Jump to content

The Originals and the Imitators


Paul Raven

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 64
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Members

Wishman was a 1983 ABC pilot, a ripoff of ET, even if the design of the alien might make you think it was imitating Paul Rudd's favorite film, Mac and Me. It was beaten in the ratings by a Magnum PI repeat.

The pilot has a slew of soap names (past and future) in the cast, with Linda Hamilton (then best known for her work on David Jacobs soaps) and Joseph Bottoms (pre-Santa Barbara) as the lead couple, Jean Bruce Scott (just off DAYS) as her friend, and John Reilly (in-between ATWT and GH) as the evil government boss. 

Bottoms rescues the alien, very, VERY awkwardly putting him in a potato sack, and flees the facility. Hamilton is, rightfully, astonished and doesn't want to be involved, but quickly comes around. They go on the run, and the end sets them up to keep going on the run. In this sense it also reminds me of Voyagers, with the late Jon Erik Hexum, which had started earlier that TV season.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voyagers!

I got to watch the pilot, but I don't see it online now.

There are a few clips. Most of it is the generic "heartwarming" cheese (the alien helps Bruce's husband [the actor stopped appearing in front of the camera not long after this pilot...] and son reconcile) and generic government bad guy schemes, but there is some odd sleaze in one particular segment where the alien watches Hamilton as she is in the shower and leaves the shower, and she is...bemused? She then goes back to her bedroom (actually her friend's guest bedroom), and they laugh, and say they want to have children, and start making out while the alien is still nearby. Only when he jumps on the bed (which Hamilton says reminds her of her old family dog) do they finally stop.

Hamilton is the best part of this, as she often is, although Joseph Bottoms is worth watching as a very stupid character and possibly the most tanned warehouse-bound scientist ever. The shirtless scene and extremely tight trousers he wears don't hurt. 

Please register in order to view this content

https://fb.watch/sE5gkiDRvH/

 

 

Edited by DRW50
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

He's voiced by Dom DeLuise. As is often the case, that's all anyone needs to know. If you're curious I believe Pluto TV (and the 24/7 YouTube stream) often runs many of the Season 13 episodes on their MST3K channel.

Edited by Vee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

That theme song is the only thing from Supertrain that had any staying power. Cobert knew what he had and reused many of its elements for the NBC game show Chain Reaction less than a year later. That version only ran a few months, but it was revived on the USA Network from 1986 to 1991 - still using the Cobert theme.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Witches of Eastwick had two different attempts to make it to television - first an actual comedy in 1992 from NBC starring Ally Walker, Julia Campbell and Catherine Mary Stewart and then a 2002 FOX version starring Marcia Cross, Kelly Rutherford and Lori Loughlin. Someone wanted this tv show to happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

The version above I talked about happened around 2009-ish, so three! It had Jaime Ray Newman, Rebecca Romijn, and Lindsay Price. (With, again, Paul Gross as the male lead.) So some soap cred with the cast. (The write up also mentions Sara Rue, but she wasn't one of the three main women. Dailymotion has some episodes up, so maybe I'll check them out again and refresh my memory.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

My main memory of Eastwick is one of the women (maybe Price) using her powers to get a gay man to want her. Rather than trying to make it something wicked or hot, the show was more honest about it in that his boyfriend found them and was disgusted, and then the gay guy, with the spell now worn off, was confused and horrified. 

(if this had been done on daytime I imagine certain soap columnists would have called it hilarious and brave)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

The Richmonds of Chicago were middle class (Charlie was a city highway worker, Diana was a teacher) and they had three kids and not five. Other than being a family sitcom featuring an African-American family, I'm not seeing any parallels with The Cosby Show unless I'm missing something.

Oddly enough, I see some elements of Charlie & Co. in Family Matters, besides Jaleel White being in the cast of both shows: set in Chicago, middle class African-American family, both families have an aunt named Rachel.

