Jump to content
Forums forums
PRIMETIMER

Bastet

"Season" Five: NBC Dragged Them Back for This?

Recommended Posts

I'm bringing the "Harry" discussion over here.

I haven't made myself watch the finale in quite some time, but I don't believe we learned his real name.  Harry is what Daniel called him, yes, but because that's what Mr. Steele happened to be calling himself at the time they met.  If I recall correctly, Steele turns around to find out Daniel has died just after he asks what his real name is.  So he never finds out, nor do we.

Which I like, on several levels. Fundamentally, I like unfinished endings, and we'd already learned his parentage - and FINALLY got Steele and Laura into the bedroom - so I like this one thing not being wrapped up.  Beyond that, no name would have been good enough. 

 

 

  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post

I agree.  Harry was one of the many names Steele was using when he ran into Daniel.  Daniel picked one, but I feel in the end, I don't think the name Harry was overly significant to Steele.

The only name he chose and then clung to as his own was Remington Steele.  Even his fake names on his passports were taking from other existing characters leading fictitious lives.  I alwasys felt like the show played it like he deliberately refused to have a "real" name until he took over Remington Steele.   

Laura created the name and the basic outline of the person, but he stepped in and brought him to life.  Yes, he asked Daniel to tell him his "real" name, but I felt like that was the point of him never being told, he had already found his "real name" when he emerged as Remington Steele. 

I've read in many fan fiction's where they have Laura privately calling him Harry. And yes, even I imagined the fake birth certificate they at some point would cook up for him would read as Remington Harrison Steele, but I have a hard time believing she would start calling him Harry.  He isn't Harry anymore.  He's Remington. 

It's an awful big mouthful, but Laura's not going to call him Mr. Steele forever.  And though she reverted to Harry for Daniel's benefit, I think it was only for the benefit of a dying man.   I think even Chalmers knew "Harry" was really Remington. 

I liked to imagine that part of the growing process for Laura also would have included coming to use Steele's first name and getting used to using it..  It would IMO become symbolic of her fully accepting and trusting him to remain Remington Steele.  So I guess that's another reason why I don't want her calling him Harry or any other name but Remington. 

Yeah, that's what pondering a TV show for the last thirty years will do to you.

Edited by BkWurm1
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post

I only first saw the fifth season a couple of years ago.  Up unil then, all I knew about it was from reading synopses online.  For the life of me, I couldn't understand the overwhelming antipathy toward Tony.  I thought: "oh, it's just people overreacting to a new charcater."  Boy, was I wrong!  That guy was the worst.  It's like they wanted to create a character to build up a love triangle, but made him so unlikeable that viewers would feel assured that Laura would never really go for him.  The problem is that they put him in grave danger and seemed to expect us to root for him.  Was I supposed to be relieved that the commies didn't kill him?  I wish he had been shot dead, then his refusal to leave Laura alone would have died with him and we wouldn't have that stupid phone ringing in the last scene.

  • Love 2

Share this post


Link to post

I was thinking about the season five and why beyond the annoying Tony, did I find it so annoying? It's partly just the huge waste of time on this nothing character that I don't like but knowing that these are our last moments with Laura Holt and Remington Steele, what do they do? Not only do they fill my screen with Tony, they keep Laura and Remington apart so the've changed the whole style of the show that I've loved. They've almost always worked the cases together. Maybe go off on their own for a little bit but the show is about them together and the last six episodes felt like they did everything but work together and that is why I find season "5" so hard to forgive.

It's also why I never really enjoyed rewatching the season finale of three (or four for that matter).

  • Love 2

Share this post


Link to post

I'm trying to wrack my brain, @BkWurm1 , what the finale for Season 3 was. 4, I know, was that horrid, horrid fake marriage on that boat. Remington and the writers just pissed me off with that finale, insulting my intelligence. Like WHY wouldn't Remington tell Laura that that insurance guy found out about all his passports? Why wouldn't he go to Laura so they could both figure out what to do? But no, he's got to traipsing around town, trying to find some woman/hooker? to marry to stay in the country.

 

So much bitterness and hate for that. I wonder if Season five was the brass trying to stick it to Brosnan to prevent him from playing the next Bond? I recall he was in talks to do that, when it came out, No, he couldn't do it, because he was contracted with NBC for the show they had fucking cancelled. But then said, No! Wait! It's not!

  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post

Season 3 had Laura going after the Westfield (?) guy only to tell him ON THE PLANE that she was staying behind. And when she got to Steele's place, it was empty.

  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post

Earlier in the episode it had her running down to Mexico without Steele and coming back to find they'd lost their license.  She blamed him for not showing up at some scheduled meeting but it turned out it wasn't his fault, the government official was corrupt but I don't think Remington ever shared that information.  The miscommunication wasn't fun, nor was his blasé reaction to when she came back from being shot at, and then there was her really hideous, multi colored pastel sweater at the end.  Shudder. 

Edited by BkWurm1
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
and then there was her really hideous, multi colored pastel sweater at the end.  Shudder.

 

Garish pastels, thy name was the 1980s!  :-)

Share this post


Link to post

Since this is the topic for the fifth season, can I also complain about the bangs?  I hate them so much.  You'd think after all this time I'd be used to them, but nope.  The first sighting of them still fills me with loathing and distress.  Just not that flattering.  Thank all that is merciful that the poodle poof at least was kept to a minimum. 

  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post

I didn't start watching until season 3 so my initial disappointment with the last 6 episodes wasn't that great. It was a let down but I was more disappointed when I bought the DVDs & watched from the begining. I do remembernot liking the season & always skipped it when it was in syndication.

Few shows have as strong a start as Remington Steele. I'm amazed at how solid the pilot & first episodes are! The show established it's winning formula immediately. The first episodes feel like they belong much later in season they're so polished. Subsequent seasons only built onto that. Then comes season 4 & the absurd unwillingness to move the characters relationship forward despite opportunities to do so. One step forward, one step back. Over & over. It didn't bother me originally coming in at season 3 but watching from the begining it is very frustrating. What thinking went into the season 4 finale I'll never understand.

With season 5, it's as if the writers were angry at the actors & angry at the fans for puting them in the position of having to make more episodes. Never could theyvsimply reward the viewer by giving them what they'd like to see. Instead they create this triangle that never works. Early in the series it might have & there was some of that in season 1 but by the time season 5 comes around, the series had evolved past that sort of thing. Instead any development between the characters is ignored & everything is reset with the bonus of this odd hostility between the Steele & Laura. Just an unsatisfying ending to a wonderful series.

