|
Post by MyTatuo on Sept 13, 2007 11:18:02 GMT -5
I still say it is canon. If we are going with failed premises, the last four episodes failed to be on the original run, so they should not count either. When HEROINE was filmed and rejected to be aired, they lumped it in with GAH. To me, that means SJC saw it as canon and a natural progression of the show. My vote is a solid "No". GAHeroine is by no means canon. I consider GAHeroine along the lines of unproduced scripts like "Long Fall"; it was just an idea and never really played out fully to ensure canonicity. GAHeroine was simply a partially filmed story, just random scenes, not aired to the public, considered a failed pilot; all that means to me it completely invalidates its rank as canon. I might agree with Mona, except that even though it was only partially filmed, it was not really just "random scenes"; they filmed barely enough to show the entire story. Yes, a few more scenes might have explained some things, but there were not giant gaps in the plot progression. Otherwise, they would not have added it to the syndication deal; which is another vote in its favor, as HD said. If it is not now another "episode" of tGAH, then why is it shown as part of any TV station's airing of the show. Maybe the pilot of "Hero" itself should not be considered canon, since they (almost) never air that in syndication If "Heroine" had been a "Special Feature" on the DVDs rather than just another episode, that would give it even less standing (like Deleted Scenes). Why they put it on the 1st season batch is beyond me, unless they were just trying to pad the disks that had the least amount of episodes. Or perhaps all the interviews and the spinoff pilot were put in Season One because some curious people might only buy the first season and skip the rest. I don't know. Still, the fact that the episodes are not in order (look at the third season; hard to tell which episodes R&P are married in or not) shouldn't be another argument against canonicity (canoniscopy? canonpossibility?) ...but what really matters is...there's a SKIRT in the SUIT! AND she AIN'T too BRIGHT! I MIGHT have a SHOT!
|
|
|
Post by mmderdekea on Sept 13, 2007 12:47:15 GMT -5
Hello, Mytatuo, I don't think your argument quite holds water, although on the other hand I'm not quite sure if you are agreeing or disagreeing with me, either! The pilot is a FULL story from front to end and could be shown if a TV station decided to. It makes sense to all--characters are introduced and followed coherently. It is viewable to anyone, and anyone would get the story. GAHeroine skips the entire first half of the story, skips an awful lot of the world (and the government) knowing about Ralph, skips the relationship really between Ralph/Pam and Bill, skips Bill's new office and role at the FBI, and just leaps into the changeover to Holly. One might even be confused why Bill is so prominent a part of the halfshow when the GG obviously show some disrespect for him. From Holly taking over, yes, it's essentially a flowing tale, but one couldn't put it on a syndication schedule due to its hacked off first half. A half (baked) presented idea isn't canon to me. May be to others, but I can't agree. I do think it was added merely to pad the DVD with any old material they already had lying around. It was cheaper than adding more stuff they'd have to produce new. Mona
|
|
|
Post by HoudiniDerek on Sept 13, 2007 13:10:29 GMT -5
At least it got filmed though. There was enough interest and support, especially by SJC to film it...where there was none of that for Culp's script. As for the A-TEAM, completely different concepts and studio decisions, Mel. Nice try, but that is not a valid comparison.
|
|
|
Post by MelMac on Sept 13, 2007 13:22:14 GMT -5
At least it got filmed though. There was enough interest and support, especially by SJC to film it...where there was none of that for Culp's script. As for the A-TEAM, completely different concepts and studio decisions, Mel. Nice try, but that is not a valid comparison. Yes it is. If it was bought, just like "A-Team" was, they could've either shot a longer version of it with a new actress to a. show the handover and explain it better, and b. have someone who could actually carry the mantle of Holly the suit wearer longer than I think Mary Ellen Stuart could've/would've. I think she's one reason too the suit didn't fly there (the green guy's contradicting themselves in regards to Bill (memory wipe to Holly's partner - feels forced) and Ralph's out of characterness in particular the other two). That and the "A-Team's" pilot is like the original "GAH" pilot - it makes sense. "GAHeroine" is full of contradictions (what could've happened to Ralph in "Vanity" conflicting with this, when the events in Vanity are as bad), poor reason Ralph loses the suit, and just the training sequence as well, it didn't make sense.
