddenberry's new show here, on the other hand, doesn't seem to be a Star Trek show...
*facepalm* You're right! I'm so used to Roddenberry=Trek that I just jumped right to conclusions. Nice catch. Okay, now I'm really interested to see what comes of this.
This is
definitely something to bear in mind as "
Fort Apache in space" moves ahead.
Good update--though as before with these US TV focused ones I only follow about 30% of the references
Thank you, Thande, and 30% is still better than nothing - especially when it results in a complimentary reply!
Yes, although depending on how Roddenberry's new show ends up developing before (if) it gets to television, there might be a key difference that could shift it closer to the Star Trek space-station focused show: the 'Alamo in space' starts out as a fairly unimportant frontier station (in other words as, well, Alamo, in space) rather than as a dedicated diplomatic installation supposed to bring states together (New York-in-the-role-of-UN-Headquarters-city IN SPACE, so to speak).
A lot of this has to do with what makes Roddenberry tick ITTL. I'll be talking more about that in the future as well; the book on the "Great Bird" has yet to be closed.
Good update although as a fellow Brit I have the same problem as Thande. Wondering if that comment about the "
kooky comic relief handyman character" means a spin off develops.
Well, it never happened IOTL, but not for lack of trying; it only got as far as a backdoor pilot, though.
stevep said:
On the Fort Apache in Space, if Gene's involved I'm doubtful it will end up as gritty as Bab5 as he seems to have been too much of an idealist to get something as grim as Bab5 was at times. Not sure it would necessarily be non-Federation as someone suggested. Surely it would make more sense to have the series set in the Star Trek universe as that sets up some of the back-plot and taps into support of the original show? Also, since it would not, apart from possibly the odd guest appearance, use any of the original cast, it would enable a move beyond them and the accumulative problems involved.
One more vote for "not
Star Trek" then. To paraphrase Captain Kirk: I'll keep that in mind... when this becomes a democracy
As usual, a great update, Brainbin!
Thank you, Andrew!
Andrew T said:
I never liked
Mama's Family, and if it hadn't actually happened, I would say that it emerging with new episodes in first-run syndication nearly ten years after Carol Burnett's involvement would be ASB. But of course, so
much of reality seems ASB to me.
Clearly, the "Family" sketches, in all their iterations, had an audience. I'm not really a fan, myself, but I watched the
Eunice special (which I linked to in the footnotes of the update) and I was surprised at how much I enjoyed it. It really captured the poignancy of their situation. Even IOTL,
Mama's Family was very much a 1970s sitcom in spirit, awkwardly trying to fit the 1980s "family sitcom" model and suffering for it - I think there's more purity, more honesty to the
Eunice approach. Burnett having far more than her OTL peripheral involvement will also prove beneficial for the show - Lawrence was good and surprisingly convincing as Mama, but Burnett complemented her nicely.
Andrew T said:
I love this, but you've now taken on the burden of figuring out the long-term effect of Richard Pryor successfully adapting his act to comply with the broadcast standards & practices in effect for prime-time television in 1978 will have on the balance of what was, IOTL, a spectacularly filthy (and hilarious) career.
Pryor himself referenced this idea in one of the sketches of the OTL series (which, naturally, exists ITTL as well) in which he emerges on stage wearing a full-body stocking (providing a sight gag in response to the notion that his comedy has been "castrated" with him on primetime television). Although he obviously isn't no-holds-barred on this show, it's definitely the defining envelope-pusher of its day, much like the contemporary
Saturday Night Live of OTL, and
Laugh-In for the previous generation. (And like
Laugh-In, there's a lot of allowing the audience to fill in the blanks mentally, which lets them get away with more than you might think).
Andrew T said:
I challenge anyone reading this to
not read that line in your head in Jim Henson's voice.
Mission accomplished
Andrew T said:
I like to picture the iconic desk scene from Scarface, myself.
That isn't
nearly enough for those two. I would say it's more like them luging down a "snow"-covered hill.
And yes, they're lying prone instead of supine.
Andrew T said:
Brilliant! Are there any casting changes ITTL? I seem to recall thinking there would be a conflict with someone earlier -- maybe something about Howard Hesseman? I honestly can't recall.
There's bound to be some cast changes, especially with the ladies (it's a sad fact of show business that beauty matters
far more to an actress than talent - even back in the 1970s, though obviously not to the same extent as today). As far as I know, there's nothing specifically keeping Hesseman from playing Johnny Fever. The likeliest holdovers from OTL are Gordon Jump, Richard Sanders, and Frank Bonner, just because you can't keep character actor types like them down.
Andrew T said:
Both strike me as quite plausible.
Those demos (along with excellent word-of-mouth and strong critical reviews) saved the show from early cancellation IOTL.
Andrew T said:
I can't believe nobody else has jumped on to commend you for sparing this universe the
Star Wars Holiday Special!
As widely hated as that special is (and, for the most part,
very deservedly so), it
did introduce Nelvana Limited (one of the finest animation studios of the 1980s and 1990s - and Canadian, to boot) to the general public, and it contained a grand total of
one half-decent performance - given by Bea Arthur as Ackmena. If
ever anyone doubts this woman's talent, they should simply watch her single-handedly elevate the ridiculousness into something downright poignant and memorable.
Andrew T said:
Oh no you don't -- you can't blame Soap for TTL's equivalent of *Dynasty!
Well no, of course not -
*Dallas is going to be responsible for
*Dynasty, but
Soap will be responsible for
*Dallas, just as IOTL
Andrew T said:
How very, very convergently clever of you! IOTL, Soap was shut out in 1979 but Richard Mulligan won Lead Actor (edging out Guillaume, who by that time was a lead in his own right in the first season of the spin-off Benson) and Cathryn Damon won Lead Actress. Helmond was nominated for Lead Actress IOTL in 1979; she lost, rather inexplicably, to Ruth Gordon's guest appearance on an episode of Taxi. Nice to see that injustice rectified here. And with TTL's faster-tracked race relations, Guillaume's win is equally plausible.
Believe it or not, it's not a rare occurrence for a
guest performer (though usually one of some renown) to win an Emmy for Lead Actor. As recently as
1992 IOTL, Christopher Lloyd pulled it off for a one-shot guest appearance in
Road to Avonlea. (Then again, looking at his fellow nominees that year, I can't say I'm
too outraged.) There's not really a great deal of quality control as far as Emmy nominations go - just a few years ago, they infamously nominated Ellen Burstyn for Outstanding Supporting Actress in a Miniseries for a
fourteen-second cameo. (At least
that got a sufficient backlash.) Helmond never won
any Emmys IOTL, so I'm happy to give her one here.
Andrew T said:
Thank you. You can actually find a few nearly-contemporary pictures of the two of them out-of-character (taken at the premiere of the 1980 film
Seems Like Good Times, in which Guillaume co-starred) online, such as
this one. It's not exactly an embrace, but it does help to confirm reports that the two were (and are) good friends.
Andrew T said:
Lou Grant won IOTL as well; Ed Asner was nominated but lost to the guy who played the union organizer in Norma Rae in a low-rated series I've never heard of.
He also played Rachel's father in
Friends - that's how I know him, anyway.
Andrew T said:
As far as I can tell, not an award ITTL.
IOTL, the award was by this time formally known as Outstanding Comedy-Variety or Music Program, and was not awarded to any regular, recurring variety show between 1978 (
The Muppet Show) and
1989 (
The Tracey Ullman Show), demonstrative of the moribund status of the genre in the 1980s.
Sounds like Robin Williams is filling the cultural space John Belushi would OTL.
An
excellent comparison.