Jack and Jamie

[Grangehill1]

if Leonard Katzman created (or co created) the characters during season 8 (dvd) why did he treat them so shoddily when he returned in season 10?

 

[James from London]

I liked 'em both much more after the dream than during the dream. They were funnier. But I guess there was less the show felt it could do with them without having them repeat what they'd done when Pam was asleep.

 

[Clubsoda]

He essentially created Jack to be Bobbys replacement and when Patrick returned the character of Jack was obviously no longer needed by Katzman.

Jamie certainly got a bum rap by him. Jenilee got treated just as badly on Threes Company which was a double slap in her face. I felt for her in both situations.

 

[lbf522]

I liked Jack during the dream season. The writers did not make him a carbon copy of Bobby. He was fun to watch as was Jamie. I loved her scene in JR's office when she asked him not to destroy Cliff.

 

[A Nightmare on Jimmy Todd Street]

I liked Jamie, and I'm not even sure why. I think it's because she was so different than any of the other women on the show. She wasn't glamorous or caught up in too much over the top drama(relatively speaking). She seemed to have the potential to function as a Geek chorus of sorts, commenting on the actions of the Ewings in a way the rest of the family could, or would, not. For example, when she was angry at Sue Ellen for letting JR treat her the way he did. It's refreshing to have at least one character on a show who does that, at least from time to time. Even if they do it with the "good guys" on the show. When Bobby said. "I'll tear him apart!" I would have liked just once to have heard a character, "Oh, Bobby, you're not in a high locker room anymore. Grow up."

 

[Jock-O-Lantern]

I liked Jack. Didn’t care for Jamie.

 

[Kenny Coyote]

When Bobby said. "I'll tear him apart!" I would have liked just once to have heard a character, "Oh, Bobby, you're not in a high locker room anymore. Grow up."

That means you didn't find Patrick Duffy convincing in that type of role. There is no Clint Eastwood movie where anyone would think of telling him what you wrote in your post because he is just that convincing in the role of a tough guy. But I guess that's why Clint Eastwood has had the career he's had and Patrick Duffy has had the career he's had.

Bobby always backed away when confronted with someone who was a threat but wasn't older or smaller. Bobby was married to Pam when Mark Graison showed up at Pam's door with flowers and Bobby did nothing. Mark takes Pam, while she's still married to Bobby, to France and when they get back Bobby still does nothing to Mark. Meanwhile, JR makes a joke and Bobby hits him. Because he's no match for him in a fight.

 

[Jock-O-Lantern]

Bobby and Mark did mix it up at the oil barrens ball. And he did mix it up with Ray a couple of times and he didn’t exactly blink confronting Jock. Also, why should he fight Mark because he courted his wife when they were separated? If anybody he should have been mad at us Pam. She was the one allowing another man into their marriage. Not Mark.

There’s a fine line in being a tough guy and being an asshole who goes around getting into fights.

 

[Kenny Coyote]

obby and Mark did mix it up at the oil barrens ball.

Where there were dozens of people who would break it up before anything serious happened.

he didn’t exactly blink confronting Jock

Jock was a 70 year old man. Who can a 70 year old man whip?

Also, why should he fight Mark because he courted his wife when they were separated?

Because Mark was trying to take his wife from him.

 

[Jock-O-Lantern]

Where there were dozens of people who would break it up before anything serious happened.



Jock was a 70 year old man. Who can a 70 year old man whip?



Because Mark was trying to take his wife from him.

What about Ray and Tommy McKay? Hell, Tommy was a hardened criminal.

As for Mark, I believe in the notion that if someone is coming between you and your spouse, it’s because your spouse is allowing it. Therefore you should be mad at your spouse, not the other person.

 

[Kenny Coyote]

What about Ray and Tommy McKay? Hell, Tommy was a hardened criminal.

As for Mark, I believe in the notion that if someone is coming between you and your spouse, it’s because your spouse is allowing it. Therefore you should be mad at your spouse, not the other person.

Tommy was a drug addicted punk. I liked the fight they had though. It was fun.

Ray was the only exception to all of that.

I agree with you that if that you'd be more angry at your wife for allowing any of that to happen in the first place.

When Mark started making a move on Pam, she wasn't separated from Bobby at that time. Do you Bobby should have confronted Mark then? I do. He's gotta do all he can to protect his wife.

 

[James from London]

Tommy was great!

 

[Spooky Owl!]

Really, Tommy was an add-on, a role created by Katzman to lessen the impact of the mystery of the character played by the same actor over on DYNASTY, a show now being run by Katzman's deputy who'd just defected.

