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

    • Great pairing that seemed to come out of the blue! Around that time, it felt like Sheffer/Goutman didn’t really know what to do with Emily or Hal. And KM and BH had surprisingly great chemistry. It was good for Emily especially because she was coming off those unsympathetic years with the Tom affair and then running the Intruder and essentially just being a busybody.
    • I think the issue with Lulu is less the character (which was the issue in the Julie Berman days under Guza II) and more the lack of nuance. The current GH team rarely writes nuance for any character or at least can't sustain it for long, or they reserve it for a favored few. I also think the rooting interest at GH BTS often remains on preferred characters or actors - BLQ/Setton - vs. Laura's kids. So it's easy to make Lulu the heavy if you think Brook Lynn and Chase are the money on this show. I don't, but I think FV does. And that's not to say I think Amanda Setton is bad in the role, or that I would get rid of BLQ. I don't trend towards either (though I do think that if Setton's personal beliefs keep getting in the way of material I would reluctantly recast). I think Brook Lynn is essential to use as a lead presently. But I don't think it needs to be the black and white dichotomy of suffering young matriarch BLQ and aggressor Lulu. While it's good that unlike in the Guza years they can recognize that Lulu can be obnoxious and rash, can be her own worst enemy and that that is part of the character, it can be toned down or given more layers than it has of late. There's nothing wrong there the writing can't fix.
    • 1999: I just watched it. It felt so primetime. La Lucci is making history. Aretha's daydreaming segment. @Contessa Donatella Thank you, my love. So helpful and informative as always. adding them to my queue.
    • I know this isn’t a usual or anywhere near universal take, but I loved the relatively brief Hal/Emily relationship/marriage more than I ever thought I would have with KMH/BH.
    • In my field (not that) I've written my share of dreck when it's what people wanted vs. something good. In the end what matters is the check. These pilots may not be great, but whether or not those writers intended otherwise they got paid.
    • I think there is plenty to critique and/or roast about the show, but I think there's also good bones and a lot of progressive improvement. It's the Bell/B&B formula and house style that is hardest for it to shake and the most necessary IMO, as well as some dead weight actors or characters, but that formula also apparently works for a lot of general viewers and I suspect CBS. OTOH it's also very modern in certain ways (sometimes overly hip dialogue, and some story) that still make it feel like a show that's bouncing between distant past staples of soap opera fundamentals and the present moment. And the old fashioned product placement is fun but also so goofy, while material like June is hysterical. Imagine leading with 'the underpass is where I live, and I like it there!' It's an unusual show in that way, because its identity and tone is still not fully formed. You don't know what it'll be. But that's normal at this juncture. The closest thing to a glimpse of the future foundation, I think (besides the obvious core family setup that's been there since Day 1), is the rivalry and future familial bond - and likely love/hate relationship - between Kat and Eva. A la many central sisters or siblings throughout soap history.
    • I loved Kelley Menighan! She was an MVP, especially during the show’s last few years. I always looked forward to anything she did with MM, BH, CZ, MW,  and the two grownup Alisons. Wasn’t a big fan of her with RH’s Paul. I always admired how she balanced being a vixen and being neurotic.
    • LLC can be a lot (lady definitely doesn’t phone it in), but her scenes with Rena made me wish they played actual sisters on a better platform.  Aside from JE, who is a legend so it’s no surprise when she’s excellent, Amanda Setton is my MVP of this story and she hasn’t always been great in this role. You see so much happening in her face as she’s navigating the shifts and layers of this story. She’s fully locked in. Glad Rory Gibson is getting his due on GH. I knew he had more to give than what Y&R was giving him. The writing will be a factor here as well because the character of Michael hasn’t been written well in ages (if ever, arguably). GH just can’t sustain the good stuff for more than a few weeks. Alexa Havins is a very good actress and was widely embraced as Lulu initially, but the character’s one-note abrasiveness has a lot of folks wishing she was gone at this point. 
    • It's pilots like "Hurricane Sam" and "Anything for Love" that makes me so afraid to write professionally, because, my God, what if I actually tried and came up with something just as awful, if not worse (if that's even possible)?
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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