I watched the series straight through in syndication years ago but decided to watch season 1 & then get season 5 out of the way. That way I have plenty of good episodes left to watch & the bad stuff is behind me!

  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post

Instead any development between the characters is ignored & everything is reset with the bonus of this odd hostility between the Steele & Laura.

 

Very true.  I get why they had to play that after Steele planned the hooker wedding but then they kept dragging out the pain when Shannon showed up which sent Laura running to Tony and just when all that seemed to be getting resolved stupid Tony on the train.  I still could have forgiven the show that kiss if only they had Laura treat it perfectly professional instead of it going on too long.  All for the sake of continuing a triangle no one wanted, pretending a character no one liked actually had a chance.

 

All it did was make me like Laura less and I hated that.  To be fair, the season 4 finale did the same thing for Steele.  Plot induced stupid is the worst kind. 

 

The funny thing, is I enjoyed most of season 4. I didn't see missed opportunities so much as a constant stream of getting closer and closer which just meant that every episode had great character moments, but yeah, it was like every week was a reset and the previous week's progress was ignored.  That's the way the show went so I didn't notice the issue the first time around and since I now know not to expect continued progress, I still find a lot of enjoyment in each episode. 

  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post

If you throw out the last episode, season 4 is pretty good. That episode always feels like it was written by someone with only basic knowledge of the shows characters.

I am enjoying watching the series again though! I still watch & remember being a teen wanting to emulate Remington Steele's style & having the biggest crush on Stephanie Zimbalist!

  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post

Huh. MeTV only aired the first two episodes of season five before starting with the first season again.

Not that I care. If I'm truly bored, I can pull out the dvds to watch them.

Now I can kick back and enjoy the show I fell in love with and the great fedoras.

  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post

I was thinking about the season five and why beyond the annoying Tony, did I find it so annoying? It's partly just the huge waste of time on this nothing character that I don't like but knowing that these are our last moments with Laura Holt and Remington Steele, what do they do? Not only do they fill my screen with Tony, they keep Laura and Remington apart so the've changed the whole style of the show that I've loved. They've almost always worked the cases together. Maybe go off on their own for a little bit but the show is about them together and the last six episodes felt like they did everything but work together and that is why I find season "5" so hard to forgive.

It's also why I never really enjoyed rewatching the season finale of three (or four for that matter).

 

Just got through watching part of this ridiculous season.  And the title for this thread is so so true! Part? Because that stupid fucking disk is scratched up on BOTH sides so that not only are the last half hour maybe of the stupid movie frozen, but the next two episodes, as well as the last half hour of "Steeled by a Kiss."  And I hate, hate, hate, loathe that most of these episodes are filled with Tony and his useless ass of a character, who wasn't like Westfield in the Season 3 finale, a good guy--but a ratbastard to begin with.

 

Not to mention, I don't even recognize my Laura and Remington. I'm thinking, who are these characters that look like Remington Steele and Laura Holt? The only one who is still the same is Mildred.  And add in the fact that so much, so much of the series finale, let alone all the other episodes, are spent with Remington and Laura apart and not working together just bugs the ever fucking life out of me. And it's a good thing I think, that my brain bleached out most of these episodes and the stupidity that I'm sure the writers thought were still in the vein of "screwball comedy" with the running gag of knocking Tony out and putting him in the bag and rescuing him.

 

Nor do I care for Laura being conflicted or confused by that ass, Tony.  

Since this is the topic for the fifth season, can I also complain about the bangs?  I hate them so much.  You'd think after all this time I'd be used to them, but nope.  The first sighting of them still fills me with loathing and distress.  Just not that flattering.  Thank all that is merciful that the poodle poof at least was kept to a minimum. 

 

God, yes! Stephanie's hair was horrible! I'm not sure what she was going for here, or what her hairstylist was thinking.

 

So yes, even though my loathing, bitterness and hate for this last season is still intact, of course I ordered another Season 4/5 dvd set because I still want to see the ending.  And I searched on Amazon Prime, Netflix, Hulu and other various internet sources, but no season five episodes are available for streaming or just to view; otherwise, I'd be content with just my season 4, since they both come in one set.

 

One thing has left me confused is Efrem's/Daniel's English Accent. It was American in the first season, then when we saw him again throughout the years, it was an English one. Then here, in the last two episodes, he was back to speaking in an American accent again.

 

Oh, and why would the Earl of Claridge give Steele Ashford Castle, if it had all these ridiculous, astronomical bills for every damn thing? I can't believe he was ignorant and it's not like Steele had the money to pay them all. I can't remember if he decided to keep it or if it was just a loose end we were supposed to forget about because the last scene was him walking up the stairs with Laura in his arms?

Share this post


Link to post

Okay, either you've been skipping episodes, or you've done nothing more than watch Remington Steele to already be at season five.  :-)

 

Steele left the castle to its staff.  ("That was very generous of your lordship."  WHY do I remember dialogue from this wretched thing?)

 

I am bound and determined that when I finally finish season four (I haven't yet made it to watching Sensitive Steele), I will watch the fifth "season" in its entirety for the first time since it aired.  We'll see.

Edited by Bastet
  • Love 2

Share this post


Link to post

Okay, either you've been skipping episodes, or you've done nothing more than watch Remington Steele to already be at season five. :-)

Steele left the castle to its staff. ("That was very generous of your lordship." WHY do I remember dialogue from this wretched thing?)

I am bound and determined that when I finally finish season four (I haven't yet made it to watching Sensitive Steele), I will watch the fifth "season" in its entirety for the first time since it aired. We'll see.

No, no skipping! And you're right, I've been doing nothing but watching this show non-stop since before Thanksgiving. The only skipping was done by no choice in this "season" as stated above, the disc is scratched and so was unable to watch the last 30 minutes of that movie, the two episodes that followed and the last 30 minutes of the series finale. And this was also the first time I watched them since they first aired.

So, to erase my memory of this clusterfuck, I popped in the first season again, naturally!

 

And then it will be on to Scarecrow & Mrs. King.

Edited by GHScorpiosRule

Share this post


Link to post

And then it will be on to Scarecrow & Mrs. King.

 

 

Since I'm living vicariously through you watching favorite shows of mine, did you happen to be a fan of Lois and Clark, The New Adventures of Superman?  I'm missing that show. 

Edited by BkWurm1

Share this post


Link to post

No, no skipping! And you're right, I've been doing nothing but watching this show non-stop since before Thanksgiving. The only skipping was done by no choice in this "season" as stated above, the disc is scratched and so was unable to watch the last 30 minutes of that movie, the two episodes that followed and the last 30 minutes of the series finale. And this was also the first time I watched them since they first aired.

So, to erase my memory of this clusterfuck, I popped in the first season again, naturally!

 

And then it will be on to Scarecrow & Mrs. King.

 

I never watched Scarecrow & Mrs. King. Heresy, I know! Only watched Remington Steele and Moonlighting. But seeing as it is cut from the same cloth, maybe I'll do a blind buy of S1 one of these days... Even so, I am aware that Beverly Garland played the mom to Kate Jackson's character as well as Stephanie Zimbalist's. Cool!

 

(Her real daughter, Carrington Garland, was Kelly Capwell #3 on the NBC soap, Santa Barbara, and was the spitting image of onscreen sister, Marcy Walker.)

Share this post


Link to post

Since I'm living vicariously through you watching favorite shows of mine, did you happen to be a fan of Lois and Clark, The New Adventures of Superman?  I'm missing that show. 

 

Yes, yes I am! Of course I missed 90% of the first season during its first run and the first half of the second season as I was in India at the time. I did catch the last two seasons during its original run and was able to catch up on the first two in repeats.  It was in syndication on one of the Retro channels, I can't recall which. I did appreciate how smart Lois was in that show, and admittedly, Teri Hatcher's version made me all the more bitter at Smallville's version of "Lois."  I'm gonna hafta see if it's available on Netflix or something.

 

I never watched Scarecrow & Mrs. King. Heresy, I know! Only watched Remington Steele and Moonlighting. But seeing as it is cut from the same cloth, maybe I'll do a blind buy of S1 one of these days... Even so, I am aware that Beverly Garland played the mom to Kate Jackson's character as well as Stephanie Zimbalist's. Cool!

 

Actually, I think not watching Moonlighting, a show I didn't watch is considered heresy. Well, not regularly anyway. I caught a few episodes here and there.  Beverely had a more substantial role in Scarecrow--in that she was part of the regular cast. She only appeared twice, I think, on this show.

 

I'm just glad that this show and Scarecrow didn't air on the same night!

Edited by GHScorpiosRule
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post

So my reorder of the last two seasons arrived today (4 and 5 are in one set, since the last is really only 4 episodes and the movie) and I popped in the season five.

 

Horrible. Just horrible. I will not be rewatching this ever again. And there is no excuse for how ridiculous and awful it is, because it has the same writers from the first four seasons.  I'm not sure what they were smoking when they penned these idiotic, unfunny, eye-roll worthy episodes. Like I stated above, Laura and Remington, if you include all the episodes and the movie, probably spend only 10% sharing scenes. 

 

I had totally forgotten about Shannon, and even her sub-sub plot was ridiculous; so was Tony intelligence? I'm assuming yes, but I'm still unclear just what those stupid documents said and how the Russian section chief could exonerate him. But I don't care either. And the dangling of where Barbara Babcock's father was. Utterly useless, other than to show how "funny" knocking out Chemadov and Tony and stuffing them in the burlap bags were supposed to be; which they weren't.

 

It was frustrating for me and angered me that Laura couldn't stop kissing Tony when the cops were looking for him on the train. I get why she did it, so the cops wouldn't suspect, but the way she lingered and was affected by it, came across to me as her being more emotionally involved with that ass, than I believe she actually was. If one can just forget about "Bonds of Steele" and look at how far Laura and Remington had come in their relationship--to have Laura confused and soooo attracted to that putz makes no sense. It would mean, at least to me, that she really didn't love Remington, but just had very deep feelings for him, and I know that is not the case.

 

And as for her line to him that if she'd met him a year or two years prior, things might have been different? I call bullshit, because that would have been season 3 and 4. Okay, maybe two years, because that was when they made their stupid bargain and he'd broken Laura's trust again.

 

I'm not sure what the intent of the writers were. Was it to make Remington look like the wrong choice for Laura and that asshole Tony, the better man? Because if so, it was a major fucking FAIL.

 

And while I can accept that we never learn what his "real" name was, because for me, he was Remington, I wanted to hear the "I love yous" from both of them to each other. Because they both knew how they felt about each other, they just couldn't say them and couldn't make the ultimate committment of becoming lovers. I call that ultimate, because for all intents and purposes, this show was telling me that having them consummate their relationship equaled committment.

 

So now I'm going back to my season two of Scarecrow & Mrs. King, and dammit, yes, back to watching season 4-to make sure those discs aren't defective, either.

Edited by GHScorpiosRule
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post

Heh; even Michael Gleason knew Tony sucked.

A friend just sent me this, from Gleason's Facebook page a few years ago.  A fan asked, "Why did you decide to include the character of Tony in the last season of Remington Steele, who, in my opinion, made Laura seem too "UnLaura" (much different than the one we knew)?"

Gleason's response:

Quote

The network insisted we add another character to the mix. It was all about helping the ratings and, though Jack Scalia was a good actor, I'm afraid his character and set-up brought nothing to the plate. The last season was a jumble of missed opportunities and failed relationships and I am, personally, sorry that I went along with NBC's wishes, but it was that or cancellation. I took the coward's way out and planted Tony in the cast. Ah, well, who said life and television isn't a constant learning experience?

  • Love 3

Share this post


Link to post

Despite denials years later, I think that Stephanie Zimbalist and Pierce Brosnan really were not getting along for much of the series, and particularly by the last year. That was the scuttlebutt at the time, and I believe it. That's the only thing that makes the Season Five plotting make sense -- that those two actors wanted to spend as little time with each other as possible. And you could really see it on the screen in Seasons Four AND Five. The chemistry was disappearing quickly, and their scenes appeared strained, as if they were completing for the camera -- and they probably were.

Also, neither actor was very happy about a Season Five. They were both attached to lucrative film roles, and NBC only renewed Season Five to take advantage of the Brosnan as Bond publicity.

Edited by Brent Butler

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, Brent Butler said:

And you could really see it on the screen in Seasons Four AND Five.

Five maybe, and for me a big maybe, but I found the chemistry really lovely in four.  

Share this post


Link to post

And I never saw anything that indicated that they didn't get along. For me the chemistry remained throughout and if it looked like they didn't want to be in scenes together-that was the STUPID plot. And yes, there was interest in Brosnan to be the next Bond when it looked like the series ended, which then had NBC pull out the 'no, you're contracted with us for seven years' nonsense, which gave us horrid season five. I would have been happy with just a movie to fix the insult that was the original series finale. I'm not saying that got along all the time, they've even said there were days when tempers flared, but overall, they were and are, professionals and it showed. At least to me. They both have nothing but good things to say about each other; which is the opposite of what Teri Hatcher has said about Dean Cain.

Maybe I'm naive when it comes to these two, or wearing blinders (I don't care), but after hearing they didn't get along, I looked for signs that they didn't in my last rewatch, and just didn't see it. 

And I've never heard or read anything about either Brosnan or Zimbalist, being difficult to work with. Quite the opposite.

Edited by GHScorpiosRule
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post

Oh, it was well known at the time that they didn't particularly care for each other, and they did a lot of communicating through assistants because they didn't want to talk to each other when they didn't have to, but that they were professional and did respect the other's work despite personal distaste -- and also had moments where they teased each other and had fun.  I know Doris Roberts has made some comments about the tense working environment, but she's also said positive things, and, on the whole, comments from those on set add up to them getting the job done rather than acting like brats and making things awkward for everyone.  There were definitely tensions, as was routinely noted then and as is noted "now" in some of the comments by others on the DVD commentary/interviews, but it wasn't like over on the set of Moonlighting where production was actually being affected (having Michael Gleason rather than Glenn Gordon Caron at the helm helped, I'm sure, as Caron was a big part of the problem and Gleason seems to have just hid in his office when things got bad).

I'm not even sure Stephanie and Pierce were engaging in revisionist history via their DVD interviews or being disingenuous; a little bit, yeah, but I don't perceive that as the motivation -- I just think enough time has passed that they remember more of the good and would rather focus on that when sharing specific memories, while leaving the bad to just a "Yeah, it was tough sometimes" type of thing and moving on.  (They've also never really been the type to bad-mouth each other in public; they kept things in house.)  We get the gist of the other side of the coin via others, especially when there's a group of them doing episode commentary (in what they say and, in one case, what they don't; that strange period of silence in between comments on the finale seems, under the circumstances, like someone shared a little more than they meant to and they edited it out).

As for the chemistry in this dreadful "season"?  Yeah, it was off.  But the fundamental characterization and storytelling was off, so how could it not be, even before adding in the backstage issues?  Given how utterly miserable they were, resentful of having to be there in the first place, I think it could have been worse.  At least in the few quiet moments between the two characters, it feels like old times. 

Edited by Bastet

Share this post


Link to post
Quote

I'm not saying that got along all the time, they've even said there were days when tempers flared, but overall, they were and are, professionals and it showed. At least to me. They both have nothing but good things to say about each other;

Agreed. 

I tend to think any issues they had probably were actually earlier on when the show went from focused first on Laura with Steele part of the supporting cast to when they revamped it and they were both co-leads. Only she got stuck playing the more serious character all the time.  

There was an interview published between the 3rd and 4th season where they said to PB...actually, let me just quote it as written:

Quote

 

He is read part of an interview with Zimbalist in which she says she goes "ouch" when reviews of Brosnan go off the charts.

"Well, she goes ouch too much about it, though. She's threatened."

 

Yeah, this kind of sounds bad, but then you read on and he explains she's insecure about her performance and doesn't have a support system around her to build her up so she takes the reviews and mentions too much to heart.  That when she'd done her previous TV movies, she'd had her dad around and was used to getting that support and attention. He compares it too himself that he has his wife and kids and therefore isn't as concerned if it all falls apart.   

I really believe people (and the writer doing the article) misunderstood his intent in what he was said in the interview.  Earlier in it he mentions SZ was worried she wasn't funny enough.  I think most of the issues were within herself, about her concerns for her performance, not that she didn't like working with him and unfortunately people took her frustration out of context.  

There's a part where he mentions having to sit her down and talk because he "felt this friction" but again, the context turns out that it is her being concerned about her performance.  - The not being funny enough thing - And said we can't all be funny and he didn't think he was funny and he just goes on instinct.  

Someone could take that and twist it to mean he didn't think she was funny but I'm pretty sure it was a conversation about approach to the acting craft and probably on being too hard on ones self since I thought both of them were funny when ever they were supposed to be funny.  His character just had more chances to do it.  

 You can tell he thought of her as young and was trying to help.  But the writer added her own negative slant to what he said by prefacing it all with stuff like "He couldn't possible be to blame for the **well-publicized friction"  Or adding in her own interpretation of what he meant to say, finishing supposed unsaid thoughts in brackets.  From reading PB's other interviews over the years and just by the kinds of things he says and how people talk about him, there no way he'd do an interview that is supposed to be insulting to his co star.  It's totally misconstrued.  

**(First, no, it was NOT "well-publicized."  From what I've heard over the years there were a few small gossipy articles in the kind of publications that always were making stuff up.  (Even this article calls them "beauty parlor" magazines.  I don't think they even ever made covers of those kind of rags, or at least after the first season since as of the second season, I was obsessed with the show and scanned the headlines at the grocery store every week and quickly read any related articles if I could because my mom wouldn't buy them, lol.  Rarely were there ever anything about them apart from TV guide and usually then it was just in the crossword puzzle, lol.)  

 

If you are curious, here's the link to the article I was referring to.  Brosnan, Man of Steele 

Edited by BkWurm1
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, BkWurm1 said:

(First, no, it was NOT "well-publicized."  From what I've heard over the years there were a few small gossipy articles in the kind of publications that always were making stuff up.  (Even this article calls them "beauty parlor" magazines.  I don't think they even ever made covers of those kind of rags, or at least after the first season since as of the second season, I was obsessed with the show and scanned the headlines at the grocery store every week and quickly read any related articles if I could because my mom wouldn't buy them, lol.  Rarely were there ever anything about them apart from TV guide and usually then it was just in the crossword puzzle, lol.)

Yeah, I don't remember it being heavily publicized, either.  Well known within the industry, certainly.  But I don't think it got a whole lot of tabloid or entertainment media attention - if for no other reason than there were juicier stories about Moonlighting to take up those column inches.

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, BkWurm1 said:

 

There was an interview published between the 3rd and 4th season where they said to PB...actually, let me just quote it as written:

Yeah, this kind of sounds bad, but then you read on and he explains she's insecure about her performance and doesn't have a support system around her to build her up so she takes the reviews and mentions too much to heart.  That when she'd done her previous TV movies, she'd had her dad around and was used to getting that support and attention. He compares it too himself that he has his wife and kids and therefore isn't as concerned if it all falls apart.   

I really believe people (and the writer doing the article) misunderstood his intent in what he was said in the interview.  Earlier in it he mentions SZ was worried she wasn't funny enough.  I think most of the issues were within herself, about her concerns for her performance, not that she didn't like working with him and unfortunately people took her frustration out of context.  

There's a part where he mentions having to sit her down and talk because he "felt this friction" but again, the context turns out that it is her being concerned about her performance.  - The not being funny enough thing - And said we can't all be funny and he didn't think he was funny and he just goes on instinct.  

Someone could take that and twist it to mean he didn't think she was funny but I'm pretty sure it was a conversation about approach to the acting craft and probably on being too hard on ones self since I thought both of them were funny when ever they were supposed to be funny.  His character just had more chances to do it.  

 You can tell he thought of her as young and was trying to help.  But the writer added her own negative slant to what he said by prefacing it all with stuff like "He couldn't possible be to blame for the **well-publicized friction"  Or adding in her own interpretation of what he meant to say, finishing supposed unsaid thoughts in brackets.  From reading PB's other interviews over the years and just by the kinds of things he says and how people talk about him, there no way he'd do an interview that is supposed to be insulting to his co star.  It's totally misconstrued.  

**(First, no, it was NOT "well-publicized."  From what I've heard over the years there were a few small gossipy articles in the kind of publications that always were making stuff up.  (Even this article calls them "beauty parlor" magazines.  I don't think they even ever made covers of those kind of rags, or at least after the first season since as of the second season, I was obsessed with the show and scanned the headlines at the grocery store every week and quickly read any related articles if I could because my mom wouldn't buy them, lol.  Rarely were there ever anything about them apart from TV guide and usually then it was just in the crossword puzzle, lol.)  

 

If you are curious, here's the link to the article I was referring to.  Brosnan, Man of Steele 

Interesting that they didn't know for certain that season four was the last and were still negotiating. The way Entertainment Tonight reported it, it was going to be the series finale.

And I loathe Lois Romano, the reporter who conducted the interview with Brosnan for The Washington Post.

First, though of Irish descent, Brosnan's accent is English. I have a thing for Irish and Scottish brogues, so was disappointed that Brosnan no longer had his. Even the episodes in Ireland, I don't think he affected one. So Romano saying he was speaking in his Irish accent just made me give her ??. No need to embellish. She reminds me of Tracy Scoggins Cat Grant: gossipy, snide...

But. I'm not going to think about what was and just enjoy the show, because it's one of my all time favorites and Gleason and his writers showed that you could write a good romantic comedy/drama with the two leads heading toward a happily ever after and who were clearly in a relationship though it wasn't spelled out. I know what I saw on my screen.

  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

And I loathe Lois Romano, the reporter who conducted the interview with Brosnan for The Washington Post.

Brand new loathing or something you figured out a long time ago?  I'm just wondering if she did that kind of catty slanting of her reporting on other stuff.

 

1 hour ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

rst, though of Irish descent, Brosnan's accent is English. I have a thing for Irish and Scottish brogues, so was disappointed that Brosnan no longer had his. Even the episodes in Ireland, I don't think he affected one. So Romano saying he was speaking in his Irish accent just made me give her ??. No need to embellish. She reminds me of Tracy Scoggins Cat Grant: gossipy, snide...

 To be fair, during his Remington Steele days he had a very faint trace of the Iris that sometimes came out stronger than others.  That soft,  melodic quality. I miss it from his current voice.  It's almost all gone now.  (Clearly he's spent too much time in the US, lol)  So MAYBE he was sounding extra Irish. But I bow to your knowledge on how this reporter operates and if she would make stuff up.  Just from this one article, i wouldn't be surprised and I'd never heard of her before.  :D

Edited by BkWurm1

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, BkWurm1 said:

Brand new loathing or something you figured out a long time ago?  I'm just wondering if she did that kind of catty slanting of her reporting on other stuff.

My loathing dates back to when she first started, or when I first started to see her name-I've lived in MD most of my life, and we got the paper daily and as a kid, then teen, etc., I'd read Spider-Man, Calvin & Hobbes, Ann Landers and then other entertainment articles and she's always had this "personality" to her articles.

7 hours ago, BkWurm1 said:

To be fair, during his Remington Steele days he had a very faint trace of the Iris that sometimes came out stronger than others.  That soft,  melodic quality. I miss it from his current voice.  It's almost all gone now.  (Clearly he's spent too much time in the US, lol)  So MAYBE he was sounding extra Irish. But I bow to your knowledge on how this reporter operates and if she would make stuff up.  Just from this one article, i wouldn't be surprised and I'd never heard of her before.  :D

Okay, now I'm going to have to hold my ear to my Telly, because other than the few times he "used" an Irish accent, like when pretending to be Michael O'Leary, or that ditty he sang to the baby, his accent has always been English-yes, even his softer voice!? I've heard him when he's using the Irish! 

Blah. Romano has been around for years. She thinks she's D.C.'s version of Hedda Hopper.??

Share this post


Link to post

Fascinating conversation from beginning to end.

I have always argued that RS would neither resort to using "Harry" as his moniker, nor would LH feel particularly comfortable using it.

There are several arguments for the first: His need to utilize several names and identities interchangeably and often before assuming the mantle, whereas he was content to BE Remington Steele; his very pointed remark that Remington Steele was 'his good name' in Steele At It, and his anger when LH stated 'you don't have a name..."; his remorse that he should have to 'give the name back' in Steele Searching; his joy at receiving a passport bearing what he viewed as 'his name' in Steele Searching, again; and even his pride in holding up his PI credentials and saying a bit puffed chest 'Remington Steele.' Then, of course, there is the fact that the name ties him indelibly to LH, and the life he chose to build in LA, which he had never chosen to do before. Oh, and let's not forget, when Daniel refers to him as Harry, RS makes it very clear to him that his name IS Remington Steele in Blue Blooded Steele.

As for LH, Harry is a name tied to RS's past - and we all know how she feels about that. It would not roll easily off her tongue, and would, most likely, leave a distinct distaste. She is aware, from Daniel's old mouth, that Harry is a name RS was dubbed with from the 'bagful of names' he used when first he plucked him off the street. LH accepting RS as Remington Steele and calling him by Remington would be that last brick of defense she had left crumbling to ashes.

As for the bit about Daniel being RS's father - sorry, not drinking that Kool Aid. That storyline was as contrived as the entire Anthony Roselli CRAP. Canon, itself, tells us it is really NOT possible for Daniel to be his father.

BTW, whoever said the writers for season 5 had been the writers in all prior seasons is dead wrong. Actually, some of the flimsiest episodes with the least amount of Canon honored were written by one of those writers, who wrote once in Season 3, twice in Season 4 and had never bothered to learn the history of these two characters. To wit, at the end of Suburban Steele, LH utters, "The Remington Steele that walked into my life three years ago wouldn't care a fig what happened to my family." WRONG! RS immediately tried to ingratiate himself upon Abigail in Season 1, Episode 5; in Season 1, Episode 21 he is again spends time with Abigail; in Season 2's "Steele Sweet on You" after resolving the issue of who Donald is, he goes out of his way to get to know the Pipers. It's no coincidence, in my eyes, this crappola writer happened to be the head writer for the worst of the worst in Season 5 - and every episode in which Tony/Laura kiss or Laura seems to pant-pant after the man. Hello! We are talking LH here. Yes, she would be attracted to a man who has lied to her from the start, who has used her, abused her trust, blackmailed RS, not to mention sent him off to be possibly murdered? Puleeeeeeese.

As for the whole 'they hated one another' spiel, not buying THAT either. They were honest then and have been since, that there were tensions here and there generally spawning from PB's sudden shoot to stardom and SZ's frustrations at not receiving the same publicity. The gossip in the background seemed to far more center on Cassandra Harris's constant presence on the set and even her interference there. I suspect there was also some resentments/concerns re: SZ by Harris, as there is an article out there somewhere where PB candidly admits she was very jealous of his amorous scenes. Co-workers will not always get along and at times it can get UGLY, yes. But there are enough candids out there from the shooting of this series that show SZ and PB often joking around, smiling with one another, having fun.

Oh, and of course, PB freely admits directly after the series ended that he and SZ were both thoroughly pissed off for most of Season 5 - not at each other, but because they were both called away from projects they coveted in order to give their fans a horrible season 5, which he calls straight out - 'poxy'. As he pointed out in interview, RS had another solid season in it - one in which he would liked to have seen LH and RS settle down and even start discussing/having a family.

I know if I was called away from my future to serve up the pile of crap season 5 was, I would be tee-total pissed off too. :)

  • Love 2

Share this post


Link to post

@RSteele82, if I could, I'd give your post above a gazillion million ❤️!!! Thank you for expressing what I also believe. And mea culpa! I think it was me who said that the writers for this sucktastic season were the original writers.

Share this post


Link to post
Quote

 

Oh, and of course, PB freely admits directly after the series ended that he and SZ were both thoroughly pissed off for most of Season 5 - not at each other, but because they were both called away from projects they coveted in order to give their fans a horrible season 5, which he calls straight out - 'poxy'. As he pointed out in interview, RS had another solid season in it - one in which he would liked to have seen LH and RS settle down and even start discussing/having a family.

I know if I was called away from my future to serve up the pile of crap season 5 was, I would be tee-total pissed off too. :)

 

I agree, the most tension I felt in those final episodes were that they where being forced to be there.  Add to it the dumb ass love triangle when for most of the series we'd been free of that and keeping LH and RS off in mostly separate storylines, it's like they tried to mess up right from the start. That there was anything good from those final episodes I purely credit to the actors involved.  

Quote

As for the bit about Daniel being RS's father - sorry, not drinking that Kool Aid. That storyline was as contrived as the entire Anthony Roselli CRAP. Canon, itself, tells us it is really NOT possible for Daniel to be his father.

Just curious, what are you remembering that makes it not possible for Daniel to be his father?  I know originally Daniel claimed to have first met him when he was a teen but I can accept that he was lying about that.  Was it that Daniel was able to find him at all that stretches credulity?  

17 hours ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

My loathing dates back to when she first started, or when I first started to see her name-I've lived in MD most of my life, and we got the paper daily and as a kid, then teen, etc., I'd read Spider-Man, Calvin & Hobbes, Ann Landers and then other entertainment articles and she's always had this "personality" to her articles.

Okay, now I'm going to have to hold my ear to my Telly, because other than the few times he "used" an Irish accent, like when pretending to be Michael O'Leary, or that ditty he sang to the baby, his accent has always been English-yes, even his softer voice!? I've heard him when he's using the Irish! 

Blah. Romano has been around for years. She thinks she's D.C.'s version of Hedda Hopper.??

I feel justified now in my instant dislike of the writer, lol.

As for the accent, let me expand on what I meant.  I don't hear anything like a pure Irish accent, but there's a lilt to PB accent during his Remington Steele days that hints at the Irish.  A softer, melodic tone that I just haven't heard in other English accents.  A certain rhythm to how he'd speak occasionally that sounded a bit Irish.  It was never very strong but he spent his first 10-11 years in Ireland.  It makes sense there would be a trace.  

 :D  Regardless of agreeing or not, I think we both agree he has a beautiful speaking voice.  

  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
18 hours ago, BkWurm1 said:

I feel justified now in my instant dislike of the writer, lol.

 

Oh, you absolutely should. Romano is just vile.??

18 hours ago, BkWurm1 said:

As for the accent, let me expand on what I meant.  I don't hear anything like a pure Irish accent, but there's a lilt to PB accent during his Remington Steele days that hints at the Irish.  A softer, melodic tone that I just haven't heard in other English accents.  A certain rhythm to how he'd speak occasionally that sounded a bit Irish.  It was never very strong but he spent his first 10-11 years in Ireland.  It makes sense there would be a trace.  

 :D  Regardless of agreeing or not, I think we both agree he has a beautiful speaking voice.  

Ahhh, I see what you mean, and I totally agree, and you're totally right! His English accent is a bit...softer, and there is a musical quality to it; the traces of the Irish brogue or lilt, I would say.  ?And Oh YEAH..., Brosnan has a most beautiful speaking voice. Sigh...❤️??????❤️

Edited by GHScorpiosRule
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post

Let’s start with what Canon tells about Remington, his childhood and his parents:

1.       We assume he was born in Ireland (He doesn’t even know this for certain given the lack of birth certificate);

2.       He spent his childhood in Ireland being passed from relative-to-relative (Steele in the New);

3.       He lost track of his ‘real name’ as relatives were constantly rename him, sometimes for their own vanity (Steele in the News);

4.       His mother may or may not have died in childbirth – never said; he may or may not have memories of his mother if the first isn’t true … Etched in Steele, when he starts awake he mumbles “I’ll be right there, Mother”;

5.       He took off on his own when he was young (Steele in the News);

6.       He ended up at some point before age 14 in London/Brixton (Sting of Steele);

7.       He successfully picked Daniel’s pocket around age 14 in London (Steeled with a Kiss);

8.       Daniel took him off the streets and taught him how to be a charming cheat (Sting of Steele);

9.       He received an old pocket watch, engraved with ‘To SJ from KL’ from Patrick O’Rourke with a note that stated ‘Your father wanted you to have this’ in Steele Your Heart Away;

10.   He admits to Laura he thinks he never even met or saw his father or birth certificate – Steele Your Heart Away;

11.   He links KL to Kevin Landers, aka the Earl of Claridge – Steele Searching;

12.   He tells Daniel the Earl might be a close relative of his – Steele Searching

13.   He assumes, after the Earl denies him, that his father was the thief that stole the watch from O’Rourke – Steele Searching;

Now, what Canon tells us about Daniel and his relationship with Remington – excluding those details in season 5 where writers tried to make it fit:

1.       He is a conman by trade who prefers the con/sting – Sting of Steele, Blue Blooded Steele

2.       He takes Remington in at 14 or thereabouts – Sting of Steele;

3.       Because Remington had a bag full of names he used the, Daniel settles on using Harry;

4.       He trains Remington to be thief and con – Sting of Steele;

5.       He specifically refers to Remington as ‘the son I never had’ – Sting of Steele & Blue Blooded Steele.

What we know about that watch:

1.       The Earl gave it to a friend to pass on to the Earl’s son when he came of age – Steele Searching;

2.       The watch was stolen somewhere along the way from his friend;

3.       The watch is left in the Earl’s possession – Steele Searching;

4.       The watch is stolen, again, from the Earl by Daniel – Steeled with a Kiss.

This is all Canon. To believe Daniel is Remington’s father, we now must also believe all of this to be fact:

1.       Remington, raised in Ireland, by chance alone ran away from Ireland as a child and out of the hundreds of cities in Europe, just happens to land in the same city at the same time his father is there;

2.       Of the billions of people on earth and the millions living in London, Remington just happened to pick the pocket of his father;

3.       Daniel, his father, who was in prison when Remington was born and had never seen him, just happened to know this 14 year old street urchin was his son;

4.       In the tradition of father’s everywhere, instead of wanting a better life for his son, teaches him to be a thief and a con, at risk of him one day finding himself in prison;

5.       Daniel, sometime between Steele’s birth and thirty-two years of age, steals the pocket watch from the Earl’s friend;

6.       Daniel, for some reason, gives that watch to a man in Ireland, of all place, Patrick O’Rourke;

7.       Daniel has Patrick O’Rourke send that watch to Remington;

8.       Daniel knows Remington believes the Earl to be his father, but says nothing and is unconcerned;

9.       Out of all the rich people in Europe, Daniel just so happens devise a plan to commit a robbery during the wedding reception of the man who was a friend to the man who Daniel stole the watch from;

10.   Daniel steals to the watch from the Earl yet…

11.   The Earl, knowing Daniel is Remington’s father, thereby the thief who stole the watch the first time… who would then have been the most likely suspect for the second them… decides to give Remington a castle to help Daniel, the man who has now stolen from him TWICE, tell his son the truth.

Here are more problems with the muck the writers tried to sell us with this contrived plot:

1.       Daniel knows Remington better than anyone, except maybe Laura. So he has O’Rourke send Remington the pocket watch… to what end????? He is resistant until almost the time of his death to share this secret with ‘his son’.

2.       Remington has been a detective for 2 years now and his partner is this nuisance of a woman who has foiled everyone of Daniel’s plans to date. Daniel also is well aware Remington has a deep, abiding anger towards his father. Daniel didn’t consider Remington and Laura would track him down? And when they did, how furious Remington would be for being forced to search, traipse Europe only to find out it was Daniel? Yes, a son furious with his father for abandoning him would take well to being sent on a wild goose chase to discover a betrayal of 20 years.

There is not a bit of this story that works and every detail of it violates Canon.

Daniel being Remington’s father is just like all the other shit the writers wrote in season 5 and expected us to suddenly go brain dead and believe. The long and short of it is this: some brainchild said ‘Hey, let’s wrap up the father story. That will make the viewers happy. Does anyone from past episodes work? Oh wait, that Chalmer’s character would be about the write age. Imagine the D.R.A.M.A., imagine the S.H.O.C.K.

Too bad, like so many other times during that so-called season, they didn’t consider Canon, if they even knew it, at all.

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, RSteele82 said:

Let’s start with what Canon tells about Remington, his childhood and his parents:

1.       We assume he was born in Ireland (He doesn’t even know this for certain given the lack of birth certificate);

2.       He spent his childhood in Ireland being passed from relative-to-relative (Steele in the New);

3.       He lost track of his ‘real name’ as relatives were constantly rename him, sometimes for their own vanity (Steele in the News);

4.       His mother may or may not have died in childbirth – never said; he may or may not have memories of his mother if the first isn’t true … Etched in Steele, when he starts awake he mumbles “I’ll be right there, Mother”;

5.       He took off on his own when he was young (Steele in the News);

6.       He ended up at some point before age 14 in London/Brixton (Sting of Steele);

7.       He successfully picked Daniel’s pocket around age 14 in London (Steeled with a Kiss);

8.       Daniel took him off the streets and taught him how to be a charming cheat (Sting of Steele);

9.       He received an old pocket watch, engraved with ‘To SJ from KL’ from Patrick O’Rourke with a note that stated ‘Your father wanted you to have this’ in Steele Your Heart Away;

