|
Post by HoudiniDerek on Sept 13, 2007 16:49:57 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. You are fallacious because you are purporting shows like the A-TEAM and MASH as similar when they are not. They are not similar in any way shape or form to the GAH attempt at a turnover. Your continued insistence that they are is fallacious because you are missing the point. The fact that you hate the episode is entirely different psychological problem.
|
|
|
Post by MelMac on Sept 13, 2007 16:54:03 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. You are fallacious because you are purporting shows like the A-TEAM and MASH as similar when they are not. They are not similar in any way shape or form to the GAH attempt at a turnover. Your continued insistence that they are is fallacious because you are missing the point. The fact that you hate the episode is entirely different psychological problem. I respectfully disagree. In this case, I was using an example of how SJC replaced Faces with how he could've replaced MES with another actress. There is no fallacy to that argument. In this case too I was responding to this comment you made: You implied that the actress could not be replaced. My argument was MES could've been so as could Connie, Katt, Culp or any actor in any TV show. I do think, however, because I do not like attempt that my argument is considered as such.
|
|
|
Post by HoudiniDerek on Sept 13, 2007 16:58:57 GMT -5
This is why it is pointless to try and explain things to you. You take it too seriously when someone points out errors in your logic.
In the A-TEAM, SJC was told by the studio he could only have ONE of them. That was not the case with HEROINE. Mary Ellen Stuart was cast and kept. Therefore, comparing the two are fallacious...it doesn't matter HOW you see the episode...the logic does not track.
I did not imply she could not be recast. I was saying that this was not the intention going into the pilot production for HEROINE where it WAS the intention with the A-TEAM.
|
|
|
Post by MelMac on Sept 13, 2007 17:54:22 GMT -5
This is why it is pointless to try and explain things to you. You take it too seriously when someone points out errors in your logic. In the A-TEAM, SJC was told by the studio he could only have ONE of them. That was not the case with HEROINE. Mary Ellen Stuart was cast and kept. Therefore, comparing the two are fallacious...it doesn't matter HOW you see the episode...the logic does not track. I did not imply she could not be recast. I was saying that this was not the intention going into the pilot production for HEROINE where it WAS the intention with the A-TEAM. My original post was: So, I guess you misread me as I you. I felt they'd recast Holly like they did face if they expanded on the idea. Regardless of how SJC went into "A-Team" (using the other actor, who was his second choice might I ad), the point was he was replaced with Benedict because he wasn't liked, and the same could've went with Stuart. While I meant the series itself and possibly a redo of "GAHeroine" so the new actress could fit in, I guess I was misread. But then again, that's the norm here - on many levels.
|
|
|
Post by mmderdekea on Sept 13, 2007 19:47:13 GMT -5
Hello, Mytatuo, As usual, your clear lucidity and diplomatic postings in any discussion is graphically evident. You're right; we are saying the same things repeatedly and simply winding up with different conclusions. For me, yeah, I can't see GAHeroine as canon, but I know others do. I'm happy if that's the end of debate for me! I didn't know GAHeroine was shown in syndication, to be honest. That truly mystifies me. I'd be embarrassed to show it as it is if I owed the series. I guess if you've got the bazillions of dollars SJC has, he isn't that concerned if viewers go "HUH?" watching GAHeroine in syndication. Mona
|
|
|
Post by MelMac on Sept 13, 2007 20:30:55 GMT -5
The easiest way to describe why "GAHeroine" is included in syndication: It's an extra episode to show, meaning they probably have to pay more to show that package, and more money goes to the people involved. Since I first voted, I've changed my mind about the episode. It's not canon, but makes good cannon fodder (pun intended) for anyone's spinoffs. If they didn't have the opening credits to begin with when they showed this as a possible series to the networks, it was never meant to be shown to Joe Public. However, because it also adds money into the hoppers, I'm guessing everyone thought why not slap on the opening credits from season three and include it in syndication packages and on the DVD collection to add another couple of bucks to it? Theoretically, given the choice between it and having at least "Eve of Destruction," "Help Me Rhonda" and "Rocket Man" all considered vital songs in the series, I'd rather have them over this episode. IMHO, "GAHeroine" isn't canon (wasn't supposed to be aired), the four unaired eps are (they were, but ABC cancelled the series after being yo-yos as Bill'd call them). Any fanfic we write is not canon, no matter how much we want it to be. If nothing else, this shows where I stand - simply and clearly, if I haven't been already.
|
|
|
Post by Nicol on Sept 14, 2007 13:31:58 GMT -5
For my two cents on this debate- if the spin-off was picked up by the network MES would have been replaced. While some guys here on the board seem to agree she filled out the suit well she just didn't fill the role of suit wearer well. And I know this next thought will raise some grrrs but I also think Bill would have been switched out as the partner after a bit. Not saying it would have happened right off, but I think they would have eventually. If only to make it a new show altogether.
