Jump to content

Bunheads: Amy Sherman-Palladino’s Return to TV


  • Please log in to reply

3035 replies to this topic

#31

SeriouslyBored

SeriouslyBored

    Channel Surfer

Posted Apr 17, 2012 @ 7:39 PM

Sutton is the actress's name. Her character's name is Michelle.

Thank you, ElectricBoogalo. That is what I get from reading diagonally. Apologize for time wasting.

Still a hell of a coincidence. One show on ABC family has main character called Sutton, another has the lead actress called Sutton. The odds of that happening are really low. Were are talking getting struck by lighting low.
  • 0

#32

romantic idiot

romantic idiot

    Stalker

Posted Apr 18, 2012 @ 3:06 AM

I look at complaining about titles the same way as complaining about racy covers on romance novels. Rationalisations rather than reasones. Just seems like such a minor reason not to go for a show.

definitely agree with the ludicrous storylines, but have to say I've noticed the Broadway acting/awkward on TV thing. Many of the characters seem too broad, no subtlety whatsoever, and I feel like I'm watching people in a play rather than people working on a play. Which is a shame, because they seem like a talented bunch, they just aren't being used well or properly directed for TV acting.

The worst actors on Smash are Kat McPhee, the chap playing Leo's son and the chap playing the evil assistant - none of whom are actors. I haven't noticed any lack of subtely in Christian or Megan, or Raza or Brian or Bernadette Peters or Sam or even the other emsemble members so I'm not exactly sure where this criticism is coming from? Please do reply in the Smash thread - I'd like to know.
  • 0

#33

randomchance

randomchance

    Fanatic

Posted Apr 18, 2012 @ 3:33 AM

I'm surprised they didn't use Paradise in the title somehow, like (say) Dancing in Paradise or Paradise Dance. It would be cheesy, but it would probably catch more attention than Bunheads.
  • 0

#34

deepfriedcake

deepfriedcake

    Couch Potato

Posted Apr 18, 2012 @ 6:24 AM

When I first saw the title, I thought it would be a show about librarians.

Heh.

Probably because of my old eyes, there's something about the 'n' in Bunheads that makes me think it's a double 'r' every time I see it. Then for a second or two I think "Burrheads? Whaaaat?" before it clicks and I figure it out.

I hate to admit that this show already has my heart fluttering a little bit from just viewing the clips. I'm excited to see it in a way I haven't felt in, oh, five years maybe...At the same time I'm trying to hold back. It's like an old flame has come back into town and is trying to make me forget how painful the breakup was. ("Trust me, Baby, I've changed. I won't let you down again. Remember how we used to laugh? Remember the rodeo? The deviled eggs? It'll be like that again, I promise.")

At least since the main couple is already married, I guess we won't have to sit through four seasons of 'will they or won't they.'

Looking forward very much to seeing Kelly Bishop again. And yes, if Miss Patty would show up, so much the better!
  • 0

#35

Rhodie

Rhodie

    Video Archivist

Posted Apr 19, 2012 @ 3:56 PM

I'm not complaining about it because it'll put me off personally, I worry that it won't rope in enough of an audience to keep the show on the air. I've loved so many shows that got canceled too soon that I worry about these things in advance.


I gotcha. I share the same concerns too so it does make me a little nervous as well - but moreso, the show being on ABC Family. I mean, on one hand, it seems like a perfect fit for a show about dancers (Ballerinas, no less) but the show to me seems to have all the ingredients for a demographic slightly above this network's.

Edited by Rhodie, Apr 19, 2012 @ 3:56 PM.

  • 0

#36

meatball77

meatball77

    Fanatic

Posted Apr 19, 2012 @ 8:34 PM

The good thing about it being on ABC family is that they never cancel anything mid season and they have a ton of empty space on their schedule. The only thing that they've released in the past several years that's been canceled without it being able to get an extra half season to end is that horrible raven simone sitcom

Edited by meatball77, Apr 19, 2012 @ 8:36 PM.

