68 Comments

  1. Darrin is not a forgotten man. That the actor changed is notable in the real world, but it didn’t happen in the show. That was always the same guy as far as that world goes. One might prefer one or the other actor, but same character. We can all riff on what’s going on there (my guess is Samantha wanted someone more conventionally handsome), but, really, no explanation is needed.

    I agree with Arthur, the real forgotten character is Chuck Cunningham. He didn’t just stop appearing in the show with no explanation. He was expunged from history. To the point where the family did not speak of him. In a later episode, someone asks Mr. Cunningham how many children he has and he says “two”. He doesn’t say “Three, Richie, Joanie, and our son Chuck, who is stationed in Antarctica with the Air Force” or anything like what they pulled with Richie’s absence. Presumably Chuck has also been airbrushed out of all the family photos and all documents in government archives have been removed with Soviet precision. I just wonder what the poor fellow did to require the government to erase him like that. He was just a youngster.

  2. Chuck was also a victim of the Darrin Stevens Syndrome before he became Patient Zero of Chuck Cunningham Syndrome. (Two actors, then *poof*)

  3. Many thanks to Usual John for confirming my suspicions. As I said before, I would not have recognized (or been able to name) “Henry” if he hadn’t appeared on Tuesday, but he was the reason that I figured some of the others must also have been irregular extras.

  4. I think it’s well established in the fiction that “James Bond” is not just a code name. He’s gotten married as James Bond, and owns the historic Bond family estate, Skyfall.

  5. Someone on Seinfeld ( maybe even Jerry ? ) had two different fathers, played by the actors Barney Martin and Phil Bruns.

  6. “I think it’s well established in the fiction that “James Bond” is not just a code name.”

    The movies stopped following the books quite a long time ago. George Lazenby Bond made a specific reference to “the other guy”.

    For all those Jameses Bond to be the same character, the current character would have to be well into his 80’s, 90’s, if not a centenarian, in order to rise the rank of Commander in the Royal Navy, then “retire” to Her Majesty’s Secret Service and rise up through the ranks there far enough to earn a license to kill by 1962.

    The “James Bond is a codename” retcon isn’t even the best/most realistic… better is that the stories released to the public are actually an amalgam of real things that happened, but not all to the same guy. They can’t tell you the name(s) of the real guy(s) it happened to, so they invented this fellow. It’s not unlike the way hospital TV shows take real medical cases that happened all over the country, or even world, and pretend they all happened in the same hospital, or the way cop TV shows take cases that happened all over the country, and pretend they all happened in the same precinct of a big-city police department. Or, you know, just don’t take it too seriously because it’s just a movie. That’s another good one.

  7. are any of these the waitress who replace “Flo” on “Alice”

    That would be Diane Ladd. I don’t think so.

  8. “check out the original movie “Casino Royale”.”

    The first theatrical release, or the first one made?

  9. That’s technically a remake, like Never Say Never Again was a remake of Thunderball.

  10. The very first “Casino Royale” was a one-shot one hour TV show in the 1950’s, if I remember correctly. So yes, the Woody Allen / David Niven “Casino Royale” was arguably a remake.

  11. Ian Fleming stated that he imagined Mr. Niven in the role. He HATED Connery, at first, but came around.

  12. “I always thought it would have been funny if Will Ferrell would have been replaced by Will Forte Half way through the movie version with no explanation.”

    Subtle, but brilliant.

  13. @ CIDU Bill – Thanks for calling attention to John Kowalkowski’s comment; I missed that one, and it would indeed have been a brilliant parody.

  14. Mark in Boston is correct. There was a TV version of Casino Royale in 1954 staring Barry Nelson as Bond.

    There is also a movie called Kaleidoscope in 1966 which has a similar plot to Casino Royale and is considered by Bond fans to be a better version of the story than the comedy version done in the 1960s (based on discussions on Bond conventions before such things were called “con”.

  15. “Mark in Boston is correct. There was a TV version of Casino Royale”

    Hence the question upthread, the original version (TV) or first theatrical version.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s