 

Married...with Children, Roseanne, The Simpsons to me seem like responses to the big 1980s family sitcoms The Cosby Show, Family Ties, Who's the Boss, Growing Pains. Think about it, The Cosby Show, Family Ties, Who's the Boss, Growing Pains all embodied Reagan-era ideals and Married...with Children, Roseanne, The Simpsons were the total opposite, the anti-Reagan-era ideal family sitcom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Exactly. 

Usually, the TV industry responds to the culture, rather than influences it, so I wonder if Reagan-era fatigue might have been setting in sooner than the latter shows would suggest - like, say, 1985 or '86?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

In both cases, you had a show built around a comedian who had first seen success in the '60's and '70's (although, Cosby's act lent more material to his show's writers than Flip did his - unless they had plans to bring on "Geraldine" later, lol).  You also had, in both cases, a co-star with a musical background, with Gladys Knight having the obvious edge there; and an oldest son (Malcolm Jamal Warner on "Cosby"; KSJ on "Charlie") who was good-looking, popular, and who seemed to care more about his friends and his girlfriends than about his studies. 

And then you had the parents in both shows as full-time professionals and not like the Jeffersons or the Evanses on "Good Times," where the mom stayed home while the dad went off to work.  I don't recall "Charlie" focusing much on the parents' work lives beyond an episode or two; but, then again, I don't recall "Cosby" doing much with Cliff or with Clair's job after the first few seasons either.

Ironically, I've heard or read somewhere that Jaleel White was supposed to play Rudy before they changed the character to a female or that he was in serious contention.  So, "Charlie & Co." kinda, sorta gives you an idea of what, if anything, "Cosby" would have been like with Jaleel playing the precocious, younger child instead of Keshia Knight Pulliam.  And of course, before Kristoff St. John portrayed the older son on "Charlie," he played one of Denise's many obnoxious boyfriends on an episode of "Cosby," too.  (Seriously, it's a toss-up as to which Huxtable daughter had the worst tastes in men, lol).

The only place where there is real difference between the two shows, aside from income levels, is in the depiction of the sole daughter on "Charlie."  To me, she's a more stereotypical (black) teenage girl, obsessed with boys and gossiping about boys on the phone with her girlfriends and always there for a sassy, snappy comeback about how her parents just don't understand what it's like for teenagers these days.  Sort of like Brenda and Tiffany on "227" - but, now that I think about it, Vanessa Huxtable could fit that type pretty well, too, lol.

Oh, and "Charlie" had the better theme song, I'm just saying:

Please register in order to view this content

 

Edited by Khan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

@Khan Thank you for the reply re The Cosby Show/Charlie & Co.

I've pointed this out before but I think 1985/86 was the turning point season of the 1980s. Escapist shows like the primetime soaps and the big action shows were out, shows that gave comfort and warmth were in. Look at what two of the biggest hits that season were: sophomore surprise Murder, She Wrote and rookie breakout The Golden Girls. Even though both shows main characters were women over 50, the shows appealed to viewers of all walks of life. I pinpoint 1986 as the year s--- got real (AIDS crisis, Space Shuttle Challenger, Chernobyl) and with the world around us changing so much, television viewers sought comfort and warmth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



  • Recent Posts

    •   Like I said I wasn’t talking about characterization. It makes sense that Dani is in denial. However literally no one in the real world would accuse someone of faking a pregnancy. Why? Because it’s just not feasible. What is Dani supposed to expect from Hayley—that she’ll be hiding a pillow under her shirt 24/7? Come on. The accusation has no legs, and that’s exactly why nobody would ever go there. A far more plausible accusation—one that actually has been made for centuries—is that someone might lie about who the father is. Dani only vaguely hinted at that, but at least that angle would make some narrative sense. I’d go for a coworking space that would be home to these small businesses like Kat and Chelsea’s bag startup (the whole police station trope feels like copaganda to me)
    • I guess RTPP looked worse because it followed Another World, but it's a shame they didn't give it more time especially considering how the shows that were put on following it fared.
    • Please register in order to view this content

