These days with all the internet and chat rooms and all the cyber talk places, many people love to bring out the fact that many TV shows that are retrofitted for each episode, the most common Chuck Cunningham Syndrome where key characters are not written out of the script of a TV show where the story continues without explanation of where the character went and in some cases the existence of the previous character is never mentioned either. Like the person was not there like with Mike Douglas, played by Tim Constantine who wanted out of his contract midway through the series of My Three Sons. He was said to have gotten married and moved away in the first color episode of the series, where the void was filled in with Ernie Douglas, by adoption. Then later it was never spoken again about Mike or the fact that Ernie was adopted.
Then there are other things out there that are brought up. Sometimes as running gags and then sometimes when a whole show creates a new character out of a place that he or she should not like Martin Crane on Fraiser as the show was a direct spin off of Cheers, where Dr. Fraiser Craine was a character of for several years already with a deceased father. Martin, as we know who watched the spin off, was Fraiser's dad. In addition they made Fraiser out to be a total snob rejecting all people who were not in the upper social class, unlike on Cheers where he befriended a bar full of losers going nowhere in life, and even drank beer then. In the retrofitted Fraiser sitcom, it was made out that Dr. Crane hated beer and could not stand his father's average joe lifestyle that he was part of himself on Cheers. Of course that was all done because the previous Fraiser character would have not made out on a TV show if he was left like he was at Cheers, so the producers made some changes to make the character more desirable. They, in fact, did address some of that when Sam came to visit Fraiser later on Fraiser's TV show, by saying that Fraiser had an argument with his father at the time he told Sam he was dead and did that out of the anger of his argument.
Enough on that, however many people love to gossip about TV shows and complain about retrofitted acts. My question is are we who talk about changes or overlooked scenarios on television really going to far, or is it really a worthwhile discussion to have and to post and get into? To me I sometimes do get into that if it discussed, but not to the point of obsession. However, I am wondering how far is being obsessed over things Hollywood does constantly in a make believe world they create?
*shrug*
Thanks to my teenager kids, I now know about all the character "disappearances" on Glee. They were quite rampant. The overall reaction is a shrug.
Sometimes it can be amazing including TV land when they would mention the Brady Bunch's doghouse with the missing dog as midway through Season 2 of that show the family pet suffered from Chuck Cunningham Syndrome. However, TV Land used to bust that show chops about not removing the dog house even three season's later.
In reality it was to cover a hole in the astroturf that would have been seen if the house was removed, so producers left it behind to cover it.
People who worry about this remind me of an old Styx proverb. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5XcKBmdfpWs)
No, people shouldn't.
Sometimes I wonder, if television is worst than politics as people are so glued to it! Me, I will watch mainly reruns primarily the shows I grew up with. My dial is set for MeTV, and so what if the writing is not consistent in a show. Yes TV world is fake, but at least its entertaining and it gives you another world to retreat to after a long day.
It'll all turn out fine.
What's a dial?
Then there's the Lionel Jefferson situation where the original actor (Mike Evans) is replaced by a new one (Damon Evans, no relation), only for the original Lionel to return a couple seasons later. It was for Mike to focus more on production of Good Times, and he returned once that series ended. No real changes in the plot, just the acting style.
"Roseanne" switched back and forth between actors in the role of one of the daughters over the course of a season.
They even made fun of it in Roseanne.
^Oh, "New Becky"
What I dislike more is when a character changes significantly - even though it's the same person - and it's not addressed. This happens frequently with child actors, and usually between the ending of taping for one season and the beginning of taping for the next season.
A recent example is Luke Dunphy on Modern Family. When the show started up this year, he had grown so much I wasn't sure if this person was Haley Dunphy's brother or if Haley had a new boyfriend.
One example of how I felt it was handled properly was on the Big Bang Theory. When Penny got a new hair style this summer, OCDing Sheldon pointed it out twice in the season's opening episode. Letting that elephant out of the room acknowledges what everyone can see, and allows the show to continue to flow without interruption.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 14, 2015, 03:08:20 PMA recent example is Luke Dunphy on Modern Family. When the show started up this year, he had grown so much I wasn't sure if this person was Haley Dunphy's brother or if Haley had a new boyfriend.
I'd only seen this show in reruns until recently, so I know what you mean.
That said, if you ever don't see a kid for a year and the puberty kicks in, you return to a mutant form of what you thought you knew. I know TV is supposed to be easier and gentler than real life, but I guess sometimes it's a little extra real.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 14, 2015, 03:08:20 PMA recent example is Luke Dunphy on Modern Family. When the show started up this year, he had grown so much I wasn't sure if this person was Haley Dunphy's brother or if Haley had a new boyfriend.
You must have missed a season, as while there's a huge change as seasons have gone, he was pretty grown at the end of the one before.
Manny and Alex had similar, though less noticeable as they didn't spend the first few seasons being the most child-like character on the show.
Lily is a much more extreme change, but was a while back. Baby Lily was basically a prop, and she was getting bigger and couldn't act. So they added 18 months to her age and change the actress, so the character can be a sassy toddler rather than an inert baby.
I would think that the way TV is produced would make the change more obvious. Seasons tend to be shot all at once, so the gap in shooting the finale of one season and the start of the next is much longer than the gap in when the episodes air or take place.
Quote from: english si on September 14, 2015, 05:36:18 PMLily is a much more extreme change, but was a while back. Baby Lily was basically a prop, and she was getting bigger and couldn't act. So they added 18 months to her age and change the actress, so the character can be a sassy toddler rather than an inert baby.
Family Ties was even worse with that. One season, Andrew was a baby; the following season, he was portrayed as a 3-year old (played by Brian Bonsall).
Quote from: PHLBOS on September 15, 2015, 11:45:02 AM
Quote from: english si on September 14, 2015, 05:36:18 PMLily is a much more extreme change, but was a while back. Baby Lily was basically a prop, and she was getting bigger and couldn't act. So they added 18 months to her age and change the actress, so the character can be a sassy toddler rather than an inert baby.
Family Ties was even worse with that. One season, Andrew was a baby; the following season, he was portrayed as a 3-year old (played by Brian Bonsall).
I believe
Growing Pains did the same thing with the 4th Seaver child.
Of course, soap operas are still the king of rapid aging.
If you watch the ending credits of 22nd Jump Street, they parody a bunch of future sequels. In 29 Jump Street, one of the main characters is replaced due to a 'contract dispute'. The actors on the screen play it off as if nothing happened, which is hilarious because of the vast difference in looks of the regular actor (Jonah Hill) vs. replacement actor (Seth Rogen).
This is simply Hollywood making fun of Hollywood.
As it turns out, they are making a 23rd Jump Street. It's rumored to include the parodies featured within 22 Jump Street's credits.
It is a TV show. Who cares? Worry about accuracy in things like the news, history textbooks, and instructions on how to fly airplanes.
Quote from: SP Cook on September 15, 2015, 02:49:40 PM
It is a TV show. Who cares? Worry about accuracy in things like the news, history textbooks, and instructions on how to fly airplanes.
"Worry" was a poorly chosen word, as is typical of the OP. No sane person is worried about any of this, but that doesn't mean people can't find the topic worthy of discussion.
You don't worry about what's happening to the characters in the six days and 23 hours you can't keep an eye on them?
I've been worried about Quincy since 1983. I hope he's okay.
See? I told you there's reason to worry.
A whole generation succumbed to punk rock after Quincy stopped fighting back.
You know nobody ever questioned MASH being on the air longer than the actual Korean War, which the show was to take place. We can be grateful for that, as well as Hogan's Heroes being on longer than America's involvement in World War II. Also like MASH, Hogan's Heroes was taken place during the second big war, and was on total of six seasons. US involvement in that war was from 1941 to 1945. In addition Ivan Dixon also left after Season 5, and producers replaced him with Kenneth Washington and a whole new character going way beyond Chuck Cunningham Syndrome as Season 6 had its own completely different fictional world as it was implied Washington's character was there all along.
Quote from: roadman65 on September 17, 2015, 07:23:04 AM
You know nobody ever questioned MASH being on the air longer than the actual Korean War, which the show was to take place. We can be grateful for that, as well as Hogan's Heroes being on longer than America's involvement in World War II. Also like MASH, Hogan's Heroes was taken place during the second big war, and was on total of six seasons. US involvement in that war was from 1941 to 1945. In addition Ivan Dixon also left after Season 5, and producers replaced him with Kenneth Washington and a whole new character going way beyond Chuck Cunningham Syndrome as Season 6 had its own completely different fictional world as it was implied Washington's character was there all along.
Breaking bad news was on for 5 or 6 seasons but I he time lapsed in the show was a year and a half
Quote from: roadman65 on September 17, 2015, 07:23:04 AM
You know nobody ever questioned MASH being on the air longer than the actual Korean War, which the show was to take place.
On the contrary, this is one of the most often repeated comments about the show.
However, this assumes the scenario I mentioned above where the show is assumes to keep happening unseen for six days and twenty-three hours between episodes. If you added up the total time of the events on the show, I'm sure it works out.
What bugs me about this topic is the term "retrofit". I think the OP is more worried about retcons or general continuity errors.
Surprised nobody brought up Coy and Vance Duke.
Quote from: vtk on September 17, 2015, 10:55:05 AM
What bugs me about this topic is the term "retrofit". I think the OP is more worried about retcons or general continuity errors.