|
|
|
Post by HoudiniDerek on Sept 14, 2007 15:54:21 GMT -5
Good points, Mona. I do have to say that I think showing HEROINE in syndication was a brilliant touch. Even if you hate the idea of the way Ralph lost the suit and how the story was told, at least there was closure. You look to some shows and they don't HAVE that...especially in syndication, even if there are unaired episodes. That is the one strength that HEROINE adds to the original GAH franchise...an ending. And Mel, I read you right...you just stated what you wanted to say wrong.
|
|
|
Post by MelMac on Sept 14, 2007 16:05:49 GMT -5
Good points, Mona. I do have to say that I think showing HEROINE in syndication was a brilliant touch. Even if you hate the idea of the way Ralph lost the suit and how the story was told, at least there was closure. You look to some shows and they don't HAVE that...especially in syndication, even if there are unaired episodes. That is the one strength that HEROINE adds to the original GAH franchise...an ending. And Mel, I read you right...you just stated what you wanted to say wrong. An ending with a lot of questions and missing information. I still say it's just added to add more money in their pockets, as it didn't have the GAH theme opening titles until they decided to include it. And, even if I stated it right, I'd probably be read as wrong in this case so catch-22.
|
|
|
Post by HoudiniDerek on Sept 14, 2007 16:07:55 GMT -5
That's because you're always wrong. But holes and things MADE UP the entire franchise. There were always plot holes or visual effects holes...that was part of the cheese and such of GAH. HEROINE just continued that trend. Granted, the HEROINE pilot might have had more of them as filmed, but we do not know if that holds true as WRITTEN. And as a writer, you think you would be more willing to think that the script was good (maybe even Holly's acting) if the whole thing had been done.
|
|
|
Post by MelMac on Sept 14, 2007 16:21:33 GMT -5
That's because you're always wrong. But holes and things MADE UP the entire franchise. There were always plot holes or visual effects holes...that was part of the cheese and such of GAH. HEROINE just continued that trend. Granted, the HEROINE pilot might have had more of them as filmed, but we do not know if that holds true as WRITTEN. And as a writer, you think you would be more willing to think that the script was good (maybe even Holly's acting) if the whole thing had been done. If it explained why they totally out of characterized Ralph, then maybe - but there were huge issues with the script in the way it's filmed. It left too many questions and contradictions IMHO. And no, no matter how hard you try to make me fall into that trap, I will never concede Mary Ellen Stuart is a good actress - even if this was done in its proper fashion. She sounded as stilted as Tony did in "Taming of the Shrew." (Note, I said Tony, not Pare. ) Stuart was not believable in the role and I believe would've been recast had the show been bought.
|
|
|
Post by HoudiniDerek on Sept 14, 2007 17:02:59 GMT -5
That is because you are biased by what you saw and your crush on Ralph. She would not have been cast if she could not act. As for HEROINE, just because there were inconsistencies, that is still GAH.
|
|
|
Post by MelMac on Sept 14, 2007 17:42:49 GMT -5
That is because you are biased by what you saw and your crush on Ralph. She would not have been cast if she could not act. As for HEROINE, just because there were inconsistencies, that is still GAH. Then why have we not seen Mary Ellen Stuart in shows since? She's appeared in very little since 1986 while Katt still has success in acting? In this day and age, given even Katt and Connie's ages, if you're getting regular work in acting, you're a success. He also is versitile, and has acted on stage (to high acclaims), been in movies, TV movies and TV shows. When he's not doing that, he's also trying his hand at directing. I'm not biased for Katt ... I'm stating my point of view based on fact. Katt's acting still and doing well, Stuart does not, and last time we've read anything on her she's teaching. Also, regardless of inconsistencies, my point has been that I feel "GAHeroine" was never meant to be shown after it bombed because they had no opening theme titles when it was given to the network as a possible new series. This is clear because Katt, Culp and Connie were listed in those titles, not MES and Culp. I stand by this because there are a lot of pilots that are shown every year to networks, but only a handful make it. We don't get to see that ep or so, even if it was stellar. However, because of the almight dollar, it was added to the "GAH" episodes syndication to charge a few more bucks to line people's pockets with. It's not part of the series, it's a spinoff of the series. I'd rather have "Vanity" be the ender, even though I do not like the fact it just was Bill when they could've had the other two there knowing it was the last scene of the series.