  • 0

#37

Rhodie

Rhodie

    Video Archivist

Posted Apr 21, 2012 @ 1:20 AM

I wonder if Gilmore Girls airing on the network has any pull on a decision. They're certainly touting the "created by Amy Sherman-Palladino" well enough.

ETA: Kate Jeurgens, ABC family's executive of entertainment seems to have worked with Amy before:

Prior to joining ABC Family, Juergens served as senior vice president of development at The WB. As head of development she was responsible for all series programming and oversaw such hit series as "Smallville," "The Gilmore Girls," "Angel" and "Reba."


Hopefully this bodes well for the show's future.

Edited by Rhodie, Apr 21, 2012 @ 1:23 AM.

  • 0

#38

popcorn

popcorn

    Fanatic

Posted Apr 22, 2012 @ 6:15 PM

The good thing about it being on ABC family is that they never cancel anything mid season and they have a ton of empty space on their schedule. The only thing that they've released in the past several years that's been canceled without it being able to get an extra half season to end is that horrible raven simone sitcom

They canceled Huge after 10 episodes two summers ago. It got good reviews and was promoted as Winnie Holzman's (My So-Called Life's creator) new show. As far as having empty space on their schedule, I'm not sure about that. They have a few other new shows to try out this summer, and the only show I would bet money on being canceled this season is Make It or Break It.

Edited by popcorn, Apr 22, 2012 @ 6:20 PM.

  • 0

#39

Rhodie

Rhodie

    Video Archivist

Posted Apr 23, 2012 @ 2:45 PM

ABC Family has the weirdest management - Huge averaged better than both Jane by Design and The Lying Game and was cancelled so it could go either way. I think it mainly depends on how much the suits like the show and what kind of future they see in it.

Edited by Rhodie, Apr 23, 2012 @ 2:46 PM.

  • 0

#40

meatball77

meatball77

    Fanatic

Posted Apr 23, 2012 @ 3:21 PM

I wondered if the canceling of huge had more to do with the lead not wanting to come back then the network. It was an odd show, I never could figure out how old the girls were all supposed to be the actresses were all in their late 20's and looked it but I think they were supposed to be playing teens.
  • 0

#41

ThatGrrl

ThatGrrl

    Fanatic

Posted Apr 23, 2012 @ 8:32 PM

I know I'm old as the hills, but having grown up in serious ballet and been in the company with the Nashville Ballet, "Bunheads" means nothing to me. Is that a real term? It's so...flippant and silly. It has nothing to do with what really comes down to immense athletic training, precision and skill. If that's a real term with which people are familiar, hey, no problem. If not, making up a term like that isn't exactly going to bring in viewers.

That said, Kelly Bishop? I'd follow her anywhere. Loved her in "Gilmore Girls."

Oh, and:

I hope Miss Patty stops by.


Definitely.

Edited by ThatGrrl, Apr 23, 2012 @ 8:35 PM.

  • 0

#42

randomchance

randomchance

    Fanatic

Posted Apr 23, 2012 @ 8:38 PM

"Bunheads" means nothing to me. Is that a real term?

If it's obscure for even someone with a dance background, that's pretty obscure. I heard it mentioned on Dance Academy, which is an Oz show, so at the time I thought it was Oz slang. Only on there it was called "Betty Bunheads," meaning ballet students, I guess because the students were required to wear their hair in a bun for class.
  • 0

#43

ThatGrrl

ThatGrrl

    Fanatic

Posted Apr 23, 2012 @ 8:46 PM

If it's obscure for even someone with a dance background, that's pretty obscure. I heard it mentioned on Dance Academy, which is an Oz show, so at the time I thought it was Oz slang. Only on there it was called "Betty Bunheads," meaning ballet students, I guess because the students were required to wear their hair in a bun for class.