Surprised nobody brought up Coy and Vance Duke.
Heh. I remember that change as a kid watching the series. Didn't cause me any grief and hey, that's when the Green Machine episodes were done. :D
I'm surprised that M*A*S*H wasn't mentioned yet. A show Regarding the earlier-mentioned M*A*S*H covering a 3-year war that ran for 11 years; some earlier episodes would state that it's 1952 while later shows would state that it's 1951.
Some other time-related inconsistencies:
The final score of the Army-Navy game (shown in one 1st Season episode) doesn't match any of the Army-Navy games played from 1950-52. Such an oversight was probably intentional/deliberate.
While the show had 3 Christmas-themed episodes (from Season 1, 7 & 9; a correct total given the duration of the war); other episodes (in Seasons 5, 9 & 10) give hints of other Christmasses.
One episode that featured two New Year Eve celebrations (1950-51 & 1951-52) and the time in between (Season 9's A War For Alll Seasons) completely ignores the past existence of Trapper John, Col. Blake, Frank Burns & Radar.
Bold denotes corrections.
Then there's the Fresh Prince of Bel-Air, where they switched a dark-skinned Aunt Vivian to a light-skinned one, and made Will's cousin Nick from an infant in one season to a five-year old in the next. I never really liked the former change, but the latter was more expected because of the precedents mentioned earlier (Family Ties, Growing Pains).
And There's Company and Charlie's angels swapping out pretty girls with no explanation.. Or the phone call from Chrissy.
Watching one of the behind the scenes shows explained contract disputes and the stars demanding more $ and producer not giving in to demands
Quote from: jwolfer on September 17, 2015, 11:50:08 AM
And There's Company and Charlie's angels swapping out pretty girls with no explanation.. Or the phone call from Chrissy.
Watching one of the behind the scenes shows explained contract disputes and the stars demanding more $ and producer not giving in to demands
The original
Hawaii Five-0 did similar when replacing Kono (played by a disc jockey named Zulu) with Ben (Al Harrington, who's made cameo appearances (as a different character) in the new series) in Season 5. In the epsiodes, there was no mention of what happened w/Kono nor how Ben joined the Five-0 team.
Quote from: PHLBOS on September 17, 2015, 11:39:36 AM
I'm surprised that M*A*S*H wasn't mentioned yet. An show covering a 3-year war that ran for 11 years. Some earlier episodes would state that it's 1952 while later shows would state that it's 1951.
Some other time-related inconsistencies:
The final score of the Army-Navy game (shown in one 1st Season episode) doesn't match any of the Army-Navy games played from 1950-52. Such an oversight was probably intentional/deliberate.
While the show had 3 Christmas-themed episodes (from Season 1, 7 & 9; a correct total given the duration of the war); other episodes (in Seasons 5, 9 & 10) give hints of other Christmasses.
One episode that featured two New Year Eve celebrations (1950-51 & 1951-52) and the time in between (Season 9's A War For Alll Seasons) completely ignores the past existence of Trapper John, Col. Blake, Frank Burns & Radar.
It was just mentioned, but whatever.
M*A*S*H gets a pass from me because the plot rarely relied on these details remaining consistent (and because it was a brilliantly written and acted show). Each episode was really a self-contained play that relied on more or less established relationships with characters, but with the war and size of the ensemble providing sufficient excuse for a lot of fluidity.
I'm surprised no one has mentioned Harry Morgan's M*A*S*H role as the crazy General Steele a year before returning full time as Col. Potter.
Seinfeld is also full of this stuff. Jerry's father was replaced, as was Lloyd Braun. The manner and past life stories of the characters kept being tweaked until they settled into what we all know today.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on September 17, 2015, 04:35:49 PMIt was just mentioned, but whatever.
I've since corrected my earlier post; I didn't realize it was mentioned on the previous page (and somewhat buried in a paragraph).
Quote from: Pete from Boston on September 17, 2015, 04:35:49 PMI'm surprised no one has mentioned Harry Morgan's M*A*S*H role as the crazy General Steele a year before returning full time as Col. Potter.
The reason why such wasn't mentioned is because that's just a case where one actor is playing different roles on different episodes. Other shows have done similar; in
Barney Miller, both Steve Landesberg and Ron Carey played one-off guest roles prior to their portraying their established roles as Detective Dietrich and Officer Levitt respectively. I dont' believe (I could be wrong) that such constitutes what the OP is looking for or refering to regarding
retrofitting a show.
One TV show-movie retrofit was
Star Trek's
Space Seed episode vs.
Star Trek II - The Wrath of Khan; that latter was a sequel (of sorts) to the former. When Khan first appears to Chekov, they both recognize each other; however, the TV episode
predated (by roughly a half-season) Chekov (Walter Koenig) joining the cast.
Or the most infamous of switching actors playing Darren in Bewitched.
MASH was 251 episodes, so about 130 hours of airtime (a few episodes were two-parters and there was Goodbye, Farewell, and Amen at 2 hours). But they were clearly not attempting to track any particular time of the war. I think the Chinese entered the war twice.
MASH had different guest stars playing Margaret's husband Donald Penobscot, the two times he was on the show. And Rosie the owner of the dive across the street changed actresses.
Quote from: jwolfer on September 17, 2015, 11:50:08 AM
And There's Company and Charlie's angels swapping out pretty girls with no explanation.. Or the phone call from Chrissy.
Watching one of the behind the scenes shows explained contract disputes and the stars demanding more $ and producer not giving in to demands
Yes Farrah Fawcett departure was written in as Cheryl Ladd's character when first appearing was mentioning that she was Fawcett's character's sister, and sending her regards.
Chrissy left the show supposedly to visit a sick relative, but later forgotten. Her immediate replacement, Cindy (Chrissy's cousin) when she left they did not write her out, and so did Lana (that annoying woman who was obsessed with Jack who lived upstairs) when she left. Both had an attack of Chuck Cunningham Syndrome.
However, on Three's Company Teri Alden (third and final blonde roommate) was explained coming as Cindy was leaving for college and they needed a new roommate where Jack got into an argument with Teri in the ER upon cutting his finger at work, and Janet ran into her inviting her to move in.
Quote from: PHLBOS on September 17, 2015, 06:02:17 PM
One TV show-movie retrofit was Star Trek's Space Seed episode vs. Star Trek II - The Wrath of Khan; that latter was a sequel (of sorts) to the former. When Khan first appears to Chekov, they both recognize each other; however, the TV episode predated (by roughly a half-season) Chekov (Walter Koenig) joining the cast.
Not really. The Enterprise had a crew of 400. Just because Chekov didn't appear until season 2 doesn't mean he wasn't on the ship in season 1 in a different, less prominent position (one of the novels had him as one of the security officers who took Kahn and his people to Ceti Alpha V).
And now I'm thinking of Lt. Saavik going from Kirstie Alley to Robin Curtis. :D
Haha the thing that bothers me about MASH is the inaccuracy of the hairstyles, lol. I doubt anyone who watched the original run cared, though, that it was a show set in the 50s with 70s hairstyles, but it bothers me!
Quote from: Laura on September 18, 2015, 12:49:43 AM
Haha the thing that bothers me about MASH is the inaccuracy of the hairstyles, lol. I doubt anyone who watched the original run cared, though, that it was a show set in the 50s with 70s hairstyles, but it bothers me!
Also in Happy Days after the first 2 seasons along with its spinoff Laverne and Shirley.
But another factor in M*A*S*H was those hairstyles would never have been allowed in the Army whether it was in the 50s, 70s or any other time since WWI.
IIRC, the 3 Bradley sisters on Petticoat Junction were played by 5 actresses. Kate Bradley had a stand in for one episode.
On Red Dwarf, a 'proto' Kryton appeared in one episode a season or two ahead of a similar/same character being added to the crew. The computer was played by at least 3 actors, one male caucasian, one female, and one black.
Several actors filled in for Heath Ledger in (help me out here)
Quote from: Jardine on September 18, 2015, 01:34:59 AM
Several actors filled in for Heath Ledger in (help me out here)
Ah,
The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus. :D Johnny Depp, Jude Law and Colin Farrell.
Quote from: Big John on September 18, 2015, 12:57:25 AM
Quote from: Laura on September 18, 2015, 12:49:43 AM
Haha the thing that bothers me about MASH is the inaccuracy of the hairstyles, lol. I doubt anyone who watched the original run cared, though, that it was a show set in the 50s with 70s hairstyles, but it bothers me!
Also in Happy Days after the first 2 seasons along with its spinoff Laverne and Shirley.
But another factor in M*A*S*H was those hairstyles would never have been allowed in the Army whether it was in the 50s, 70s or any other time since WWI.
Happy Days did pretty well until around 78-79. When Chachi showed up, the accuracy of the hairstyles went into the toilet. Ron Howard and Henry Winkler still tried and I give them credit for it.
Quote from: Laura on September 18, 2015, 12:49:43 AM
Haha the thing that bothers me about MASH is the inaccuracy of the hairstyles, lol. I doubt anyone who watched the original run cared, though, that it was a show set in the 50s with 70s hairstyles, but it bothers me!
BJ's mustache is not allowed in the Army. Then the fact that Hawkeye and Trapper, later BJ, if in real life would be held in insubordination for not following protocol. Klinger would not be allowed to be in drag if it were in real life. Then again on another show, Gomer Pyle made it into the Marines, yet in real life the USMC would never let a goofball like Gomer even come near the Marines let alone serve in them.