 

[A Nightmare on Jimmy Todd Street]

That means you didn't find Patrick Duffy convincing in that type of role. There is no Clint Eastwood movie where anyone would think of telling him what you wrote in your post because he is just that convincing in the role of a tough guy. But I guess that's why Clint Eastwood has had the career he's had and Patrick Duffy has had the career he's had.

Bobby always backed away when confronted with someone who was a threat but wasn't older or smaller. Bobby was married to Pam when Mark Graison showed up at Pam's door with flowers and Bobby did nothing. Mark takes Pam, while she's still married to Bobby, to France and when they get back Bobby still does nothing to Mark. Meanwhile, JR makes a joke and Bobby hits him. Because he's no match for him in a fight.

Bobby pushed Pam's date, Randolph Mantooth, into a pool. Of course, Mantooth is quite a bit smaller than Mark

Regarding whether I found PD convincing in the role, I did. The role, imho, was not of a Clint Eastwood character, but of a basically good person with a temper, a bit of a bully, spoiled by his parents, sometimes hypocritical, but basically well-intentioned. He was human, and as one of my favorite cinematic characters, Ruth Gordon's Maude, said, "Consistency is not generally a human trait."

 

[Kenny Coyote]

Bobby pushed Pam's date, Randolph Mantooth, into a pool. Of course, Mantooth is quite a bit smaller than Mark

Regarding whether I found PD convincing in the role, I did. The role, imho, was not of a Clint Eastwood character, but of a basically good person with a temper, a bit of a bully, spoiled by his parents, sometimes hypocritical, but basically well-intentioned. He was human, and as one of my favorite cinematic characters, Ruth Gordon's Maude, said, "Consistency is not generally a human trait."

OK, I see what you're getting at. He was basically a good guy but, he was spoiled, and a bully and very self-righteous at times.

 

[ArchieLucasCarringtonEwing1989]

I’m in the minority that likes Jack and Jamie, it was good to have extra Ewing’s who were “half” insiders yet not close enough to not be afraid of calling them out, Jamie marrying Cliff worked because she was An outsider to the feud between the two families yet she also hated JR, Lucy marrying Cliff wouldn’t have the same effect.

Jack was good because he wasn’t a Bobby clone, just as Jamie wasn’t a Lucy clone, they were there own characters, unlike the long line of Fallon replacements on Dynasty (Amanda then Leslie then Krystle’s cousin Virginia).
Jack could be just as ruthless as JR and he wasn’t a hypocrite like Bobby was either.

 

[A Nightmare on Jimmy Todd Street]

OK, I see what you're getting at. He was basically a good guy but, he was spoiled, and a bully and very self-righteous at times.

To me, Dallas is such a memorable show is because the characters aren't necessarily as they seem themselves, or even how the writers may perceive them. Flannery O'connor said a true character is created when they start to do as they would, not necessarily what the writer wants. Let's look at Pam. The scene where she asked Jenna if she and Bobby could raise her baby, the implication bring Jenna would be out of the picture. Not very nice for the shows heroine, but understandable given the situation. I don't agree with Pam, but she's in a emotional state. It would have been interesting if Pam mentioned this to Jenna or Lucy, say, and they said, "I'm surprised she didn't slap you across the face." Or even better, have Jenna actually slap her. I love Pam, but scenes likeke that would add a little spice to an aging show, imho.

 

[TJames03]

For some odd reason, Rambo was very popular in the 80’s, and I have no clue as to why. He was the male version of Morgan Fairchild - atrocious and overrated. Though I don’t care for Duffy, he was not even remotely close to a Duffy replacement. While I can see why Rambo was written out (what was the point of Jack with Bobby back?), Harrison could have went on longer. When April appeared, she was shoved down everyone’s throats and took over the show. Had Principal stayed, Pam would have obliterated her. At least Jamie was able to tell April off before she died.

 

[A Nightmare on Jimmy Todd Street]

For some odd reason, Rambo was very popular in the 80’s, and I have no clue as to why. He was the male version of Morgan Fairchild - atrocious and overrated. Though I don’t care for Duffy, he was not even remotely close to a Duffy replacement. While I can see why Rambo was written out (what was the point of Jack with Bobby back?), Harrison could have went on longer. When April appeared, she was shoved down everyone’s throats and took over the show. Had Principal stayed, Pam would have obliterated her. At least Jamie was able to tell April off before she died.

I would have loved to have seen Pam obliterate April

 

[Sea - Boo! - Er]

He was the male version of Morgan Fairchild - atrocious and overrated.

Funny you should make that comparison, since they were cast as a romantic couple in the Paper Dolls series.