FLM films - My Webpage

1997-01-21 00:00:00 - Rhys-Davies' Unhappiness - proof - (zikzak23@pipeline.com)


Earlier, I posted a message stating that Rhys-Davies was not leaving the show as a result of one producer on the show as others claimed or even because of creative differences. In my opinion, it's because he wasn't the star of the show. I was asked for proof/evidence of where I got this claim. Here it is. First of all, you can point your WWW browsers to: http://www.tiac.net/users/robbp/sliders/starlog225.html where you'll find a reprint of an article from Starlog. In it, Rhys-Davies makes several comments to the effect that he wanted Arturo to become the focus of the show instead of Quinn. There's also a comment by Torme' on why that wasn't going to happen. More proof can be found in Rhys-Davies' interview on the AOL chat forum. In it, Rhys-Davies says that he originally thought Arturo was going to be the hero while Quinn was just his doting protege'. He was disappointed when the series showed otherwise. I don't have a copy of this chat anymore, but I'm sure other AOLers could dig up one.

1997-01-23 00:00:00 - Re: Rhys-Davies' Unhappiness - proof - (Lynn <ennui@ix.netcom.com>)


In article <5c1ap7$a67@camel4.mindspring.com>, zikzak23@pipeline.com (zikzak23) wrote: >Earlier, I posted a message stating that Rhys-Davies was not leaving >the show as a result of one producer on the show as others claimed or >even because of creative differences. In my opinion, it's because he >wasn't the star of the show. > >I was asked for proof/evidence of where I got this claim. Here it is. >First of all, you can point your WWW browsers to: > Gosh, I just wanted to say that if it's my post you're referring to, I didn't mean to sound like I was asking for proof. When I asked if it was true, it's because there have been so many rumors about this floating around. You stated it as fact, and I was just trying to determine that you knew for sure. It was a yes or no question, really. There are people on this ng that I wouldn't take at face value, but you're not one of them. If I ruffled any feathers, I apologize. Now; Yuck!!!!!!!! I started watching the show because of JRD. I hate to be "gloom and doom" and say that I'll stop watching if he leaves. (But, I never thought I'd tire of Star Trek, either, and it's almost a chore to watch Voyager anymore.) Sometimes cast changes make a show better (Mash); I like the Prof enough, though, that there are times I wouldn't watch some of the lousy ones (tornados) if he weren't in it. There's so few programs that I enjoy, I hate to lose one. Lynn

1997-01-23 00:00:00 - Re: Rhys-Davies' Unhappiness - proof - (robmcc@azstarnet.com)


In article <5c6dti$c3j@dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com> Lynn <ennui@ix.netcom.com> writes: >From: Lynn <ennui@ix.netcom.com> >Subject: Re: Rhys-Davies' Unhappiness - proof >Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 01:06:37 GMT >In article <5c1ap7$a67@camel4.mindspring.com>, > zikzak23@pipeline.com (zikzak23) wrote: >>Earlier, I posted a message stating that Rhys-Davies was not leaving >>the show as a result of one producer on the show as others claimed or >>even because of creative differences. In my opinion, it's because he >>wasn't the star of the show. [...deletions] >Now; Yuck!!!!!!!! I started watching the show because of JRD. I hate to be >"gloom and doom" and say that I'll stop watching if he leaves. (But, I >never thought I'd tire of Star Trek, either, and it's almost a chore to >watch Voyager anymore.) >Sometimes cast changes make a show better (Mash); I like the Prof enough, >though, that there are times I wouldn't watch some of the lousy ones >(tornados) if he weren't in it. There's so few programs that I enjoy, I >hate to lose one. >Lynn Actually Sliders would be an ideal show to make frequent cast changes a "feature" of the show - picking up new sliders and dropping off old ones could keep the show interesting for sure, we would then never be sure whether any particular person would be sure to get out of their present predicament, or would get back in time to slide or whether someone's current love interest would be axed at the end of the episode. It might even be possible to pick up characters temporarily deleted from the cast by running into their doubles or even the original person on a later slide. The continuing predictability of the interactions between the 4 regular cast members is tending to make many episodes very boring - as is the constant post-slide grumbling about who landed on top of whom.