As far as Happy Days go, yes Chachi's hair was out of style for the era he played in on the show as that was totally 70's and 80's, but then again Howard Cunningham had a distant cousin (also played by Baio) who looked just like Chachi on a failed Happy Days spin off called Blansky's beauties. In fact Howard's distant relative and Chachi would be lookalikes in the fantasy world of Happy Day's.
Also no one mentions the fact that the exterior Cunningham House's windows do not match the interiors windows or that the front door was moved from one side of the living room to the other between seasons two and three. Even the bathrooms in Arnolds are not consistent with the doors outside of them. Of course different stage settings are used, but the producers failed to notice how close the two doors are between the mens and the womens room. Yet from the inside after entering the men's room you turn right. So where the sinks are that Fonzie always leaned against when talking to Richie should be the women's room door.
Of course, you could also talk about Fonzie having supernatural powers by hitting the pay phone to have it release a coin from it, or have the jukebox play a song just by hitting it. Even in one episode he stopped the pinball machine by hitting it. All of these explained it by calling it the Fonzarelli touch in that his being cool causes all that just like snapping a finger and all single girls come running to him like they all know him.
Happy Days is the most unrealistic show around and more so than MASH I would say.
Quote from: kkt on September 17, 2015, 07:23:59 PMMASH was 251 episodes, so about 130 hours of airtime (a few episodes were two-parters and there was Goodbye, Farewell, and Amen at 2 hours).
That finale epsiode was
2-and-a-half hours and held the record for being the most-watched show (even beating the Super Bowls) for at least a decade or two.
Quote from: kkt on September 17, 2015, 07:23:59 PMMASH had different guest stars playing Margaret's husband Donald Penobscot, the two times he was on the show.
Several shows had different actors or actresses playing the same character (on different episodes; especially if the character is a minor one... Darrin of
Bewitched, Lionel of
The Jeffersons and Mr. French of
Family Affair being exceptions.
Quote from: kkt on September 17, 2015, 07:23:59 PMAnd Rosie the owner of the dive across the street changed actresses.
... roughly 2 or 3 times. The
final Rosie, Eileen Saki, first appeared on the show 2 years earlier than her first
Rosie gig as a head madaam (Season 5's
Bug Out episode).
Quote from: Laura on September 18, 2015, 12:49:43 AM
Haha the thing that bothers me about MASH is the inaccuracy of the hairstyles, lol. I doubt anyone who watched the original run cared, though, that it was a show set in the 50s with 70s hairstyles, but it bothers me!
Mid-way through the show's 8th season; Loretta Swit (Hot Lips) didn't care and went early 80s with her hair.
Quote from: roadman65 on September 17, 2015, 07:39:46 PMChrissy left the show supposedly to visit a sick relative, but later forgotten. Her immediate replacement, Cindy (Chrissy's cousin) when she left they did not write her out, and so did Lana (that annoying woman who was obsessed with Jack who lived upstairs) when she left. Both had an attack of Chuck Cunningham Syndrome.
However, on Three's Company Teri Alden (third and final blonde roommate) was explained coming as Cindy was leaving for college and they needed a new roommate where Jack got into an argument with Teri in the ER upon cutting his finger at work, and Janet ran into her inviting her to move in.
During Season 2 of
One Day at a Time, Ginny Wrobliki (played by Mary Louise Wilson) joined the cast but was dropped from the show with no explanation either before Season 3 started.
Quote from: The Nature Boy on September 18, 2015, 05:34:26 PMHappy Days did pretty well until around 78-79. When Chachi showed up, the accuracy of the hairstyles went into the toilet. Ron Howard and Henry Winkler still tried and I give them credit for it.
IMHO,
Happy Days and
Laverne & Shirley (or at least the writers/producers and so forth) were so busy focusing on the 1950s; they IMHO ran into a rough time transitioning the show into the 1960s. Unlike
M*A*S*H, those shows weren't restricted to a particular set of years. Having Mork (Robin Williams) making a comeback appearance on
Happy Days and telling about earth circa 1979 didn't exactly help the show's nostalgic flavor one iota.
And it wasn't just hairstyles that deviated from the show's time period but on at least one occasion cars. The most blatant example of such was on one
Laverne & Shirley episode (the final Milwaukee season) where an exterior shot clearly shows a 1970 Buick (I believe a Skylark model) parked in front of a building but the episode was set in the early 60s (and cars looked very different from their latter-decade successors).
Quote from: roadman65 on September 18, 2015, 05:53:40 PMBJ's mustache is not allowed in the Army.
I guess the same could be said regarding Major Freedman's (Allan Arbus) mustache as well. In the original
M*A*S*H movie; Trapper, played by Elliot Gould, sported a real heavy mustache.
In the show Maude (a spinoff of All In The Family)you could also say the same for the opening sequence of the show as old 1950's era automobiles were used when showing one particular roadway and the fact that you crossed the George Washington Bridge to get from Manhattan to Tuckahoe, NY which are both on the same side of the Hudson River. The show took place in the early to late 70's, so cars have changed very much in the time the film clips were taken to production.
However, with Norman Lear, he did not believe in Rapid Aging like most shows do as Little Joey did age with time even with his absence in the final season when Reiner and Struthers left the show to pursue other venues in real life which forced the toddlers appearance to be no more.
Even Bewiched, although Tabitha aged normally her brother Adam rapidly grew though. You do see a lot of babies rapid age on screen its like no body likes a toddler, but a baby or a preschool child and up. Just AITF has the real world aging of a child as even Full House, with Michelle being played the whole time by the Olsen Twins, still had the twin boys of Jessie and Becky rapid age later on in the show.
Quote from: The Nature Boy on September 18, 2015, 05:34:26 PM
Quote from: Big John on September 18, 2015, 12:57:25 AM
Quote from: Laura on September 18, 2015, 12:49:43 AM
Haha the thing that bothers me about MASH is the inaccuracy of the hairstyles, lol. I doubt anyone who watched the original run cared, though, that it was a show set in the 50s with 70s hairstyles, but it bothers me!
Also in Happy Days after the first 2 seasons along with its spinoff Laverne and Shirley.
But another factor in M*A*S*H was those hairstyles would never have been allowed in the Army whether it was in the 50s, 70s or any other time since WWI.
Happy Days did pretty well until around 78-79. When Chachi showed up, the accuracy of the hairstyles went into the toilet. Ron Howard and Henry Winkler still tried and I give them credit for it.
The first major character to break the rule was Potsie around season 3-4 sporting a contemporary hairstyle of the mid-70s.
Intro of season 4 shows separate snippets of him with the 50s look and the 70s look. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljylDX_MFug
But also credit the Ralph Malph character in still trying also.
Happy Days really did miss out on covering important events in the early 60s. If I recall correctly, they simply ignored the Kennedy assassination when the show would have reached November 1963. By the early 80s, it seemed to take place in some parallel universe.
And Laverne and Shirley did skip some years when moving to Hollywood. As it was early 60s in their last season in Milwaukee, but they made it very clear what years they were representing in the 3 Hollywood seasons (1965-67). Though it seemed mostly to show Laverne's affinity toward the Beatles.
Though it escaped reality too. As why did the layoffs of Laverne and Shirley cause the whole cast to suddenly pull roots and move to Hollywood along with them? Then it its last year, how can they have a show called "Laverne and Shirley" if Shirley wasn't in it and referred to in the show's title only?
They did a great job with Henry Winkler, who had long hair in real life, when they did the first few seasons. They put a ton of grease in his hair and combed the excess behind his head which still made him look fashionable for the era he was playing in.
With Anson Williams, though his hair changed with the personality as after Season 3, they made Potsie to be more dimwitted than in the first two seasons. Then after both Howard and Most left the show, they made him a complete moron then. His hair too got more out of date and nothing remotely nostalgic with him or even Ted McGinnley, the knock off Richie after ole Ron left the series, with his hair the same as it was in Married With Children that took place almost three decades later.
Quote from: Big John on September 18, 2015, 06:40:40 PM
And Laverne and Shirley did skip some years when moving to Hollywood. As it was early 60s in their last season in Milwaukee, but they made it very clear what years they were representing in the 3 Hollywood seasons (1965-67). Though it seemed mostly to show Laverne's affinity toward the Beatles.
Though it escaped reality too. As why did the layoffs of Laverne and Shirley cause the whole cast to suddenly pull roots and move to Hollywood along with them? Then it its last year, how can they have a show called "Laverne and Shirley" if Shirley wasn't in it and referred to in the show's title only?
That bugged me. Who goes on trips or moves with their wacky neighbor
Quote from: Big John on September 18, 2015, 06:40:40 PM
And Laverne and Shirley did skip some years when moving to Hollywood. As it was early 60s in their last season in Milwaukee, but they made it very clear what years they were representing in the 3 Hollywood seasons (1965-67). Though it seemed mostly to show Laverne's affinity toward the Beatles.
Though it escaped reality too. As why did the layoffs of Laverne and Shirley cause the whole cast to suddenly pull roots and move to Hollywood along with them? Then it its last year, how can they have a show called "Laverne and Shirley" if Shirley wasn't in it and referred to in the show's title only?
To answer your question, about the move of all cast members. Well the first Hollywood Season of theirs had Frank and Edna both already in Hollywood begging the two to move out there with them. So when Laverne and Shirley got laid off, they had no job and decided to join Frank and Edna in California.