Well, like I said, it could be that I am old as the hills with my dance years far behind me. Decided on college instead of dance in the 1980s, despite being in a really decent company. It could be that I got out before the term came into common use.
  • 0

#44

meatball77

meatball77

    Fanatic

Posted Apr 23, 2012 @ 9:02 PM

I've heard the term a lot. It's probably new because it being weird for a dancer to only do ballet is a fairly new thing. Slang for ballet girls because they always wear their hair in buns.
  • 0

#45

Rhodie

Rhodie

    Video Archivist

Posted Apr 25, 2012 @ 5:14 PM

First look at Kelly Bishop as Fanny:


http://insidetv.ew.c...hop-first-look/

annnnnnnnnd my Gilmore heart flutters.
  • 0

#46

randomchance

randomchance

    Fanatic

Posted Apr 25, 2012 @ 5:48 PM

Sutton is so Lorelai-ish to me. Not just in appearance but overall - the way she delivers lines and the way she moves. Not that this is a bad thing.

And I wouldn't rule out a Will They or Won't They just yet, since it doesn't look like she married the guy because she was madly in love with him. Maybe that's the WTWT - does she fall in love with him eventually.

Edited by randomchance, Apr 25, 2012 @ 5:50 PM.

  • 0

#47

Rhodie

Rhodie

    Video Archivist

Posted Apr 30, 2012 @ 2:33 PM

The official website has some more promotional photos up now of Sutton Foster and Kelly. Emily Gilmore wouldn't be caught dead wearing that awesome necklace.

Edited by Rhodie, Apr 30, 2012 @ 2:34 PM.

  • 0

#48

Zorro

Zorro

    Channel Surfer

Posted Apr 30, 2012 @ 4:10 PM

It is interesting to see how Gilmore Girls' popularity is both a blessing and a curse.

Many fans of Parenthood compare the character of Sara Braverman to Lorelai Gilmore, whether it is merited or not. That's what Lauren Graham gets for doing a good acting job. <being sarcastic>

Amy SP will always be expected to create work that resonates with the public the way GG did, and she will unfortunately be judged as having "lost her touch" when she does not.

I think these kind of unreasonable expectations to replicate past successes may be unique to female creatives.
Do you think that Aaron Sorkin and the actors from Studio 60 carried similar expectations?
Was Matthew Perry expected to bring Chandler's personna and Frineds' success with him?

Just askin...
  • 0

#49

Rhodie

Rhodie

    Video Archivist

Posted Apr 30, 2012 @ 5:27 PM

It is interesting to see how Gilmore Girls' popularity is both a blessing and a curse.

Many fans of Parenthood compare the character of Sara Braverman to Lorelai Gilmore, whether it is merited or not. That's what Lauren Graham gets for doing a good acting job. <being sarcastic>

Amy SP will always be expected to create work that resonates with the public the way GG did, and she will unfortunately be judged as having "lost her touch" when she does not.

I think these kind of unreasonable expectations to replicate past successes may be unique to female creatives.
Do you think that Aaron Sorkin and the actors from Studio 60 carried similar expectations?
Was Matthew Perry expected to bring Chandler's personna and Frineds' success with him?

Just askin...


You're right - it's totally ridiculous. Expectations need to be adjusted for each individual creation and not compared to previous ones. It's just not fair to the work itself and frankly pointless as different shows usually set out to be different experiences.

Edited by Rhodie, Apr 30, 2012 @ 5:31 PM.

  • 0

#50

romantic idiot

romantic idiot

    Stalker

Posted May 1, 2012 @ 8:54 AM

Do you think that Aaron Sorkin and the actors from Studio 60 carried similar expectations?

I expected it of them, for sure.

Was Matthew Perry expected to bring Chandler's personna and Frineds' success with him?

Chandler's persona - no. But I did expect Matthew Perry to put in a great acting performance. And I don't think acting was the problem on S60.

So, I don't think this issue is limited to the female gender. If I like an author's voice, I expect to see it subsequent works. At the least, I expect subsequent works to be of as good quality as what I've liked previously. It's the inherent promise and the premise of a brand.