|
|
|
Post by HoudiniDerek on Sept 13, 2007 13:24:18 GMT -5
At least it got filmed though. There was enough interest and support, especially by SJC to film it...where there was none of that for Culp's script. As for the A-TEAM, completely different concepts and studio decisions, Mel. Nice try, but that is not a valid comparison. Yes it is. If it was bought, just like "A-Team" was, they could've either shot a longer version of it with a new actress to a. show the handover and explain it better, and b. have someone who could actually carry the mantle of Holly the suit wearer longer than I think Mary Ellen Stuart could've/would've. I think she's one reason too the suit didn't fly there (the green guy's contradicting themselves in regards to Bill (memory wipe to Holly's partner - feels forced) and Ralph's out of characterness in particular the other two). That and the "A-Team's" pilot is like the original "GAH" pilot - it makes sense. "GAHeroine" is full of contradictions (what could've happened to Ralph in "Vanity" conflicting with this, when the events in Vanity are as bad), poor reason Ralph loses the suit, and just the training sequence as well, it didn't make sense. Most pilots make sense. As for the A-TEAM, SJC had to choose between casting Peppard or Benedict for the pilot. Once the series sold, he was allowed to bring in Benedict...as was his plan all along. In HEROINE, the Holly character was cast that way and there was no change to be made by the studio or SJC. Therefore, DIFFERENT.
|
|
|
Post by MyTatuo on Sept 13, 2007 13:32:28 GMT -5
GAHeroine skips the entire first half of the story, skips an awful lot of the world (and the government) knowing about Ralph, skips the relationship really between Ralph/Pam and Bill, skips Bill's new office and role at the FBI, and just leaps into the changeover to Holly. As a PILOT, GAHerione is missing a lot, I have admitted. "Yes, a few more scenes might have explained some things, but there were not giant gaps in the plot progression." The stuff you mentioned above would need to be included for a better story, and to remind people who Ralph and Bill (& Pam) were. But if you say it is not a good EPISODE and therefore not canon, why does it have the tGAH theme and credits attached to it? A fan didn't do that; AnchorBay didn't even do it especially for the DVD (although I think they did add a different opener than the syndicated version, but they did that a lot on the DVDs). If Cannell/AnchorBay put it on the DVDs as an episode, it should be as much canon as "Vanity" which also did not air on ABC, but DID in syndication. From Holly taking over, yes, it's essentially a flowing tale, but one couldn't put it on a syndication schedule due to its hacked off first half. And yet, they did anyway, which is my point. It is shown right after "Vanity" and before starting over with "The Hit Car" on every local TV airing in memory. If anyone says it's not tGAH because the characters were changed, then there's a lot of M*A*S*H that should also be thrown out (Blake/Potter, Trapper/BJ, Burns/Winchester, KlingerInDrag/KlingerAsClerk). Adrian Monk got a new "partner", but the absense of Sharona was practically glossed over. So what is USA Network showing now in place of Monk? Is there ANYONE left from the original cast of E.R.? I would like to add another episode that I feel should not be canon: "Now You See It" I think this is more half-assed than Heroine is. If you subtract all the stock fighter footage, and the extended shots of Pam looking concerned inside N1TC, you have about 20 minutes of actual show there. Add in the screw up of Ralph taking off but getting back in the car, and the implausibility of catching free-falling people from the ground, and NYSI was a bigger waste of money than Stuart's acting class tuition. (Who luvs ya, M.E.?) Tom friend to Mona, who both love a good debate
|
|
|
Post by HoudiniDerek on Sept 13, 2007 13:37:01 GMT -5
Good points, MyTatuo. I have to agree with the part about counting HEROINE if you count others like VANITY. On the concept of changing actors, SJC has done that too...not just in the A-TEAM. Look at SILK STALKINGS....three different people playing those parts. Lots of shows do that and it is considered canon.
As for syndication, the few times I saw the series in syndication, it went from VANITY to HEROINE to the pilot all over again. It was included to some degree as a series finale in the way it was presented in syndication and the way it was packaged for the DVD...that is why I count it as canon.
|
|
|
Post by MyTatuo on Sept 13, 2007 13:55:30 GMT -5
Wow, you saw the pilot in synd.?! I had seen the pilot after the ABC run until they showed it on ABC Family. The only place I heard showed it (one time) was FX, but they were showing all the pilots for all the shows they would air on the day they began, but they didn't show the pilot again after that.
|
|
|
Post by HoudiniDerek on Sept 13, 2007 13:59:15 GMT -5
I caught the pilot several times on FX. They cut it into two one-hour segments and every time they finished HEROINE...they started over the next day. That is how I got my copy of it...the second or third time through.