As to Carmine and Lenny & Squiggy, they all decided to join them as the rest were like family to them, and did not want to be left alone. Even to Lenny and Squiggy, Laverne and Shirley were the only friends that they had even though both girls just tolerated them. Carmine and Shirley had an open relationship, but cared deeply about each other enough to not want to stay apart.
I can't decide which replacement girl on Three's Company was hotter.
Quote from: GCrites80s on September 19, 2015, 11:19:00 AM
I can't decide which replacement girl on Three's Company was hotter.
Cindy would have annoyed me. Terri gets my vote
Quote from: roadman65 on September 18, 2015, 05:53:40 PM
BJ's mustache is not allowed in the Army. Then the fact that Hawkeye and Trapper, later BJ, if in real life would be held in insubordination for not following protocol.
As far as regulations, you're correct. However, regulations get interpreted by COs. The Army in the Korean War was desperately short of surgeons. They were drafting a lot of surgeons straight out of medical school. Any surgeon was precious, and ones who were actually good like Hawkeye, Trapper, BJ, and Charles were worth their weight in gold. COs cut them quite a bit of slack as a result -- putting them in the stockade would be killing wounded. This is covered in Richard Hooker's book. There was exaggeration, but some truth to it as well.
Quote
Klinger would not be allowed to be in drag if it were in real life.
You're right about this one. The Army would tolerate some oddball behavior by surgeons, but orderlies or clerks were easy enough to find. He was pure showbiz. (Not that that's bad.)
Another
off-period faux pax with
Happy Days was the premiere 3-parter episode (of Season 4) involving the demolition derby (Roz Kelly played Pinky Tuscadero in these episodes). Most of the cars in the derby were, for the time period (either 1958 or 1959), relatively new... including a '59 Chevy (a brand new car for the fall of '58). Even back then, new cars were not used in demolition derbys.
One line in the part 3 episode, this one was obviously an intentional joke, made by Rocco Malachi mentions that he and his brother's next demolition gig is smashing up Edsels. Edsels were only around for one model year (& still in production) for the episode's setting.
Quote from: roadman65 on September 18, 2015, 06:13:29 PM
In the show Maude (a spinoff of All In The Family)you could also say the same for the opening sequence of the show as old 1950's era automobiles were used when showing one particular roadway and the fact that you crossed the George Washington Bridge to get from Manhattan to Tuckahoe, NY which are both on the same side of the Hudson River. The show took place in the early to late 70's, so cars have changed very much in the time the film clips were taken to production.
Those opening & closing clips were shot in 1969. One does see a few late 60s era cars in the background (including a '67 Chevy Impala coupe and a Toyota (Corona?) station wagon).
Quote from: kkt on September 19, 2015, 02:14:06 PM
Klinger would not be allowed to be in drag if it were in real life.
Quote
You're right about this one. The Army would tolerate some oddball behavior by surgeons, but orderlies or clerks were easy enough to find. He was pure showbiz. (Not that that's bad.)
Shortly after his character was introduced, Klinger was given a chance (thanks to Frank and Margaret prodding Henry) to get his desired Section 8 - he turned it down when Freedman's final report labeled him as a homosexual and a transvestite.
Quote from: Rothman on September 17, 2015, 10:13:20 PM
And now I'm thinking of Lt. Saavik going from Kirstie Alley to Robin Curtis. :D
Didn't one of the supporting actors in Dynasty change?
Quote from: roadman on September 21, 2015, 07:11:37 PM
Quote from: kkt on September 19, 2015, 02:14:06 PM
Klinger would not be allowed to be in drag if it were in real life.
Quote
You're right about this one. The Army would tolerate some oddball behavior by surgeons, but orderlies or clerks were easy enough to find. He was pure showbiz. (Not that that's bad.)
Shortly after his character was introduced, Klinger was given a chance (thanks to Frank and Margaret prodding Henry) to get his desired Section 8 - he turned it down when Freedman's final report labeled him as a homosexual and a transvestite.
Yes, I remember that. Makes one wonder what kind of discharge he was hoping to get, when he turned that down.
"I'm not any of those!" "You ain't Errol Flynn either."
Quote from: kkt on September 21, 2015, 07:59:33 PM
Quote from: roadman on September 21, 2015, 07:11:37 PM
Quote from: kkt on September 19, 2015, 02:14:06 PM
Klinger would not be allowed to be in drag if it were in real life.
Quote
You're right about this one. The Army would tolerate some oddball behavior by surgeons, but orderlies or clerks were easy enough to find. He was pure showbiz. (Not that that's bad.)
Shortly after his character was introduced, Klinger was given a chance (thanks to Frank and Margaret prodding Henry) to get his desired Section 8 - he turned it down when Freedman's final report labeled him as a homosexual and a transvestite.
Yes, I remember that. Makes one wonder what kind of discharge he was hoping to get, when he turned that down.
"I'm not any of those!" "You ain't Errol Flynn either."
In that episode (
Radar's Report from Season 2); Klinger does mention to Maj. Freedman (then Milton Freedman, the writers changed his first name to Sidney after that episode); that he just wanted to be discharged as just
crazy.
Bold emphasis added:
Quote from: vdeane on September 17, 2015, 08:00:02 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on September 17, 2015, 06:02:17 PM
One TV show-movie retrofit was Star Trek's Space Seed episode vs. Star Trek II - The Wrath of Khan; that latter was a sequel (of sorts) to the former. When Khan first appears to Chekov, they both recognize each other; however, the TV episode predated (by roughly a half-season) Chekov (Walter Koenig) joining the cast.
Not really. The Enterprise had a crew of 400. Just because Chekov didn't appear until season 2 doesn't mean he wasn't on the ship in season 1 in a different, less prominent position (one of the novels had him as one of the security officers who took Kahn and his people to Ceti Alpha V).
I'm going to take a wild
guess that the novel that you speak of was written
well after 1982 (the year
Star Trek II - The Wrath of Khan first came out).
If the answer to my question is
"Yes"; such proves my earlier point moreso that the off-screen Khan-Chekov meeting was indeed a retrofit (some would say correcting an
Oops.).
Quote from: PHLBOS on September 22, 2015, 09:17:56 AM
I'm going to take a wild guess that the novel that you speak of was written well after 1982 (the year Star Trek II - The Wrath of Khan first came out).
If the answer to my question is "Yes"; such proves my earlier point moreso that the off-screen Khan-Chekov meeting was indeed a retrofit (some would say correcting an Oops.).
2005. The other two books in the trilogy dealt with trying to explain the Eugenics Wars with respect to what actually happened in the 90s. Still, is it really a retrofit if it doesn't require a continuity rewrite? I don't recall any scene in TOS where Chekov stated he wasn't on the Enterprise in season 1. The idea that Chekov was not on the ship before season 2 is pure fanon (though Star Trek fans are well known for treating fanon as canon).
And nobody has mentioned the reboot of Hart to Hart yet?
Threes Company was retrofitted many times Jack got into trouble with a bully at the local bar. It was mentioned in one episode that Jack was a boxer in the US Navy and was quite good, yet Jack was a coward when it came to being challenged to a fight in many episodes. In one of the many episodes that Terry Keiser guest starred in, he pretended to be dead to avoid a confrontation with the character Keiser played in that episode of a man punching out men who he thought were hitting on his girl, who really were not doing so. Just that the bully was over reacting and in Jack's case the girlfriend was using Jack to get back at him, despite Jack running away and even pleading with the girl that he was a coward.
Also, assertively Jack was a coward to people like Mr. Angelino, who was not violent in nature, but with words as well as Dean Travers, his old cooking school director who also bullied Jack with words which is also not the MO of a boxer either.
Even Chrissy too was re fitted as in Season's One, Two, and Three, she did not have her snorting laugh she had in the fourth and fifth seasons. She was not even as dumb during the Roper years as she was with Furley in charge. They did a Potsie on Happy Days where they transformed a person who was dumb, but had basic sense into a person with absolutely no common sense. Chrissy went from dumb blonde to a total moron without explanation.
How about the absurd (even for a fantasy show) 30-year jump in season 2 of "Wonder Woman," during which it is explained that Wonder Woman had to go home or something, and Lionel Waggoner's character dies but his identical son with the same name gets the same job his father had 30 years earlier?
Leave it to Beaver lasted 6 seasons. Beaver started out in 2nd grade and was in 8th grade when the show ended, but Wally started out in 8th grade but was still in 12th grade when the show ended, but was portrayed as an above-average student.
Even more bizarre is the ending of Quantum Leap which explained that the main character was leaping himself through time, when every episode of the series was showing that Sam Beckett, the leaper who was leaping around in time trading places with others throughout his own lifetime putting right what once went wrong was doing so because of a botched experiment. It was stated that in each episode's opening monologue that he was being driven by an unknown force to change history for the better, and throughout the show it was stated that no one in his own time knew how to bring him back to the future in his own time.
From the first episode, Dr. Sam Beckett stepped into the Quantum Leap accelerator after being told by US Congress that his funding would be cut namely because traveling in time is totally unbelievable for millions of dollars to fund. His time machine was partially completed enough for him to move into the past, but not to come back successfully. When he ended up in his first leap, he had amnesia and did not know who he was and why he was living another person's life. The people in his own time tried to retrieve him, but failed at doing so. It was then decided that if he put a major wrong right in his first leap then maybe the retrieval mechanism will bring him home, however it did not in which it only leaped him again to another point in history into another life. It was then when God, Fate, Time, or whatever had control over the time machine as him leaping around was not caused by the machine directly, but unknown to Sam and his colleagues to what was doing it and making him move around through history.