I'll say the ASP and Lauren Graham may have it easier than Sorkin or at least Matthew Perry. They weren't on one of the most successful sitcoms ever for 10 years. At the end of the day, as much as Gilmore Girls was awesome - it was on The CW - not that many people will have seen it. So I don't think it's a loathsome burden or anything on ASP right now. Or shouldn't be, at least.
  • 1

#51

randomchance

randomchance

    Fanatic

Posted May 1, 2012 @ 9:08 AM

I agree that it isn't gender-specific, and I don't think it's unreasonable to expect more good writing out of someone who has a proven track record of good writing. And it's an advantage, not a burden - or I'm guessing that unproven writers who didn't get a show would think so anyway.
  • 0

#52

stillshimpy

stillshimpy

    Stalker

Posted May 1, 2012 @ 9:37 AM

Do you think that Aaron Sorkin and the actors from Studio 60 carried similar expectations?


Yes, I think the expectations for Sorkin were exceptionally high for Studio 60 and critics did compare that to The West Wing a great deal, talking about Sorkin's love of the pedi-conference (Walk-and-Talk exposition, lots of shots in halls with rapid-fire dialogue). In some ways Sorkin invited that by casting at least one main cast member from The West Wing. Just as he eventually used one of the main cast from Sport's Night on TWW. I think it's fairly normal for either gender to be expected to rise to their previous level of ...if not success...then quality. Joss Whedon could probably write an entire book about those kind of critical and fan expectations. But again, some of that is brought on by the creator, by having go-to dialogue patterns (Walk-and-Talk Sorkin and Invented Words Whedon) and favoring particular actors. Sherman-Pallidino is going to invite some of those comparisons by casting at least two Gilmore Girls actors that I've seen thus far. There are a lot of actors in the world, if she wants to create something that won't be compared, then she could have gone a long way to achieving that by casting with an entirely new set of actors. Not that I'm complaining, I adore Kelly Bishop and if I watch, it will be because I really want to see her.

Was Matthew Perry expected to bring Chandler's personna and Frineds' success with him?


This is interesting because personally, I don't think it's quite the same expectation. It has its roots in a different area. Whether or not an actor's name can bring success is a pretty standard thing within Hollywood and exists for both genders. Julia Roberts and Tom Cruise have pretty equal pressure to bring in an audience for their vehicles with their name power alone. However, for an actor, they have the added pressure of "...while creating an entirely new, fresh character that doesn't bring to mind their best known work!" ...which...that's daunting! For instance, I'll likely tune in to see Bishop, but part of the fun will be seeing how little like Emily Gilmore her character will be. I love the actor, but part of the pull is "...and wow, I'm going to get to see her do something entirely different!" Only...since any actor is a human being with mannerisms, there are almost always echoes of previous, long term characters in a performance. Add in the "...and it's the same creator, with a very distinctive sense of humor (that I tend to love)..." and I'm assuming I'll be hearing some big echoes...and that's fine. I miss Gilmore Girls.

So there's also the weird pressure -- and I think it would exist for either gender (see Whedon) -- to create something fresh...new...and reminiscent of much loved projects. Again, daunting] but not undoable (again...Whedon is a good example, or Bryan Fuller as another example).

This looks cute. I probably will watch. The lead's seeming resemblance in manner and delivery to Lauren Graham's Lorelai Gilmore might not work out for me, but we'll see. If she's too Lorelai-esque...then I'm likely to feel like I'm watching the Poor Man's Gilmore Girls. Then there's a slight problem for me with the "I want to be a ballet dancer!" of the premise. There are a lot of elements to the dance world that aren't very ABC-Family-Friendly (just as a for instance, eating-disorders, body issues, intense appearance pressures) ...and I am a little leery of seeing those sugar-coated too much, or worse -- denied entirely. So the ballet and dance focus might not hold me for long, but we'll see.