1997-01-24 00:00:00 - Re: Rhys-Davies' Unhappiness - proof - (pf2144@aol.com)


robmcc wrote >Actually Sliders would be an ideal show to make frequent cast changes a >"feature" of the show - picking up new sliders and dropping off old ones >could keep the show interesting for sure, we would then never be sure whether >any particular person would be sure to get out of their present predicament, >or would get back in time to slide or whether someone's current love interest >would be axed at the end of the episode. >It might even be possible to pick up characters temporarily deleted from the >cast by running into their doubles or even the original person on a later >slide I would tend to agree with you, but having frequent cast changes would be problematic for sydication.

1997-01-25 00:00:00 - Re: Rhys-Davies' Unhappiness - proof - (primal@primenet.com)


In article <32ea2360.1657093@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, ford@bayside.net (Ed Murphy) wrote: > On 24 Jan 1997 20:29:28 GMT, pf2144@aol.com (Pf2144) wrote: > > >robmcc wrote > > >>Actually Sliders would be an ideal show to make frequent cast changes a > >>"feature" of the show - picking up new sliders and dropping off old ones > [snip] > >I would tend to agree with you, but having frequent cast changes would be > >problematic for sydication. > > How's that? Syndication doesn't show shows in any particular order. So, on Monday night, the beautiful alien Sarla would join the team, and on Tuesday night, she'd be replaced by Zak, the Kung Fu Kangaroo. Then, come Wednesday night, Zak will have disappeared, replaced by a CGI Herve Villachez, back from the dead for a Very Special Sliders. You get the picture. That's why two-parters are hard to come by. __ give me back my broken night joshua kamm my mirrored room primal@primenet.com my secret life los feliz, ca it's lonely here there's no one left to torture --leonard cohen

1997-01-25 00:00:00 - Re: Rhys-Davies' Unhappiness - proof - (zvyezda@ix.netcom.com)


On 24 Jan 1997 20:29:28 GMT, pf2144@aol.com (Pf2144) wrote: >robmcc wrote >>Actually Sliders would be an ideal show to make frequent cast changes a >>"feature" of the show - picking up new sliders and dropping off old ones [snip] >I would tend to agree with you, but having frequent cast changes would be >problematic for sydication. How's that? -- Ed Murphy <ford@bayside.net> Time is an illusion; lunchtime, www.bayside.net/users/ford/ doubly so. -Ford Prefect

1997-01-27 00:00:00 - Re: Rhys-Davies' Unhappiness - proof - (puz1@aol.com)


(Ed Murphy) writes: >>I would tend to agree with you, but having frequent cast changes would be >>problematic for sydication. > >How's that? ***Not just continuity, but royalties as well? AnnieM *(:-P~~~~

1997-01-28 00:00:00 - Re: Rhys-Davies' Unhappiness - proof - ("Mark J. Dulcey" <mark@ziplink.net>)


Joshua Kamm wrote: > > > >I would tend to agree with you, but having frequent cast changes would be > > >problematic for sydication. > Syndication doesn't show shows in any particular order. 'Taint necessarily so. When programs with ongoing plot are syndicated (nighttime soaps like Dallas or BH90210, for example), the programs are shown in order; the series just wouldn't work otherwise. Stations running syndicated programs are certainly capable of running things in sequence if they see a need to do so. <HTML><BODY> <DT>Joshua Kamm wrote:<BR> &gt;&nbsp;<BR> &gt; &gt; &gt;I would tend to agree with you, but having frequent cast changes would be<BR> &gt; &gt; &gt;problematic for sydication.<BR> <BR> &gt; Syndication doesn't show shows in any particular order.</DT> <DT>&nbsp;</DT> <DT>'Taint necessarily so.&nbsp; When programs with ongoing plot are syndicated (nighttime soaps like Dallas or BH90210, for example), the programs are shown in order; the series just wouldn't work otherwise.&nbsp; Stations running syndicated programs are certainly capable of running things in sequence if they see a need to do so.</DT> </BODY> </HTML>

1997-01-30 00:00:00 - Re: Rhys-Davies' Unhappiness - proof - (robmcc@azstarnet.com)