Then in the finale of the series, it was revealed by a strange bartender in a small PA mining town, that no one was leaping Sam through time, but his own will. Never was it even explained how it was so when for five whole seasons we saw him leap around through time by an unknown force and not himself as he had no control over the leaping machine/ accelerator as it was in the future many years away. Just that everything that was happening in his leaps, was what he had hoped for and more, and that nothing that he did not want happened during his five years moving around from life to life. More or less Sam Beckett just had to accept it just like a priest has to accept living his life from one parish to another.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on September 23, 2015, 09:17:57 PM
How about the absurd (even for a fantasy show) 30-year jump in season 2 of "Wonder Woman," during which it is explained that Wonder Woman had to go home or something, and Lyle Waggoner's character dies but his identical son with the same name gets the same job his father had 30 years earlier?
Wasn't part of that because it switched networks?
Quote from: US71 on September 23, 2015, 09:47:31 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on September 23, 2015, 09:17:57 PM
How about the absurd (even for a fantasy show) 30-year jump in season 2 of "Wonder Woman," during which it is explained that Wonder Woman had to go home or something, and Lyle Waggoner's character dies but his identical son with the same name gets the same job his father had 30 years earlier?
Wasn't part of that because it switched networks?
Yes from CBS to ABC.
Incidentally another network NBC cancelled Quantum Leap, which made the abrupt ending at the end of Season Five.
Quote from: roadman65 on September 23, 2015, 09:51:09 PM
Quote from: US71 on September 23, 2015, 09:47:31 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on September 23, 2015, 09:17:57 PM
How about the absurd (even for a fantasy show) 30-year jump in season 2 of "Wonder Woman," during which it is explained that Wonder Woman had to go home or something, and Lyle Waggoner's character dies but his identical son with the same name gets the same job his father had 30 years earlier?
Wasn't part of that because it switched networks?
Yes from CBS to ABC.
Incidentally another network NBC cancelled Quantum Leap, which made the abrupt ending at the end of Season Five.
Wasn't Star Trek Enterprise was cut short, too? I didn't receive UPN, so I never watched much of it.
The British show UFO had some cast changes during the episodes when it's not cast make-up. Michael Billington who portrayed Colonel Foster wear a wig in the later episodes.
Space 1999 also got a big cast change along with an opening credits change for season 2 when Barry Morse's character Victor Bergman, fall victim of the Chuck Cunningham syndrome (and also Fred Freiburger worked on season 2).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLAsBzOOhLQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n6AeumXb2Zc
Too Close for Comfort (later briefly rechristined as "the Ted Knight Show"), was cancelled due to the death of Ted Knight. Also, it originally focused on the relationship between the father Henry Rush (Ted Knight) and his 2 daughters living in the appartment below but it quickly changed when the character of Monroe Ficus, originally planned to be a "one-episode wonder" got a recurrent role.
In season 3 of Get Smart, Don Adams driving a VW Karmann-Ghia instead of the Sunbean Tiger he continued to use during the episodes and in season 5, when the series moved from NBC to CBS, they re-worked the opening theme along with a new car. Here the opening credits including the "Get Smart Again" tv-movie broadcasted on ABC.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=csqhWHSrbdY
Quote from: Stephane Dumas on September 23, 2015, 10:25:09 PM
In season 3 of Get Smart, Don Adams driving a VW Karmann-Ghia instead of the Sunbean Tiger he continued to use during the episodes and in season 5, when the series moved from NBC to CBS, they re-worked the opening theme along with a new car. Here the opening credits including the "Get Smart Again" tv-movie broadcasted on ABC.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=csqhWHSrbdY
It annoyed me how the doors slammed with the music, but the sound effects didn't seem to be in synch with the motion of the doors closing.
Game of Thrones changed the actors for both non-Joffrey Lannister children.
Tommen they aged up by a couple of years (probably to make his marriage less horrific, though 33 and 17 is still one of the largest age gaps one sees on-screen, especially with the woman being the older partner), recycling an actor that had played a minor Lannister in a couple of scenes (which is jarring on re-watch).
Myrcella they aged down (not anything to do with the age, but the original actress seemingly wasn't stunning enough to play the 15 year old who'd bagged an exotic prince and wears lots of skimpy costumes for additional Dornish eye candy that wasn't needed and is rather eww given the character and actress' age), annoying the original actress who can act well, is a fan and was free. That said, I can imagine that the original actress was happy to avoid that trainwreck of a plot line, especially as a fan of the books.
Quote from: Stephane Dumas on September 23, 2015, 10:25:09 PM
The British show UFO had some cast changes during the episodes when it's not cast make-up. Michael Billington who portrayed Colonel Foster wear a wig in the later episodes.
Space 1999 also got a big cast change along with an opening credits change for season 2 when Barry Morse's character Victor Bergman, fall victim of the Chuck Cunningham syndrome (and also Fred Freiburger worked on season 2).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLAsBzOOhLQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n6AeumXb2Zc
Too Close for Comfort (later briefly rechristined as "the Ted Knight Show"), was cancelled due to the death of Ted Knight. Also, it originally focused on the relationship between the father Henry Rush (Ted Knight) and his 2 daughters living in the appartment below but it quickly changed when the character of Monroe Ficus, originally planned to be a "one-episode wonder" got a recurrent role.
In season 3 of Get Smart, Don Adams driving a VW Karmann-Ghia instead of the Sunbean Tiger he continued to use during the episodes and in season 5, when the series moved from NBC to CBS, they re-worked the opening theme along with a new car. Here the opening credits including the "Get Smart Again" tv-movie broadcasted on ABC.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=csqhWHSrbdY
Family Matters is just like Too Close For Comfort. Steve Urkel, played by Jaeel White, was supposed to be on the show for one episode, but ended up steeling the show as the obnoxious nerd next door just showing up each moment becoming the show's focus character.
Originally Family Matters was to be just about life of the Winslow Family, a middle class family of five with their grandma, and aunt with a small child also living with them. Then it became about Urkel and his crazy antics with some of the family members all obtaining Chuck Cunningham Syndrome over time.
Quote from: roadman65 on September 24, 2015, 09:13:58 AM
Family Matters is just like Too Close For Comfort. Steve Urkel, played by Jaeel White, was supposed to be on the show for one episode, but ended up steeling the show as the obnoxious nerd next door just showing up each moment becoming the show's focus character.
Not unlike Jonathan Harris/Dr Smith stealing Lost in Space
Yeah Harris was supposed to be for a few episodes, and then his character of Dr. Smith was to be killed off. The Robot too was not to be a main character either, in fact in the original pilot neither Smith or The Robot were featured in it.
A great example: Fairuza Balk appeared briefly in the last episode of a season of The Sopranos as a setup to a large role in the following season. Then, for whatever reason, she had to drop out, and was replaced going forward. The one already-shown scene with Fairuza Balk was then re-shot with the replacement actress for all re-run showings.
Joan Collins also stole the show in Dynasty. She was not a cast member at all the first season, then after the second season became the point of focus as now the show became the war between Blake Carrington and then Alexis Carrington later becoming Alexis Colby, and then finally Alexis Dexter. She even married again, but that one did not count as he was a retrofitted character as the original butler who only had a daughter all of a sudden had a vengeful son which was her last husband.
I always forget that Family Matters isn't called "Urkel"
Quote from: GCrites80s on September 24, 2015, 11:48:29 AM
I always forget that Family Matters isn't called "Urkel"
He almost got his own show when FM ended.
Did you know that My Three Sons was supposed to continue only rebooted as Robbie/Wife and his triplets, several episodes were shot, but it did not test well with focus groups so it was dropped
Quote from: US71 on September 24, 2015, 12:03:39 PM
Quote from: GCrites80s on September 24, 2015, 11:48:29 AM
I always forget that Family Matters isn't called "Urkel"
He almost got his own show when FM ended.
Yeah, that's right... when it went to CBS I remember people leaving the show.
In Dallas, during the old series, Barbara Bel Googles was replaced by Donna Reed during the 1984-85 season, Donna forced to leave when Barbara Bel Googles came back. And should I mention the season where Bobby Ewing was killed but get ressurected in a way where Pam get a bad dream and as this website mentionned, a sci-fi soap. http://www.kevinmccorrytv.ca/dallas.html
The 3rd Fairly Oddparents live-action movie "Fairly Odd Summer" ending contradicted the ending of "Channel chasers" from what I saw on this review.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QiAorbWXc8
The whole new series technically is retrofitted from the original series as the producers were looking for an alternate timeline on purpose because of those two made for TV movies that were made to wind up all the stories within the time frame of the movies themselves had no real way to make another series of stories. So the new Dallas would be based on the original show, with the same characters but using an alternate universe.
Sad about how they made that one season a bad dream of Pam, as the new retrofitted continuation of the previous years storylines did not match up! Dusty, who was again in Sue Ellen's life, was gone like Chuck Cunningham, JR was hating his cousin Jack for coning him out of 10 percent of Ewing Oil where in the dream and just before it started JR was grateful he handed over some shares of Ewing Oil to his cousin, then there was the baby of Bobby and Jenna considering just before the dream Bobby was not that all into being romantic with Jenna due to his torn feelings toward Pam, and then Wes Parmalee the fake Jock who was another character in Pam's dream.