I wish ASP and her husband well. Although I really enjoyed season seven of GG in the final analysis, my favorite seasons of that show were under ASP's rule. The Palladinos kept me really entertained for six years and ASP has a great sense of humor. I'd love to see them be successful again. I'm not positive i can be along for the ride, but I hope it goes well for all concerned.
  • 2

#53

AzraelKay

AzraelKay

    Video Archivist

Posted May 1, 2012 @ 3:15 PM

I will def give this a shot and want to like it for Emily Gilmore alone, but that line of the other actress (Sutton, I guess?) when she says "Attitude, my friends" just grates on my nerves. I am hoping it just some weird, out of context line that bugs me and not the show/character/actress as a whole.


  • 0

#54

SnarklePuss

SnarklePuss

    Couch Potato

Posted May 1, 2012 @ 9:53 PM

I realize poetic license blah blah and everything, but there really is a town called Paradise in California, but it's nowhere near the coast.
  • 0

#55

Zorro

Zorro

    Channel Surfer

Posted May 2, 2012 @ 9:52 AM

I wonder what lessons ASP learned from the whole quick experience of Jezabel James.
  • 0

#56

randomchance

randomchance

    Fanatic

Posted May 2, 2012 @ 10:08 AM

I had to look that up, I never heard of it. But off the top of my head I'd say the first lesson she should have learned was, better titles. If I had seen that title I would have assumed it was some kind of a girl-power western. And I hate westerns.
  • 0

#57

OptimisticCynic

OptimisticCynic

    Stalker

Posted May 2, 2012 @ 10:40 AM

Sutton Foster is amazing, and I don't think the comparisons to Lorelai or Lauren Graham are really that fair. I really don't see much of a physical resemblance between the two, even in style choices. I loved Lauren as Lorelai, but Sutton brings her own talent and magnetism to her parts. To just compare, Sutton is really dynamic and commanding on stage while Lauren got very tepid response and reviews when doing "Guys and Dolls."

Interview with Sutton from last year: http://www.youtube.c...h?v=yLoHkMjLQug
  • 0

#58

Rhodie

Rhodie

    Video Archivist

Posted May 3, 2012 @ 12:57 AM

I wonder what lessons ASP learned from the whole quick experience of Jezabel James.


heh, speak of the devil:

It's the brainchild of writer Amy Sherman-Palladino of Gilmore Girls fame, so expect lots of snappy, rapid-fire dialogue and pop-culture wisecracks. "Getting Sutton to do this role has been the most awesome experience," Sherman-Palladino says. "I write to a very weird kind of rhythm that is not second nature to most actors, and when it backfires it backfires on an apocalyptic level." Not so with Foster. "She totally gets me in an almost frightening way, and now her voice is in my head 24 hours a day," says Sherman-Palladino. "I could write for Sutton for the rest of my life!"

http://www.tvguide.com/News/Bunheads-ABC-Family-1046847.aspx



ETA: According to the ABCFamily user over on fanforum, Sam Phillips (Gilmore Girls'composer) will be scoring Bunheads. As a huge fan, I'm ecstatic.

Edited by Rhodie, May 3, 2012 @ 12:58 AM.

  • 0

#59

romantic idiot

romantic idiot

    Stalker

Posted May 3, 2012 @ 4:17 AM

Since Sutton Foster is on this, and Jon Groff has gone on record saying that he is very fond of her. I hope he turns up in a guest spot somewhere. I really liked the Ballet sequence they did on Glee.
  • 0

#60

Whisperia

Whisperia

    Fanatic

Posted May 3, 2012 @ 9:45 PM

I watched Jezebel James when it was on and it was pretty awful. I actually thought the biggest problem with it (among many others) was that Parker Posey was terribly, terribly miscast. I love Parker Posey, but she just didn't work in that show. She's not an actress I'd put at the top of a list of potential leads in a traditional, three-camera sitcom with a laugh track. I hope ASP is right about Sutton Foster being able to work within the rhythm of ASP's dialogue, because it seems like finding the right lead is extremely important in her work.
  • 0