|
|
|
Post by MyTatuo on Sept 13, 2007 14:00:45 GMT -5
Oh, never mind. I didn't have FX until after tGAH was gone, but I thought I was told they only showed the pilot their first day. My mistake, I guess.
|
|
|
Post by MelMac on Sept 13, 2007 14:33:25 GMT -5
As a PILOT, GAHerione is missing a lot, I have admitted. "Yes, a few more scenes might have explained some things, but there were not giant gaps in the plot progression." The stuff you mentioned above would need to be included for a better story, and to remind people who Ralph and Bill (& Pam) were. But if you say it is not a good EPISODE and therefore not canon, why does it have the tGAH theme and credits attached to it? A fan didn't do that; AnchorBay didn't even do it especially for the DVD (although I think they did add a different opener than the syndicated version, but they did that a lot on the DVDs). If Cannell/AnchorBay put it on the DVDs as an episode, it should be as much canon as "Vanity" which also did not air on ABC, but DID in syndication. If memory serves (based on stuff I've read here), the opening titles/credits were added when they decided to include "GAHeroine" in syndication. When it was shown as the test, the credits were not included as far as the opening titles from season three. Closing credits and the credits after the ringing HeroINE were included so the people could get credit for appearing in it. But, as I said, "Vanity," "Rock and Roll," "Space Ranger" and "Desparado" are canon because had ABC not cancelled the series mid-season, the episodes would've been shown. "GAHeroine" was never - at least initially when it was made - meant to be shown to the public. Had the series been bought, it'd been shown, though IMHO, it would've had to have added some things to it to make more sense. Or, they'd just start anew with the second episode supposedly being the premier. Again, IMHO, the only reason it's even aired is because of residuals or something like that. Don't know if this is because I wrote something that was misunderstood, but just to clarify my POV here. I don't mind handovers/replacements, as it worked very well with "M*A*S*H" and other shows, but in the case of Holly, I think that if they did buy the pilot and run with it, they might've recast Holly with a different actress as I don't think long term she could've played the role as she played it in the pilot. Now that's my opinion, but she fell flat for the most part in her acting once she got the suit. (OT, but just a view) And, interesting thing about "M*A*S*H," Potter, BJ, Winchester, and Klinger were created specifically for the series as replacements or additional characters (they were not in the book), and Burns would've probably ultimately left no matter what if they decided to follow some aspects of the book. Ironically too, Burn's departure is very similar to the book and movie, but probably changed for TV sake given that Burns attacks Hawkeye, and Hawkeye, seeing Blake, shouts that Blake's trying to rape him (that Burns is homosexual). Yes, you could tell they did the ep on the cheap (changing fighter planes in mid-flight clearly shows there), but unlike Heroine, the story makes more sense IMHO. Bill does mention the suit possibly being allergic to cats as a wild way to explain the weird scene of Ralph saying he's going to fly then gets into the car, and they could've had a little more dialogue to the plane scene. The free-falling people is odd too as a. of the law of physics being against them getting caught in Ralph's arms without injury and b. given both were unconscious, there was no way they could control their fall, meaning Ralph should've had to scramble right to the end. Oddity here, there has been one documented case (in the Guiness Book of World Records) though I know of where a person fell from an extreme height from an airplane and survived. They were in a coma for some time though and had quite a few injuries.
|
|
|
Post by MelMac on Sept 13, 2007 14:38:07 GMT -5
Yes it is. If it was bought, just like "A-Team" was, they could've either shot a longer version of it with a new actress to a. show the handover and explain it better, and b. have someone who could actually carry the mantle of Holly the suit wearer longer than I think Mary Ellen Stuart could've/would've. I think she's one reason too the suit didn't fly there (the green guy's contradicting themselves in regards to Bill (memory wipe to Holly's partner - feels forced) and Ralph's out of characterness in particular the other two). That and the "A-Team's" pilot is like the original "GAH" pilot - it makes sense. "GAHeroine" is full of contradictions (what could've happened to Ralph in "Vanity" conflicting with this, when the events in Vanity are as bad), poor reason Ralph loses the suit, and just the training sequence as well, it didn't make sense. Most pilots make sense. As for the A-TEAM, SJC had to choose between casting Peppard or Benedict for the pilot. Once the series sold, he was allowed to bring in Benedict...as was his plan all along. In HEROINE, the Holly character was cast that way and there was no change to be made by the studio or SJC. Therefore, DIFFERENT. Not really. He could've chosen a different actress regardless after it was given the go-ahead. Connie does mention in her interview talking to SJC after the pilot and finding out she was pregnant, knowing it was possible that Pam was going to have to be recast, and even said (roughly) "I know that you might have to recast me, but I feel this is God's choice." SJC, however, didn't choose to do so, because the team (Katt, Culp, and Connie) worked. IMO, he might've done so with Holly because Stuart wasn't as strong in the role and didn't really pair up well with Culp. Thing is, the decision would probably be based on how well Stuart was taken in the role by everyone. Therefore, you could recast the role, but since it wasn't picked up, it was moot.