Plus we all got to see the wonderful things that evolved in the dream season that never continued in the new time line. Ray and Donna never got to adopt the Downs Syndrome child. Jack and Ray never remained good friends. That whole thing with Mark Grayson never continued so we all really do not know who was in that hospital in Hong Kong sending Pam away from finding her former boyfriend. However, some bad things happening in that shower episode where Bobby's return took place would have happened though that never took place such as Sue Ellen getting blown up in JR's Office from a bomb planted by Angelica Nero, and Jaimiee Barnes, happily married now with Cliff, also getting blown up in a car by Angelica Nero as well.
However, one may argue that Jock having a brother was retrofitted. In addition later on JR's older son James was retrofitted and again retrofitted back as his name never mentioned again in both the movies and the new version.
Moving along to another subject, the Andy Griffith Show. Floyd The Barber was another one who not only disappeared without explanation, but his replacement Emmet came into Mayberry without an explanation. It was like Emmet was always in Mayberry and that the town never had a barber named Floyd. Even Emmet's fix it shop was where Floyd's Barber Shop was next to Andy's office on the main street.
How about Opie's little brother who was born on Mayberry RFD which was never explained on the 1986 reunion movie when Andy and Helen moved back to Mayberry?
Matlock, Andy's alter ego, also had one daughter in Season One, but had another one written in later on in the series.
How about Gilligan's Island??? First of all where did Mr. Howell get his tuxedo when the nature of them being on the island was part of a three hour sightseeing tour. Does anyone take a full wardrobe when they go sightseeing?
Also the biggest question is why the Professor could not fix the hole in the boat, but he could invent a lot of stuff and even perform surgery.
I can name a whole list of stuff that is retrofitted like today on Me TV, Gilligan cut his long pants into shorts, yet later episodes had his pants the way they originally are.
The list is endless. Its like a real life cartoon where people get into compromising situations, namely the man without a first name Gilligan because of his clumsiness and the Skipper bullying him around because the fat Captain is so lazy to work. Then everything is honky doory just like Elmer Fudd after being shot by his own rifle.
Quote from: US71 on September 23, 2015, 09:57:58 PM
Wasn't Star Trek Enterprise was cut short, too? I didn't receive UPN, so I never watched much of it.
It was, although they knew a little ahead of time in
Enterprise's case, which was why Season 4 was so crammed with origin stories for a lot of things that happened in later series, instead of introducing them at a more natural clip like they did during the first and second seasons.
Quote from: Darkchylde on September 29, 2015, 08:10:59 AM
Quote from: US71 on September 23, 2015, 09:57:58 PM
Wasn't Star Trek Enterprise was cut short, too? I didn't receive UPN, so I never watched much of it.
It was, although they knew a little ahead of time in Enterprise's case, which was why Season 4 was so crammed with origin stories for a lot of things that happened in later series, instead of introducing them at a more natural clip like they did during the first and second seasons.
Yeah, death by canon.
;)
Quote from: vdeane on September 23, 2015, 07:31:41 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on September 22, 2015, 09:17:56 AM
I'm going to take a wild guess that the novel that you speak of was written well after 1982 (the year Star Trek II - The Wrath of Khan first came out).
If the answer to my question is "Yes"; such proves my earlier point moreso that the off-screen Khan-Chekov meeting was indeed a retrofit (some would say correcting an Oops.).
2005. The other two books in the trilogy dealt with trying to explain the Eugenics Wars with respect to what actually happened in the 90s. Still, is it really a retrofit if it doesn't require a continuity rewrite? I don't recall any scene in TOS where Chekov stated he wasn't on the Enterprise in season 1. The idea that Chekov was not on the ship before season 2 is pure fanon (though Star Trek fans are well known for treating fanon as canon).
I know I'm a few weeks late to this, but one of the popularly amusing fan anecdotes regarding Khan-Chekov was that Chekov went through the last of the toilet paper right before Khan used the restroom, and that was how Khan "met" and subsequently "remembered" him. :D
Quote from: Darkchylde on September 29, 2015, 08:10:59 AM
Quote from: US71 on September 23, 2015, 09:57:58 PM
Wasn't Star Trek Enterprise was cut short, too? I didn't receive UPN, so I never watched much of it.
It was, although they knew a little ahead of time in Enterprise's case, which was why Season 4 was so crammed with origin stories for a lot of things that happened in later series, instead of introducing them at a more natural clip like they did during the first and second seasons.
Yeah. I think the one origin story that really rankled people was "retconning" the Borg. Apparently in First Contact after Worf blew up the Borg transmitter that they had tried to construct on the Enterprise-E deflector ("Assimilate THIS!"), the debris landed in Antarctica and managed to regenerate to cause havoc. When Archer's Enterprise encountered the Borg, they never introduced themselves, preserving the mystery until Q's "introduction" of Picard and the Enterprise-D to the Borg in The Next Generation. It seemed like a tacky way to shoehorn the Borg into the show, and I think people were still sort of on a Borg hangover from the second half of Voyager where it felt like they were the villains in every other episode starting mid-season 3.
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on October 10, 2015, 02:23:07 AM
Yeah. I think the one origin story that really rankled people was "retconning" the Borg. Apparently in First Contact after Worf blew up the Borg transmitter that they had tried to construct on the Enterprise-E deflector ("Assimilate THIS!"), the debris landed in Antarctica and managed to regenerate to cause havoc. When Archer's Enterprise encountered the Borg, they never introduced themselves, preserving the mystery until Q's "introduction" of Picard and the Enterprise-D to the Borg in The Next Generation. It seemed like a tacky way to shoehorn the Borg into the show, and I think people were still sort of on a Borg hangover from the second half of Voyager where it felt like they were the villains in every other episode starting mid-season 3.
Star Trek needs to come back to television in some form. The JJ Abrams movies were fun action films, but this franchise is made for episodic television. The movies generally get away from the themes of the overall positive future for humanity Roddenberry created.
Every action series on TV nowadays is all doom and gloom. There's terrorists and zombies and organized crime and endless scheming; all that negative, dystopian stuff is dragging down the medium. Star Trek returning to television would be a refreshing break from the constant drumbeat of "we're all screwed".
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on October 10, 2015, 02:16:36 AM
... one of the popularly amusing fan anecdotes regarding Khan-Chekov was that Chekov went through the last of the toilet paper right before Khan used the restroom, and that was how Khan "met" and subsequently "remembered" him. :D
Toilet paper? So they don't use the Three Seashells on the Enterprise?
Quote from: triplemultiplex on October 10, 2015, 05:20:49 PM
Star Trek needs to come back to television in some form. The JJ Abrams movies were fun action films, but this franchise is made for episodic television. The movies generally get away from the themes of the overall positive future for humanity Roddenberry created.
Every action series on TV nowadays is all doom and gloom. There's terrorists and zombies and organized crime and endless scheming; all that negative, dystopian stuff is dragging down the medium. Star Trek returning to television would be a refreshing break from the constant drumbeat of "we're all screwed".
Well said.
This last post remined me of a star trek joke
What do the star ship enterprise and toilet paper have in common?
They both circle uranus (your anus) in search of Klingons (cling ons) :)
Quote from: triplemultiplex on October 10, 2015, 05:20:49 PM
Star Trek needs to come back to television in some form. The JJ Abrams movies were fun action films, but this franchise is made for episodic television. The movies generally get away from the themes of the overall positive future for humanity Roddenberry created.
Every action series on TV nowadays is all doom and gloom. There's terrorists and zombies and organized crime and endless scheming; all that negative, dystopian stuff is dragging down the medium. Star Trek returning to television would be a refreshing break from the constant drumbeat of "we're all screwed".
Somebody was listening to me. Star Trek is coming back to television January 2017.
http://www.startrek.com/article/new-star-trek-series-premieres-january-2017 (http://www.startrek.com/article/new-star-trek-series-premieres-january-2017)
You're welcome, Earth!
will it be real Star Trek, or JJ Abrams high budget fan fic?
Too early to know. They don't even know if the new show will be in the original universe or the one created by Abrams; nor is there any mention of what era they will set it in.
Whatever it ends up being, I'll be watching. I came to Star Trek too late to catch any series on TV, save for a handful of Enterprise episodes. But that aired on a network that doesn't exist anymore. The new show will be on CBS.
Quote from: triplemultiplex on November 13, 2015, 11:20:14 PM
The new show will be on CBS.
Yeah... but except for the premier, it's going to be on their online for-pay streaming service.
Quote from: triplemultiplex on November 13, 2015, 09:43:24 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on October 10, 2015, 05:20:49 PM
Star Trek needs to come back to television in some form. The JJ Abrams movies were fun action films, but this franchise is made for episodic television. The movies generally get away from the themes of the overall positive future for humanity Roddenberry created.
Every action series on TV nowadays is all doom and gloom. There's terrorists and zombies and organized crime and endless scheming; all that negative, dystopian stuff is dragging down the medium. Star Trek returning to television would be a refreshing break from the constant drumbeat of "we're all screwed".
Somebody was listening to me. Star Trek is coming back to television January 2017.
http://www.startrek.com/article/new-star-trek-series-premieres-january-2017 (http://www.startrek.com/article/new-star-trek-series-premieres-january-2017)
You're welcome, Earth!