In article <primal-2501971221400001@ip32-029.lax.primenet.com> primal@primenet.com (Joshua Kamm) writes: >From: primal@primenet.com (Joshua Kamm) >Subject: Re: Rhys-Davies' Unhappiness - proof >Date: 25 Jan 1997 13:24:02 -0700 >In article <32ea2360.1657093@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, ford@bayside.net (Ed >Murphy) wrote: >> On 24 Jan 1997 20:29:28 GMT, pf2144@aol.com (Pf2144) wrote: >> >> >robmcc wrote >> >> >>Actually Sliders would be an ideal show to make frequent cast changes a >> >>"feature" of the show - picking up new sliders and dropping off old ones >> [snip] >> >I would tend to agree with you, but having frequent cast changes would be >> >problematic for sydication. >> >> How's that? >Syndication doesn't show shows in any particular order. So, on Monday >night, the beautiful alien Sarla would join the team, and on Tuesday >night, she'd be replaced by Zak, the Kung Fu Kangaroo. Then, come >Wednesday night, Zak will have disappeared, replaced by a CGI Herve >Villachez, back from the dead for a Very Special Sliders. You get the >picture. That's why two-parters are hard to come by. Two parters are all over the place most series have several of them a year. And it would be simple to control the order the shows are aired, that's what they make contracts for. It isn't just syndication that screws up the order of the repeats - even the major networks do it all the time in same season repeats, most series don't have continuing plots of course, but Babylon5 does and JMS jumbles them all up in repeats all the time. It seems to be some sort of mental illness that US programming execs have - overseas when they buy US series, they almost always show them all straight through from start to finish, in the originally intended order, with no pre-emptions, no schedule changes and no interspersed reruns, Makes for much more pleasant viewing. In the OLD days, when syndicated repeats were apparently done by shipping cans of films from one station to another, there was sopme excuse for all these out-of order airings, but now with most of this stuff being downloaded from satellite or being delivered on video tape copies, there really is no excuse for it.

1997-01-30 00:00:00 - Re: Rhys-Davies' Unhappiness - proof - (rcourt@nntp.best.com)


Rob McConeghy (robmcc@azstarnet.com) wrote: [snip] : It seems to be some sort : of mental illness that US programming execs have - overseas when they buy US : series, they almost always show them all straight through from start to : finish, in the originally intended order, with no pre-emptions, no schedule : changes and no interspersed reruns, Makes for much more pleasant viewing. : In the OLD days, when syndicated repeats were apparently done shipping cans : of films from one station to another, there was sopme excuse for all these : out-of order airings, but now with most of this stuff being downloaded from : satellite or being delivered on video tape copies,there really is no excuse : for it. -- I prefer the way they do it in the UK, too, but the competition for viewers is so fierce that the local stations who purchase syndication rights need to 'package' series programs to meet their needs (e.g., 'sweeps'). So the local channel will have 'Picard' or 'Klingon' week with Star Trek in order to lure the less dedicated but still interested viewers. I agree with you, it is a mess. But I still like seeing programs and will bite the bullet of discontinous program strips in order to see them (again). Be seeing you, Ron Courtright _____________________________________________________________________ | | | PGP Key ID: 4DF26355 | | PGP Fingerprint: 49 E4 D4 34 B1 4E 51 D1 94 65 CD 10 B2 A6 A4 52 | |_____________________________________________________________________|

1997-01-31 00:00:00 - Re: Rhys-Davies' Unhappiness - proof - (Andy <awatson@coventry.ac.uk>)


> I prefer the way they do it in the UK, too, but the competition for viewers > is so fierce that the local stations who purchase syndication rights need to > 'package' series programs to meet their needs (e.g., 'sweeps'). So the local > channel will have 'Picard' or 'Klingon' week with Star Trek in order to lure > the less dedicated but still interested viewers. Well yeah that would be great if the TV channels (and by this I mean the BBC imparticuylarly) would just run the season all the way through without messing around with the order at least once, I mean they left Quinn with a massive head wound in one episode and then next week he was fine and it made no sense at all! I can understand having "theme" weeks but these tend to use older episodes and yes they do bring in the punters and are a good thing for SF in general. Lets just hope the TV chiefs get a brain sometime in the near future (another great example of the BBC mucking up is where they kill scullys dog mone week and yet there it is again in the next episode (apparently this is due to the sensitivity of episodes that they feel shoudl be shown at a later air time. However in many cases they cannot get the later air date and end up showing them at the original time anyway!) Mea Gloria Fides Andy E-mail : Starfury@Deathsdoor.com Web Page : http://members.tripod.com/~Adjwatson/index.html