I agree. Jock would not have just Ellie find his things like she did. He would have told her and the family altogether.
When did that happen to VL? I don't recallFolks have a very odd sense about how people who've been horrifically burned from head-to-toe "wouldn't behave" (e.g., Jock, Pam, Vaughan Leland).
When did that happen to VL? I don't recall

It didn't happen to the character but sadly the actor Dennis Patrick died in a house fire.![]()
Right. When he found out Ray was his son he gathered the family and told everyone. It was frontal. Except for Amanda, he didn't seem to be a secret man.I agree. Jock would not have just Ellie find his things like she did. He would have told her and the family altogether.
Had Bobby not been a zombie and lost credibility for the show, Jocks return would have been great.
Did Peter Dunne ever indicate whether he wanted him to be jock or not ?But we don't know that that's what happened. Peter Dunne may have intended Ben to be Jock, while Katzman/Paulsen supposedly never intended Wes to be Jock.
Again, the ambivalence made the plot work. Although the idea of Stivers/Parmalee turning out to actually be Jock in a concretely verfiable way sounds intriguing, I think it remains intriguing specifically because they didn't do it.
Likewise, Jeanne O'Brian worked better as a story arc when we only thought she might be Pam.
Some mysteries are more effective when they remain unsolved. A certain degree of fanwanking is good for the spleen, as long as it's not too much... If you've ever read my posts on fixing DYNASTY, you'd know how damaging it can all get.
![]()
Did Peter Dunne ever indicate whether he wanted him to be jock or not ?
I don't think we're sure. I haven't seen a quote for Dunne on the subject. Paulsen said Wes was "not" really Jock but the actors were apparently told different things, and the ambiguity was, as I've said numerous times before, probably intentional. But that's just my subjective guess.
believe he was really meant to be Jock but the storyline largely had a negative reaction from the viewer's which resulted in a fan backlash and they had to quickly bring the storyline to a close.
The story was ended before the audience saw it or had time to react to it. And also because they knew Steve Forrest had to go do a TV movie reunion for GUNSMOKE which already scheduled.
I like to fantasize things, too, but that doesn't make them self-evident "fact". Does it?
But we don't know that for sure, do we now?
There was a fan backlash to the storyline. And whether or not Steve Forrest really had got the job of reprising Will Mannon on Gunsmoke if Lorimar had wanted him to stay on Dallas they would've more than likely extended his contract. It's weird the way Wes just vanishes so the Producers must've wanted that storyline closed asap and the only reason to do that which fits the facts is to quickly disprove either way is whether he is or isn't Jock Ewing.![]()
They were far from identical. Wes apparently had breaks in the same places - plus many others. After being banged up so much, the idea that some of his breaks might have matched Jock's doesn't strike me as being all that farfetched.If he really wasn't meant to be Jock then Wes's X rays should not have been virtually identical to Jock's.
The brilliance of the Stivers/Parmalee plotline was that there was enough herring tossed out there that the viewer could believe that Wes was or wasn't Jock, and also assume that that belief was self-evident.

Yes you could take it either way!
Even though as written Wes Parmalee was Jock Ewing, it wasn't actually confirmed or validated on the show. The viewers were fit to make their own minds up simply because of the fan backlash opposed to having Wes revealed as Jock, which was the original intention.
So Wes is Jock Ewing or isn't Jock Ewing simply because of the open ended resolution to the storyline.
However despite the open ended conclusion to the storyline the original intention of this storyline is quite clear, Wes Parmalee WAS Jock Ewing all along.
View attachment 39518
And their approach obviously worked on you: you believe your opinion is self-evident. So good on them!