Wow, that was an incredibly uninformative press release unless you're someone that needs an explanation of what "Star Trek" is.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on November 14, 2015, 05:14:57 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on November 13, 2015, 09:43:24 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on October 10, 2015, 05:20:49 PM
Star Trek needs to come back to television in some form. The JJ Abrams movies were fun action films, but this franchise is made for episodic television. The movies generally get away from the themes of the overall positive future for humanity Roddenberry created.
Every action series on TV nowadays is all doom and gloom. There's terrorists and zombies and organized crime and endless scheming; all that negative, dystopian stuff is dragging down the medium. Star Trek returning to television would be a refreshing break from the constant drumbeat of "we're all screwed".
Somebody was listening to me. Star Trek is coming back to television January 2017.
http://www.startrek.com/article/new-star-trek-series-premieres-january-2017 (http://www.startrek.com/article/new-star-trek-series-premieres-january-2017)
You're welcome, Earth!
Wow, that was an incredibly uninformative press release unless you're someone that needs an explanation of what "Star Trek" is.
I agree. Is it pre-Kirk post Archer picking up from Enterprise. Or is it after ds9 ended..
Quote from: triplemultiplex on October 10, 2015, 05:20:49 PMThe movies generally get away from the themes of the overall positive future for humanity Roddenberry created.
Mostly because Roddenberry's future wasn't not positive for humanity:
- Spock (the creator surrogate) is treated by the show as brilliant for actively suppressing his humanity.
- Roddenberry needed hugely destructive wars in the 1990-2040 period in his timeline to kill enough people to create the 'utopia': for Roddenberry, salvation is through nuclear war and eugenic genocides.
Oh, and the modernist metanarrative driving Roddenberry's
glorious utopia sterile dystopia was discredited as old hat around the time TOS aired and was positively dinosauric when TNG came out. The future had to adapt to the present or would look more and more like it was stuck in the past.
Quote from: Mr_Northside on November 14, 2015, 03:35:01 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on November 13, 2015, 11:20:14 PM
The new show will be on CBS.
Yeah... but except for the premier, it's going to be on their online for-pay streaming service.
And they STILL have ads even though people are paying for it. New episodes of everything else are on their free streaming service, and the older stuff is on Netflix, so basically "All Access" is just a ploy for people to shell out cash for content they can already get essentially for free (since nobody is going to drop Netflix simply because All Access arrived).
So basically one is paying close to the same price as Netflix for a tiny fraction of the content and has to sit through ads for recent stuff... that's why they're making the new Star Trek exclusive to it. It's the only way they can get anybody in their right mind to use All Access at all. It's UPN all over again.
Ha! When cable came out decades ago, the bullshit hype was "you pay for it, so ads are unnecessary."
Couch potato nation isn't prone to fight back when lied to, nor to learn much from the past.
Hey, isn't the whole point of ditching cable to, you know, ditch cable, not replace it with something that's essentially identical? If I wanted cable, I would buy it. Even Hulu Plus had added an ad-free plan.
Regardless, paying $6/month for just one show doesn't make economical sense. Assuming the 20 episodes/year model that Voyager and Enterprise used, that's $3.60 per episode - about double the a la carte price for currently running shows on Amazon.
Quote from: vdeane on November 16, 2015, 01:42:52 PM
Hey, isn't the whole point of ditching cable to, you know, ditch cable, not replace it with something that's essentially identical? If I wanted cable, I would buy it. Even Hulu Plus had added an ad-free plan.
Regardless, paying $6/month for just one show doesn't make economical sense. Assuming the 20 episodes/year model that Voyager and Enterprise used, that's $3.60 per episode - about double the a la carte price for currently running shows on Amazon.
You can get Netflix for $10/month.. Has all the TNG, DS9, voyager and Enterprise episodes.. Of course you need internet service $50/month . I'd you live close to transmitters you can get local channels with antenna.. Much cheaper than the packages cable companies offer
Quote from: jwolfer on November 16, 2015, 03:02:36 PM
Quote from: vdeane on November 16, 2015, 01:42:52 PM
Hey, isn't the whole point of ditching cable to, you know, ditch cable, not replace it with something that's essentially identical? If I wanted cable, I would buy it. Even Hulu Plus had added an ad-free plan.
Regardless, paying $6/month for just one show doesn't make economical sense. Assuming the 20 episodes/year model that Voyager and Enterprise used, that's $3.60 per episode - about double the a la carte price for currently running shows on Amazon.
You can get Netflix for $10/month.. Has all the TNG, DS9, voyager and Enterprise episodes.. Of course you need internet service $50/month . I'd you live close to transmitters you can get local channels with antenna.. Much cheaper than the packages cable companies offer
What's really interesting is that is, in fact, my current setup, and that is about what I pay for internet (at least until my two year discount ends in six months). Of course, if you want to watch the new Star Trek right when it airs, you're out of luck (I'm also wondering if CBS is going to pull Star Trek from Netflix to push All Access).
I really hate ads. The only way I'd watch a channel with ads would be for breaking news in the event of a natural disaster near me or something. I guess that would be if the Internet was down.
I'd pay for steaming if the show was good, but not if I still get ads in it.
Quote from: vdeane on November 16, 2015, 01:42:52 PM
Hey, isn't the whole point of ditching cable to, you know, ditch cable, not replace it with something that's essentially identical? If I wanted cable, I would buy it. Even Hulu Plus had added an ad-free plan.
Regardless, paying $6/month for just one show doesn't make economical sense. Assuming the 20 episodes/year model that Voyager and Enterprise used, that's $3.60 per episode - about double the a la carte price for currently running shows on Amazon.
The point of ditching cable, for me, was that people who watch a lot of TV have lower life expectancies, but I digress.
When cable came out, it was sold as "something different" from broadcast TV with regard to ads. It is now, as you put it, "something that's essentially identical."
The reality of 2015 (and before, and after) is that you can buy your way out of ads, and then there will be new ads to
really-we-mean-it-this-time buy your way out of. And so on and so on.
No wonder people pirate content. Paying to stream is a rip-off if you still need to endure commercials.
Hell I'd rather buy a DVD set than pay to watch commercials. At least then I own it forever and don't need the internet to view my property.
That is interesting that when the President interrupts the programming, there is no commercials during his talk which is showing respect, but in actuality the TV network has to give back time bought by the sponsors that would have aired while whomever, both Bush's, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Clinton, and now Obama talked about the usual BS a President must talk about. That must hurt them big, especially after 9/11 when all networks had a special report for almost 3 days without ads. The millions they lost to cover the WTC attacks for over 72 hours, had to hurt them.
In the short run, sure, but the attacks brought so many more viewers over the next months and years that I'm sure the networks made up what they lost in ad revenue for the first few days.
Quote from: roadman65 on December 01, 2015, 09:42:02 AM
That is interesting that when the President interrupts the programming, there is no commercials during his talk which is showing respect, but in actuality the TV network has to give back time bought by the sponsors that would have aired while whomever, both Bush's, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Clinton, and now Obama talked about the usual BS a President must talk about. That must hurt them big, especially after 9/11 when all networks had a special report for almost 3 days without ads. The millions they lost to cover the WTC attacks for over 72 hours, had to hurt them.
Is that why sports broadcasts that overrun their scheduled timeslot will have a commercial break at the end even as they're cutting out regular programming?
Quote from: vdeane on December 01, 2015, 01:28:59 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on December 01, 2015, 09:42:02 AM
That is interesting that when the President interrupts the programming, there is no commercials during his talk which is showing respect, but in actuality the TV network has to give back time bought by the sponsors that would have aired while whomever, both Bush's, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Clinton, and now Obama talked about the usual BS a President must talk about. That must hurt them big, especially after 9/11 when all networks had a special report for almost 3 days without ads. The millions they lost to cover the WTC attacks for over 72 hours, had to hurt them.
Is that why sports broadcasts that overrun their scheduled timeslot will have a commercial break at the end even as they're cutting out regular programming?
While it probably depends on the actual sport, I'm sure those commercials during the sporting events are much more valuable to the network than the commercials during whatever show comes on afterwards!
^Such as Heidi
Speaking of commercials why does the NFL break for one right after the ball is returned after each touchdown? First you have the commercial after the extra point, then you come back to the last team to have the ball kick it to the opponent, and then go right back to ads one more time before the game resumes?
Quote from: roadman65 on December 01, 2015, 06:48:36 PM
Speaking of commercials why does the NFL break for one right after the ball is returned after each touchdown? First you have the commercial after the extra point, then you come back to the last team to have the ball kick it to the opponent, and then go right back to ads one more time before the game resumes?
Makes $en$e to me.
It can be annoying, but no amount of TV commercials during a football game is as hard to take as the effect of those commercials on the experience of the people in the stadium. Live NFL football has more artificial dead time and it than anything I can imagine sitting through.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on December 01, 2015, 08:44:26 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on December 01, 2015, 06:48:36 PM
Speaking of commercials why does the NFL break for one right after the ball is returned after each touchdown? First you have the commercial after the extra point, then you come back to the last team to have the ball kick it to the opponent, and then go right back to ads one more time before the game resumes?
Makes $en$e to me.
It can be annoying, but no amount of TV commercials during a football game is as hard to take as the effect of those commercials on the experience of the people in the stadium. Live NFL football has more artificial dead time and it than anything I can imagine sitting through.
