Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Snarky Oracle!" data-source="post: 341107" data-attributes="member: 57984">Most beloved classic movies don&#039;t have happy endings -- a happy ending satisfies a portion of the audience temporarily, and then they forget about it forever.I&#039;m also against recasting Pam because recasting core characters in primetime shows rarely works. Yes, Margaret Michaels is a better recast than was Donna Reed, but it just doesn&#039;t seem like a wise idea.As someone who dislikes the dream resolution to revive Bobby, i would still have Katherine quire dead.Now, it&#039;s true -- they stumbled horrendously in S11 by having the family ignore Pam&#039;s exit, and the best way to help an audience get over the loss of a major character is to make that absence into a character in and of itself -- just as they did when Jock died in 1981 and Bobby kinda-sorta died in 1985... They obviously didn&#039;t do this when Pam disappeared in 1987, and their neglect in this area was deeply destructive.I&#039;ve said before, Jeanne O&#039;Brian would turn out to be a hoax, hired not by JR but someone else (Wendell for some reason?) and the mystery of what happened to Pam would play out in the background for 3 or 4 years until Bobby and Cliff would eventually learn that she might be dead with adult-onset neurofibromatosis the cause -- leading them to realize that Rebecca&#039;s tale of Hutch McKinney being the father was either a lie or a mistake.And I&#039;d have it end with a certain ambivalence, much like the Wes Parmalee plot (but maybe not quite that ambivalent).100% concrete endings can be unsatisfying long term. Unresolved loss, well-told, is better.[ATTACH=full]40913[/ATTACH]</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Snarky Oracle!, post: 341107, member: 57984"] Most beloved classic movies don't have happy endings -- a happy ending satisfies a portion of the audience temporarily, and then they forget about it forever. I'm also against recasting Pam because recasting core characters in primetime shows rarely works. Yes, Margaret Michaels is a better recast than was Donna Reed, but it just doesn't seem like a wise idea. As someone who dislikes the dream resolution to revive Bobby, i would still have Katherine quire dead. Now, it's true -- they stumbled horrendously in S11 by having the family ignore Pam's exit, and the best way to help an audience get over the loss of a major character is to make that absence into a character in and of itself -- just as they did when Jock died in 1981 and Bobby kinda-sorta died in 1985... They obviously didn't do this when Pam disappeared in 1987, and their neglect in this area was deeply destructive. I've said before, Jeanne O'Brian would turn out to be a hoax, hired not by JR but someone else (Wendell for some reason?) and the mystery of what happened to Pam would play out in the background for 3 or 4 years until Bobby and Cliff would eventually learn that she might be dead with adult-onset neurofibromatosis the cause -- leading them to realize that Rebecca's tale of Hutch McKinney being the father was either a lie or a mistake. And I'd have it end with a certain ambivalence, much like the Wes Parmalee plot (but maybe not quite that ambivalent). 100% concrete endings can be unsatisfying long term. Unresolved loss, well-told, is better. [ATTACH type="full" width="761px" alt="SF1978.jpg"]40913[/ATTACH] [/QUOTE]

Verification

Who played Sue Ellen in Dallas?