|
|
|
Post by HoudiniDerek on Sept 14, 2007 17:45:44 GMT -5
That is because you are biased by what you saw and your crush on Ralph. She would not have been cast if she could not act. As for HEROINE, just because there were inconsistencies, that is still GAH. Then why have we not seen Mary Ellen Stuart in shows since? She's appeared in very little since 1986 while Katt still has success in acting? In this day and age, given even Katt and Connie's ages, if you're getting regular work in acting, you're a success. He also is versitile, and has acted on stage (to high acclaims), been in movies, TV movies and TV shows. When he's not doing that, he's also trying his hand at directing. I'm not biased for Katt ... I'm stating my point of view based on fact. Katt's acting still and doing well, Stuart does not, and last time we've read anything on her she's teaching. Also, regardless of inconsistencies, my point has been that I feel "GAHeroine" was never meant to be shown after it bombed because they had no opening theme titles when it was given to the network as a possible new series. This is clear because Katt, Culp and Connie were listed in those titles, not MES and Culp. I stand by this because there are a lot of pilots that are shown every year to networks, but only a handful make it. We don't get to see that ep or so, even if it was stellar. However, because of the almight dollar, it was added to the "GAH" episodes syndication to charge a few more bucks to line people's pockets with. It's not part of the series, it's a spinoff of the series. I'd rather have "Vanity" be the ender, even though I do not like the fact it just was Bill when they could've had the other two there knowing it was the last scene of the series. Lots of people just stop acting and move on. She taught for several years instead of doing acting. Just because she was not acting does not mean she was bad. Hell, bad people get cast all the time...right Tony? And since HEROINE was the continuation it made perfect sense for the original three to be the leads in the new spinoff, including the opening credits. Never been very involved in television or anything have you?
|
|
|
Post by MelMac on Sept 14, 2007 19:16:57 GMT -5
Then why have we not seen Mary Ellen Stuart in shows since? She's appeared in very little since 1986 while Katt still has success in acting? In this day and age, given even Katt and Connie's ages, if you're getting regular work in acting, you're a success. He also is versitile, and has acted on stage (to high acclaims), been in movies, TV movies and TV shows. When he's not doing that, he's also trying his hand at directing. I'm not biased for Katt ... I'm stating my point of view based on fact. Katt's acting still and doing well, Stuart does not, and last time we've read anything on her she's teaching. Also, regardless of inconsistencies, my point has been that I feel "GAHeroine" was never meant to be shown after it bombed because they had no opening theme titles when it was given to the network as a possible new series. This is clear because Katt, Culp and Connie were listed in those titles, not MES and Culp. I stand by this because there are a lot of pilots that are shown every year to networks, but only a handful make it. We don't get to see that ep or so, even if it was stellar. However, because of the almight dollar, it was added to the "GAH" episodes syndication to charge a few more bucks to line people's pockets with. It's not part of the series, it's a spinoff of the series. I'd rather have "Vanity" be the ender, even though I do not like the fact it just was Bill when they could've had the other two there knowing it was the last scene of the series. Lots of people just stop acting and move on. She taught for several years instead of doing acting. Just because she was not acting does not mean she was bad. Hell, bad people get cast all the time...right Tony? And since HEROINE was the continuation it made perfect sense for the original three to be the leads in the new spinoff, including the opening credits. Never been very involved in television or anything have you? You know, I'm not even going to bother. You have your favorites, I have mine, that's enough. I've made my point clearly as to why I don't see this as canon, but everyone tries to make me see it as such. The only thing it's good for is canon fodder. And, after nearly getting hit by a train because the crossing guards did not work and the train didn't signal properly (and yes, I'm literal and serious here), I've come to realize that debating over something that happened in '86 is pointless and not really worth it. Hopefully, if they ever do try this again, it's done properly with a proper cast so that we don't get another episode full of drivel and contradictions.
|
|
|
Post by Nicol on Sept 14, 2007 19:37:45 GMT -5
There are times when they try to sell a show to a studio that it won't have opening credits. I got a chance one time to preview a new show they wanted a test audiance for. and that show did not have openng or ending credits. (if you are curiouse it was called "long Island Heat" I have to pull the tape out to see who was in it. But anyway so it does happen.
so it is possible they didn't have one for heroin either when they ran it past a test audiance.
|
|
|
Post by Nicol on Sept 14, 2007 19:42:38 GMT -5
Oh and some of the questions they asked after...
Did you like the actors? Did you think they went well together were they believeable? and other about the characters in the show.
|
|
|
Post by HoudiniDerek on Sept 14, 2007 20:23:19 GMT -5
Good points, Nicol. A lot of studios don't put a score or anything to it until after it has passed a number of tests. And Mel, you get bent out of shape too much. Some of us are going to start thinking you are too literal.
|
|
|
Post by Ms Boku on Sept 14, 2007 20:38:45 GMT -5
It's not canon! I had to undo the damage that was done to us impressionable fans by turning back the hands of time In my story. Time Heals all wounds. (plug) and hint HD. Patience is not a strong point with me.
|
|
|
Post by HoudiniDerek on Sept 15, 2007 10:09:40 GMT -5
I have noticed this, Ms. B. Well, if you feel free to undo canon, get rid of that atrocious story where someone made Pam marry Ralph....THAT is not canon.
|
|