Be thankful for the commercials, it helps keep football on free TV. Every game of your local NFL team is broadcast on a regular TV station. That is not true with basketball, hockey, or baseball anymore, as most of those games require a cable package.
Quote from: mrsman on December 02, 2015, 05:46:33 AM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on December 01, 2015, 08:44:26 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on December 01, 2015, 06:48:36 PM
Speaking of commercials why does the NFL break for one right after the ball is returned after each touchdown? First you have the commercial after the extra point, then you come back to the last team to have the ball kick it to the opponent, and then go right back to ads one more time before the game resumes?
Makes $en$e to me.
It can be annoying, but no amount of TV commercials during a football game is as hard to take as the effect of those commercials on the experience of the people in the stadium. Live NFL football has more artificial dead time and it than anything I can imagine sitting through.
Be thankful for the commercials, it helps keep football on free TV. Every game of your local NFL team is broadcast on a regular TV station. That is not true with basketball, hockey, or baseball anymore, as most of those games require a cable package.
As a Red Sox fan, I'll attest to this. I have to get cable to get NESN, which sucks.
All those old ladies would miss their soaps when baseball was on the rabbit ears. Or they'd have to wake up at 3AM to see them.
Quote from: mrsman on December 02, 2015, 05:46:33 AM
Be thankful for the commercials, it helps keep football on free TV. Every game of your local NFL team is broadcast on a regular TV station. That is not true with basketball, hockey, or baseball anymore, as most of those games require a cable package.
I thought the NFL was tax-exempt?
Quote from: The Nature Boy on December 02, 2015, 07:55:51 AM
Quote from: mrsman on December 02, 2015, 05:46:33 AM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on December 01, 2015, 08:44:26 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on December 01, 2015, 06:48:36 PM
Speaking of commercials why does the NFL break for one right after the ball is returned after each touchdown? First you have the commercial after the extra point, then you come back to the last team to have the ball kick it to the opponent, and then go right back to ads one more time before the game resumes?
Makes $en$e to me.
It can be annoying, but no amount of TV commercials during a football game is as hard to take as the effect of those commercials on the experience of the people in the stadium. Live NFL football has more artificial dead time and it than anything I can imagine sitting through.
Be thankful for the commercials, it helps keep football on free TV. Every game of your local NFL team is broadcast on a regular TV station. That is not true with basketball, hockey, or baseball anymore, as most of those games require a cable package.
As a Red Sox fan, I'll attest to this. I have to get cable to get NESN, which sucks.
The Olde Towne Teame, so close and dear to the hearts of its fans, pulled its one over-the-air game per week, declaring that it is "not in the business of giving away the product for free."
Quote from: Pete from Boston on December 02, 2015, 01:02:44 PM
Quote from: The Nature Boy on December 02, 2015, 07:55:51 AM
Quote from: mrsman on December 02, 2015, 05:46:33 AM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on December 01, 2015, 08:44:26 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on December 01, 2015, 06:48:36 PM
Speaking of commercials why does the NFL break for one right after the ball is returned after each touchdown? First you have the commercial after the extra point, then you come back to the last team to have the ball kick it to the opponent, and then go right back to ads one more time before the game resumes?
Makes $en$e to me.
It can be annoying, but no amount of TV commercials during a football game is as hard to take as the effect of those commercials on the experience of the people in the stadium. Live NFL football has more artificial dead time and it than anything I can imagine sitting through.
Be thankful for the commercials, it helps keep football on free TV. Every game of your local NFL team is broadcast on a regular TV station. That is not true with basketball, hockey, or baseball anymore, as most of those games require a cable package.
As a Red Sox fan, I'll attest to this. I have to get cable to get NESN, which sucks.
The Olde Towne Teame, so close and dear to the hearts of its fans, pulled its one over-the-air game per week, declaring that it is "not in the business of giving away the product for free."
I just want the MLB to change its blackout rules. I'll pay for MLB.tv to watch the Sox.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on December 02, 2015, 01:02:44 PM
Quote from: The Nature Boy on December 02, 2015, 07:55:51 AM
Quote from: mrsman on December 02, 2015, 05:46:33 AM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on December 01, 2015, 08:44:26 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on December 01, 2015, 06:48:36 PM
Speaking of commercials why does the NFL break for one right after the ball is returned after each touchdown? First you have the commercial after the extra point, then you come back to the last team to have the ball kick it to the opponent, and then go right back to ads one more time before the game resumes?
Makes $en$e to me.
It can be annoying, but no amount of TV commercials during a football game is as hard to take as the effect of those commercials on the experience of the people in the stadium. Live NFL football has more artificial dead time and it than anything I can imagine sitting through.
Be thankful for the commercials, it helps keep football on free TV. Every game of your local NFL team is broadcast on a regular TV station. That is not true with basketball, hockey, or baseball anymore, as most of those games require a cable package.
As a Red Sox fan, I'll attest to this. I have to get cable to get NESN, which sucks.
The Olde Towne Teame, so close and dear to the hearts of its fans, pulled its one over-the-air game per week, declaring that it is "not in the business of giving away the product for free."
So, we'll be taking our stadium back, then. Have fun playing in a vacant lot.
Quote from: kkt on December 02, 2015, 03:26:51 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on December 02, 2015, 01:02:44 PM
Quote from: The Nature Boy on December 02, 2015, 07:55:51 AM
Quote from: mrsman on December 02, 2015, 05:46:33 AM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on December 01, 2015, 08:44:26 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on December 01, 2015, 06:48:36 PM
Speaking of commercials why does the NFL break for one right after the ball is returned after each touchdown? First you have the commercial after the extra point, then you come back to the last team to have the ball kick it to the opponent, and then go right back to ads one more time before the game resumes?
Makes $en$e to me.
It can be annoying, but no amount of TV commercials during a football game is as hard to take as the effect of those commercials on the experience of the people in the stadium. Live NFL football has more artificial dead time and it than anything I can imagine sitting through.
Be thankful for the commercials, it helps keep football on free TV. Every game of your local NFL team is broadcast on a regular TV station. That is not true with basketball, hockey, or baseball anymore, as most of those games require a cable package.
As a Red Sox fan, I'll attest to this. I have to get cable to get NESN, which sucks.
The Olde Towne Teame, so close and dear to the hearts of its fans, pulled its one over-the-air game per week, declaring that it is "not in the business of giving away the product for free."
So, we'll be taking our stadium back, then. Have fun playing in a vacant lot.
Fenway Park was built using private funds :p
Quote from: kkt on December 02, 2015, 03:26:51 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on December 02, 2015, 01:02:44 PM
Quote from: The Nature Boy on December 02, 2015, 07:55:51 AM
Quote from: mrsman on December 02, 2015, 05:46:33 AM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on December 01, 2015, 08:44:26 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on December 01, 2015, 06:48:36 PM
Speaking of commercials why does the NFL break for one right after the ball is returned after each touchdown? First you have the commercial after the extra point, then you come back to the last team to have the ball kick it to the opponent, and then go right back to ads one more time before the game resumes?
Makes $en$e to me.
It can be annoying, but no amount of TV commercials during a football game is as hard to take as the effect of those commercials on the experience of the people in the stadium. Live NFL football has more artificial dead time and it than anything I can imagine sitting through.
Be thankful for the commercials, it helps keep football on free TV. Every game of your local NFL team is broadcast on a regular TV station. That is not true with basketball, hockey, or baseball anymore, as most of those games require a cable package.
As a Red Sox fan, I'll attest to this. I have to get cable to get NESN, which sucks.
The Olde Towne Teame, so close and dear to the hearts of its fans, pulled its one over-the-air game per week, declaring that it is "not in the business of giving away the product for free."
So, we'll be taking our stadium back, then. Have fun playing in a vacant lot.
Whose stadium? "Fenway Sports Group" owns Fenway Park.
What really should be taken back is Yawkey Way. There seems to be little disagreement that giving the Red Sox rights to it on game days for a song was a breach of the public trust, and that since no law was explicitly broken this arrangement is unlikely to be reversed.
Really makes me wish that some of the new towers going up on Boylston street had sports bars on the top floor where people could watch the game without the Red Sox getting a dime.
Quote from: mrsman on December 02, 2015, 05:46:33 AM
It can be annoying, but no amount of TV commercials during a football game is as hard to take as the effect of those commercials on the experience of the people in the stadium. Live NFL football has more artificial dead time and it than anything I can imagine sitting through.
I used to think the same about inning changes in baseball, until I actually went to a live game instead of seeing it on TV. TV delays seems much longer only because of the commercials, but the delays at the stadium didn't seem to be that long at all.
Quote from: roadman on December 02, 2015, 08:21:38 PM
Quote from: mrsman on December 02, 2015, 05:46:33 AM
It can be annoying, but no amount of TV commercials during a football game is as hard to take as the effect of those commercials on the experience of the people in the stadium. Live NFL football has more artificial dead time and it than anything I can imagine sitting through.
I used to think the same about inning changes in baseball, until I actually went to a live game instead of seeing it on TV. TV delays seems much longer only because of the commercials, but the delays at the stadium didn't seem to be that long at all.
This is a significant difference between commercial breaks in baseball and football. At a baseball game, there is a rhythm and order to the breaks. They do not feel out of place in the live event, because there is a clear use of that time. At football games, the variation in time between certain plays, dictated by the assignment of commercials to those points, feels much more arbitrary and disruptive.
I've been to televised football games. The breaks really do throw off the rhythm of the game.