|
|
|
Post by MyTatuo on Sept 13, 2007 16:14:35 GMT -5
We all seem to be using the same arguments, but coming to different conclusions. Unfortunately, it comes down to personal opinion, in the end, becuase I doubt Cannell & Co will come here to give the official party line.
I say as long as your excuse is not "This sucks, so I choose to ignore it" (which is the "joke" I was making with Now You See It), then you have good reasons for believing what you believe. I and others say it's canon because it has been presented as part of the tGAH syndication and DVD episodes, and there is enough story to merit having done so. Others believe that due to gaping plotholes and character inconsistencies and bad portrayals, it should be otherwise. No one is going to change anyone else's mind. We must "agree to disagree".
I will now go back to thinking about Holly and mas... I mean back to work.
|
|
|
Post by MelMac on Sept 13, 2007 16:18:59 GMT -5
We all seem to be using the same arguments, but coming to different conclusions. Unfortunately, it comes down to personal opinion, in the end, becuase I doubt Cannell & Co will come here to give the official party line. I say as long as your excuse is not "This sucks, so I choose to ignore it" (which is the "joke" I was making with Now You See It), then you have good reasons for believing what you believe. I and others say it's canon because it has been presented as part of the tGAH syndication and DVD episodes, and there is enough story to merit having done so. Others believe that due to gaping plotholes and character inconsistencies and bad portrayals, it should be otherwise. No one is going to change anyone else's mind. We must "agree to disagree". I will now go back to thinking about Holly and mas... I mean back to work. True, but it's much more fun to agree to disagree. And, there is at least one point I've noticed: It's possible to have a woman wearing the suit. Thing was, Holly didn't work, and they didn't buy it (at least my opinion anyway).
|
|
|
Post by HoudiniDerek on Sept 13, 2007 16:24:35 GMT -5
Most pilots make sense. As for the A-TEAM, SJC had to choose between casting Peppard or Benedict for the pilot. Once the series sold, he was allowed to bring in Benedict...as was his plan all along. In HEROINE, the Holly character was cast that way and there was no change to be made by the studio or SJC. Therefore, DIFFERENT. Not really. He could've chosen a different actress regardless after it was given the go-ahead. Connie does mention in her interview talking to SJC after the pilot and finding out she was pregnant, knowing it was possible that Pam was going to have to be recast, and even said (roughly) "I know that you might have to recast me, but I feel this is God's choice." SJC, however, didn't choose to do so, because the team (Katt, Culp, and Connie) worked. IMO, he might've done so with Holly because Stuart wasn't as strong in the role and didn't really pair up well with Culp. Thing is, the decision would probably be based on how well Stuart was taken in the role by everyone. Therefore, you could recast the role, but since it wasn't picked up, it was moot. Still different. Connie was his original choice and her role increased. Then, she had a problem and he decided to keep her. Not the same with the A-TEAM and MASH comparisons was what I was saying. And MyTatuo, you are right. It is fun to debate, but there is a point where it becomes too repetitive because of the personal opinion nature...especially in regards to HEROINE. One nice thing about HEROINE....she DID fill out the suit nicely...I might have watched just for THAT...plot holes notwithstanding.
|
|
|
Post by MyTatuo on Sept 13, 2007 16:29:32 GMT -5
Now, HD is a guy I can relate to Too bad he won't help me TITTSB.
|
|
|
Post by HoudiniDerek on Sept 13, 2007 16:32:07 GMT -5
Now, HD is a guy I can relate to Too bad he won't help me TITTSB. ;D That's why they have a MUTE button.
|
|
|
Post by MelMac on Sept 13, 2007 16:37:22 GMT -5
Not really. He could've chosen a different actress regardless after it was given the go-ahead. Connie does mention in her interview talking to SJC after the pilot and finding out she was pregnant, knowing it was possible that Pam was going to have to be recast, and even said (roughly) "I know that you might have to recast me, but I feel this is God's choice." SJC, however, didn't choose to do so, because the team (Katt, Culp, and Connie) worked. IMO, he might've done so with Holly because Stuart wasn't as strong in the role and didn't really pair up well with Culp. Thing is, the decision would probably be based on how well Stuart was taken in the role by everyone. Therefore, you could recast the role, but since it wasn't picked up, it was moot. Still different. Connie was his original choice and her role increased. Then, she had a problem and he decided to keep her. Not the same with the A-TEAM and MASH comparisons was what I was saying. And MyTatuo, you are right. It is fun to debate, but there is a point where it becomes too repetitive because of the personal opinion nature...especially in regards to HEROINE. One nice thing about HEROINE....she DID fill out the suit nicely...I might have watched just for THAT...plot holes notwithstanding. Going by the same debate, same goes with Holly. Holly was the lead, but he could've decided to recast her as he could've Connie, regardless of the increase in role. We also have to assume Stuart was his first choice in Heroine, like Connie. Unfortunately, that's the industry. Even with two choices for "A-Team," he did prefer Benedict to begin with, so when the opportunity came to change the character, he did. Yes, "M*A*S*H" replacements were different. They were obviously going to happen given that some of the actors wanted to move on for various reasons (typecast, more money, wanting to spend time with family), so instead of having the 4077th shrink, which wouldn't happen in real life, they had to get more people to replace them. As the book doesn't have that many additional roles, and all the ones named were used in the series (well, take it back... I don't think they used Painless Pole the dentist except in the movie), they had to create new ones to replace them. The exception was Radar, but Gary Burghoff left late in the series, so it was more effective to give Jamie Farr a larger role and put him in the role of company clerk. Made sense, as like with company changes, job positions would happen in the army. Point is, SJC could've changed anyone he wanted to with another actor. Katt could've been in the original pilot then next thing it'd been Mark Hamill, Culp could've ended being replaced by Larry Hagman, and Connie could've been replaced by Erin Gray. That's just the craziness of TV, and this included Stuart. If the show returned with a female heroine, there could've been a different actress in the role.
|
|
|
Post by HoudiniDerek on Sept 13, 2007 16:40:03 GMT -5
Still different. Connie was his original choice and her role increased. Then, she had a problem and he decided to keep her. Not the same with the A-TEAM and MASH comparisons was what I was saying. And MyTatuo, you are right. It is fun to debate, but there is a point where it becomes too repetitive because of the personal opinion nature...especially in regards to HEROINE. One nice thing about HEROINE....she DID fill out the suit nicely...I might have watched just for THAT...plot holes notwithstanding. Going by the same debate, same goes with Holly. Holly was the lead, but he could've decided to recast her as he could've Connie, regardless of the increase in role. We also have to assume Stuart was his first choice in Heroine, like Connie. Unfortunately, that's the industry. Even with two choices for "A-Team," he did prefer Benedict to begin with, so when the opportunity came to change the character, he did. Yes, "M*A*S*H" replacements were different. They were obviously going to happen given that some of the actors wanted to move on for various reasons (typecast, more money, wanting to spend time with family), so instead of having the 4077th shrink, which wouldn't happen in real life, they had to get more people to replace them. As the book doesn't have that many additional roles, and all the ones named were used in the series (well, take it back... I don't think they used Painless Pole the dentist except in the movie), they had to create new ones to replace them. The exception was Radar, but Gary Burghoff left late in the series, so it was more effective to give Jamie Farr a larger role and put him in the role of company clerk. Made sense, as like with company changes, job positions would happen in the army. Point is, SJC could've changed anyone he wanted to with another actor. Katt could've been in the original pilot then next thing it'd been Mark Hamill, Culp could've ended being replaced by Larry Hagman, and Connie could've been replaced by Erin Gray. That's just the craziness of TV, and this included Stuart. If the show returned with a female heroine, there could've been a different actress in the role. You are missing the point as to why your examples are fallacious. And MyTatuo, is your copy of HEROINE so badly scratched that you need a new one?
|
|
|
Post by MelMac on Sept 13, 2007 16:45:19 GMT -5
OK, then tell me why they have fallacies. I'm making valid points in that Stuart could've been replaced as could any actor in the series - including our favorite trio when they were in the show. I also said earlier on that I understood replacements for spots opened by actors leaving shows, such as "M*A*S*H," but I didn't like Holly and how that if the series was bought, SJC probably would've replaced her with a stronger woman (more believable) woman playing the role. If it's because I don't like the episode, then yes, I'm going to read as fallacious.
|
|