    • Durkin was awful. The writing did her no favors, but she was all wrong for the part, lacking the mix of mystery, steeliness, sorrow and hesitancy that defined Victoria. I still have the awful memory of Adam lugging her around like a rag doll. She looked much more like one of the Blue Whale dancing extras than Victoria. And her voice... Maybe I am too harsh. With that said, Curtis didn't seem as bothered. I see from a fan review mentioning Barnabas & Company that Durkin was asked to return for Victoria's final episodes and declined as she had a Christmas trip to Europe with her husband planned and wasn't interested in just a few appearances.  I refuse to believe Victoria actually died during the Leviathan storyline. If Barnabas and Angelique could come back 8 times, she could come back a few.
    • It's a shame she only appeared in three episodes for the purpose of being written out - I thought she was quite good in the little we saw. I liked her vibe better than Durkin that never seemed to quite capture Victoria as a character.
    • He did a lot of romance novel covers, so that might've just been enough for them to get their panties in a twist.
    • Pre-TGIF, ABC most successful 1980s Friday 8 pm comedy I'd say was Webster. Full House wasn't a hit its first two seasons but it started showing growth in its third season which overlapped with the launch of TGIF. Funny thing is, Full House became a Top 10 show with the 1991/92 move to Tuesday.
    • Oakland Tribune, 14 July 1985   AW is another show with Schenkel at helm By Connie Passalacqua For the most part, dictators of South American banana republics enjoy better reputations than executive producers of daytime soap operas. Total authority is vested in these producers, who can kill off a character (thus firing an actor) with a stroke of a pen, or completely change life in his or her soap opera dominion (both in its fictional locale and backstage at the studio) on any kind of whim.  Most rule despotically, inspiring fear in their actors and writers. Which inevitably surfaces on the screen and subtracts from a show's quality. Then there's Stephen Schenkel who became executive producer of Another World last fall. He's been described by one of his actresses as "a teddy bear." He has noticeably improved the show, mostly because his natural warmth encourages backstage cohesiveness, and he believes in personally nurturing his staff and cast. 'I like to be supportive', he said.' I like to generate a certain amount of enthusiasm. I love actors and writers and technical people. And I like to laugh..  ' Schenkel said that most of the factors that have led to the shows improved ratings existed before he took over. There were well defined characters, outstanding writers and excellent production values, he explains. 'These things were in place but needed to be stimulated. There wasn't a lot of excitement. What really was missing was an adequate story. We added Gillian Spencer as a writer. (she also plays Daisy on All My Children), who's wonderful, and it just coalesced. The writers energy and commitment to the show began to give it an emotional intensity and some real passion within the characters." Schenkel, a former ABC programming executive who helped develop Ryan's Hope, is a strong believer in stressing romantic and comedy elements in soap operas. AW is also one of the only soaps with an established group of comic characters, including Wallingford (Brent Collins) and Lily Mason (Jackee , Harry). Schenkel raves about the talents of all his actors, and even has something good to say about the Brooklyn location of the shows studio, which most of his Manhattan-oriented staff loathe. I like the people here. I like to walk down the street and feel their energies, he said. He also violateda soap opera no-no, ' inviting actors and writers to the same party. "Everyone got to know one another, he said. And I didn't get any complaints about actors ' begging for story lines, he said. 
    • Since it's pride month.

      Please register in order to view this content

         
    • National City Star-News, 5 May 1977 TV topics by Peter Blazi Lear’s ‘All that Glitters’—doesn’t The best thing that can be said about Norman Lear’s newest soap opera“All That Glitters” is that it comes on so late at night most people will miss it. Role reversal is supposed to be the big draw, with women the breadwinners, mainly executives of a huge conglomerate. The men either fuss with the housework or fidget at the office as secretaries to their bawdy bosses. A female fantasyland? I doubt it. While the role reversal idea has some possibilities, the show pushes too hard for laughs and winds up with raucous females and effete males. A confident, independent woman is indeed a sight to behold and attract, but femininity need not be sacrificed. Unlike Lear’s “Mary Hartman, Mary Hartman,” "Glitters” doesn’t, but you’ve got to give him credit for trying. Today’s experimental comedy is what tomorrow’s hits are made of. Better luck next time, Norman. (“All That Glitters” can be seen weekday evenings at 11 p.m. on Channel 6.) .
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy