You Ever Notice...and What's the Deal...

[minor muppetz]

One thing I've read a number of times recently is that on the show Soap, it was originally planned for Chuck and Bob (okay, probably just Chuck) to be the one who killed Peter Campbell, only for the killer to be changed because the fans liked them too much. I believe this, though I've never seen any official sources for it. I've seen the info mentioned in YouTube comments, IMDB, and TV Tropes, which are not always reliable and have all sorts of unsourced info (some of these mention hearing the info in an interview with the creator, but not WHICH interview).

Assuming that's true, I must wonder if it was very difficult to figure out a way to make another character the murderer. In fact it ended up being a different character, who turned out to have done it due to a brain tumor which allowed for him to be considered "not guilty". They couldn't have had Chuck and Bob be the murderers and then make it all due to a brain tumor? And ironically at the end of the season when the announcer says that it's one of five different characters, Chuck is not among those five.

While I haven't seen anything official that confirms it, I believe it. It would make sense of a number of things. I noticed that when Chuck arrived it was never stated if it was just a visit or if he was moving in (I wonder if the murder caused him to continue living there, since the family was ordered not to leave town). He very well could have visited so he'd be close to Peter and able to murder him (and I've noticed that Chuck and Peter never had any scenes together. In fact, outside of the dinner party held to introduce him to the others (besides Burt) I don't think he appeared with any of the Campbells). Perhaps whatever it was that caused Chuck to behave as if Bob was real caused him to initially be the murderer, or Chuck faked it to hide murderer motivation. Additionally, I've heard that Chuck and Bob were originally only supposed to be in a few episodes (Jay Johnson said in the I'm No Dummy documentary that he was originally only supposed to be in seven episodes, and the fact that he was only intended to be in a few episodes was confirmed in a bonus feature in the second season DVD).

It's been awhile since I watched the show or checked any episode guides, but the "who killed Peter?" storyline seemed to go on kinda long. I wonder if the storyline was extended due to them needing to make a different character the murderer.

I also have a few more observations regarding this story line:

• The officer knows that it was either a Tate or a Campbell. But couldn't he have been wrong? Surely there are others who might have killed him, particularly the others he had affairs with. And some of the suspects were really only suspects so they could be suspects.
• At the end of the season when the announcer says the murderer is one of five characters, one of those characters shown is Burt. But he clearly wasn't the murderer. He was the one who discovered that his son was murdered, and he was alone, so he didn't need to make a fake reaction. I guess they could have made him the murderer under the same conditions the real murderer was (memory loss and a brain tumor), but I'm sure the audience wouldn't suspect memory loss.
• When the officer lists his suspects, he says that Chester was a suspect because Peter had an affair with his wife, which Chester was unaware of at the time. Couldn't he have asked Jessica to vouch for the fact that he didn't know? I feel they should have changed it so that he killed Peter for sleeping with his daughter, that would make more sense (and I believe he knew about that).

 

[minor muppetz]

There's an episode of The Odd Couple where Felix dates a woman who is secretly in a play in which the entire cast is nude. Oscar and the poker players find this out because Murray had arrested her and the cast, and there's two instances of the cops showing up during the play to arrest them. This makes me wonder, if it were illegal to be naked on stage, why would they keep the play going? Is the cast willing to get arrested for the sake of their play? And wouldn't the producers or theater or whoever need to check to make sure it was okay? And the cops show up after the play had started, not before (considering they are aware of what's to go on every night).

 

[D'Snowth]

It's kind of like that episode of SANFORD AND SON, where Lamont and Rollo (and later Fred) go to try out for parts in a new "independent" film, only to find out after looking at the script that it's actually a porno... then EVERYBODY gets arrested, including the producer and the director.

 

[minor muppetz]

It's kind of like that episode of SANFORD AND SON, where Lamont and Rollo (and later Fred) go to try out for parts in a new "independent" film, only to find out after looking at the script that it's actually a porno... then EVERYBODY gets arrested, including the producer and the director.

I haven't seen that one. So are you saying that it's illegal to make a porno?

 

[D'Snowth]

I think this was back during a time where society still had ethics.

 

[minor muppetz]

At the beginning of UHF, after George accidentally burns the fries at Burger World, Bob tells him he'd better not let Big Edna see it, prompting George to ask Bob why he's so afraid of her and talk badly about her, only for Big Edna to show up at that very moment and fire/throw out both of them. But why'd Bob get fired? George was the one talking badly about her. All Bob did was warn George about her.

On a "did you ever notice" note that's not really a "what's the deal with..." because I pretty much know the deal, but ever notice at the beginning of UHF, when R.J. Fletcher and Stanley Spadowski are both introduced, Fletcher fires Stanley because he accused Stanley of throwing out important research files when he was cleaning. After firing him, he finds the files were in the room all along, and he never apologizes, never gives him his job back, and most importantly never even tries to find him and tell him he can stay (he'd just left the office a few seconds when the files are found, and not only that, but his mop gets taken away from him before he leaves the building, which comes later). I know that the deal here is to show how mean R.J. Fletcher is, but I wonder if anybody has ever noticed this.

In the movie Trading Moms, all three kids get sent to the principals office on the last day of school. The sister gets sent to the office because she got caught smoking, the older brother goes to the principals office because he pushed down a bully who had took the younger brothers cookie and pushed down the younger brother, and the younger brother gets sent to the principals office for no known reason. I wonder why the younger brother went to the principal. It's especially confusing because the kid who had bullied him doesn't get punished and the principal even tells the bully that he was not in trouble (of course the principal didn't see what the bully did, while he lies about the older brother pushing him down for no reason).

And has many people noticed that many plot descriptions for A Christmas Story (including the description on the back cover) say that both of the parents tell Ralphie he can't have a Red Ryder B.B. Gun, but his father never says anything about it. When Ralphie tells his mom he wants that, the dad is not in the room, and that's the only time before Christmas (not counting fantasy sequences) where she acknowledges it. We never see Ralphie talk about wanting one in front of the dad, who just gets it for him without consulting the mother. I wonder if there's ever been any parodies where Ralphie ended up getting a different B.B. gun.

I've also noticed that in the scenes with Ralphie and his friends, Ralphie barely does any talking. They are his friends, he should be shown communicating with them more.

And after Flick gets his tongue stuck to the flag pole, the teacher gives the class a lecture on how feeling guilty about it is worse than a punishment. But while Flick didn't tell her who put Flick up to it, she's looking directly at Ralphie ad Swartz as if she knows it was them. Actually, Ralphie worries about him getting in trouble for it, but Ralphie had nothing to do with it. It was Swartz who triple dog dared Flick. Ralphie was just standing by along with all the other kids.

 

[D'Snowth]

Okay, there's that episode of Dexter's Lab, where that ice cream man holds a grudge against him for paying in pennies, remember? He spends all night counting the pennies, but when he goes to put it in the safe, his shoe is untied, causing him to trip and break his tooth... which sets off a chain of reactions.

For of all, his girlfriend dumps him... okay, I GUESS I can see that, if she's an extremely superficial girl... but then, he loses his job, he's kicked out on his apartment, his car is repossessed, and he has to seek shelter under highway overpasses... all because he broke his tooth. Really? You can lose your job, home, car, and everything... over a broken tooth?

 

[Drtooth]

I just had this pointed out to me by another site...

Here's something to notice if you watch The Lion King then Hercules...

Zazu makes a passing joke about turning Scar into a Throw Rug...

Then in Hercules, Herc is wearing a certain dead animal skin in one scene...

Scar. Not quite a throw rug, but the same idea.

 

[minor muppetz]

What's the deal with people being able to work around copyright on YouTube by showing alternate versions of some programs? It seems some companies are against their work being uploaded online by fans, sometimes going as far as to remove videos that include clips or audio that the companies released in the past but don't own the full rights. And yet people are able to upload certain videos if they do things like alter the video footage (altering the colors seems to be the only way fans can upload Rugrats episodes), flipping the footage (so it's like looking in a mirror), speeding up the footage, or even just holding the camera at a TV screen. This is supposed to make it acceptable (even if watching videos these ways are not exactly ideal)?

 

[D'Snowth]

Just so you know, I've had videos removed that were shot by holding the camera at the TV screen, so not all of those methods are enough to beat the copyright.