10.   He admits to Laura he thinks he never even met or saw his father or birth certificate – Steele Your Heart Away;

11.   He links KL to Kevin Landers, aka the Earl of Claridge – Steele Searching;

12.   He tells Daniel the Earl might be a close relative of his – Steele Searching

13.   He assumes, after the Earl denies him, that his father was the thief that stole the watch from O’Rourke – Steele Searching;

Now, what Canon tells us about Daniel and his relationship with Remington – excluding those details in season 5 where writers tried to make it fit:

1.       He is a conman by trade who prefers the con/sting – Sting of Steele, Blue Blooded Steele

2.       He takes Remington in at 14 or thereabouts – Sting of Steele;

3.       Because Remington had a bag full of names he used the, Daniel settles on using Harry;

4.       He trains Remington to be thief and con – Sting of Steele;

5.       He specifically refers to Remington as ‘the son I never had’ – Sting of Steele & Blue Blooded Steele.

What we know about that watch:

1.       The Earl gave it to a friend to pass on to the Earl’s son when he came of age – Steele Searching;

2.       The watch was stolen somewhere along the way from his friend;

3.       The watch is left in the Earl’s possession – Steele Searching;

4.       The watch is stolen, again, from the Earl by Daniel – Steeled with a Kiss.

This is all Canon. To believe Daniel is Remington’s father, we now must also believe all of this to be fact:

1.       Remington, raised in Ireland, by chance alone ran away from Ireland as a child and out of the hundreds of cities in Europe, just happens to land in the same city at the same time his father is there;

2.       Of the billions of people on earth and the millions living in London, Remington just happened to pick the pocket of his father;

3.       Daniel, his father, who was in prison when Remington was born and had never seen him, just happened to know this 14 year old street urchin was his son;

4.       In the tradition of father’s everywhere, instead of wanting a better life for his son, teaches him to be a thief and a con, at risk of him one day finding himself in prison;

5.       Daniel, sometime between Steele’s birth and thirty-two years of age, steals the pocket watch from the Earl’s friend;

6.       Daniel, for some reason, gives that watch to a man in Ireland, of all place, Patrick O’Rourke;

7.       Daniel has Patrick O’Rourke send that watch to Remington;

8.       Daniel knows Remington believes the Earl to be his father, but says nothing and is unconcerned;

9.       Out of all the rich people in Europe, Daniel just so happens devise a plan to commit a robbery during the wedding reception of the man who was a friend to the man who Daniel stole the watch from;

10.   Daniel steals to the watch from the Earl yet…

11.   The Earl, knowing Daniel is Remington’s father, thereby the thief who stole the watch the first time… who would then have been the most likely suspect for the second them… decides to give Remington a castle to help Daniel, the man who has now stolen from him TWICE, tell his son the truth.

Here are more problems with the muck the writers tried to sell us with this contrived plot:

1.       Daniel knows Remington better than anyone, except maybe Laura. So he has O’Rourke send Remington the pocket watch… to what end????? He is resistant until almost the time of his death to share this secret with ‘his son’.

2.       Remington has been a detective for 2 years now and his partner is this nuisance of a woman who has foiled everyone of Daniel’s plans to date. Daniel also is well aware Remington has a deep, abiding anger towards his father. Daniel didn’t consider Remington and Laura would track him down? And when they did, how furious Remington would be for being forced to search, traipse Europe only to find out it was Daniel? Yes, a son furious with his father for abandoning him would take well to being sent on a wild goose chase to discover a betrayal of 20 years.

There is not a bit of this story that works and every detail of it violates Canon.

Daniel being Remington’s father is just like all the other shit the writers wrote in season 5 and expected us to suddenly go brain dead and believe. The long and short of it is this: some brainchild said ‘Hey, let’s wrap up the father story. That will make the viewers happy. Does anyone from past episodes work? Oh wait, that Chalmer’s character would be about the write age. Imagine the D.R.A.M.A., imagine the S.H.O.C.K.

Too bad, like so many other times during that so-called season, they didn’t consider Canon, if they even knew it, at all.

I guess I see it a lot differently.    I agree that they writers didn't probably initially plan for Daniel to be his father but I don't think it's so contrived or hard to make what we knew and what we were then told work.  

The biggest issue seems to be that Daniel just happened to bump into him in a big city and that our guy just happened to pick his pocket.  But I don't think this is that hard to buy when you think about it. Steele managed to do the same thing in A Pocketful of Steele, tracking down a 14 year old boy just from a description in the equally populous Los Angeles and he arranged for one of the kid's friend's to steal Mildred's wallet.  So it's not hard to imagine that Daniel did something similar or that he'd have a network of similar contacts.  

I always imagined that Daniel got out of jail and went straight to see his lady love to make amends, only to find out she had died but there had been a child.  My headcanon was that she did die in child birth or at least soon after.  The "coming mother" line easily could have been him as a child calling some woman that wasn't mother, mother, as part of some scam.  In Steele in the News he spoke of being bounced around from Aunts to cousins (I assume cousins in the loosest terms) and back again and them sometimes naming him for vanity, but also sometimes to con the system, so he could have been taught to play a part from a very young age.  

(Not to mention him might have at a very young age thought he had a name and a mother only to find out neither were his when he got shipped off somewhere else)

BUT the fact that we know he wasn't given up to the orphanage means while Steele didn't know his name, there were a number of relatives, even if they were distant relatives or friends of relatives,  that Chalmers could track down that would know at least what the kid looked like.  So Daniel tracks them down, maybe even sees a picture.

There's no reason to think that the kid wouldn't have confided in someone that he was headed to London, it was probably his dream to run away and make his fortune for a long time.  Or maybe, for all we know, Daniel was going to all the big metropolitan areas and searching. Dublin would be the closest, but to truly leave his life behind, that meant some place even bigger and the biggest city nearby was London. So Daniel could have guessed, but it's not hard to believe someone that Chalmers tracked down could have known about London.  Known but not cared where the kid had gone.  

So Daniel, armed with a starting point to look and a pretty good idea of what this kid looked like, went to London, hit up some of his contacts and eventually tracked him down.  Then he probably watched and observed him for a while before putting himself in the kid's path.  Was he trying to get his pocket picked or was he taken by surprise?  Not sure, but either way, it works.  And then the part about him realizing how much anger the kid had against his father made him decide he was better off playing the part of mentor than revealing he was his father.  Seems very in character since Chalmers was a liar by trade and very good at it.

 He wanted to do right by the kid but he wouldn't be able to help him at all if the kid took off again and finding him when he wasn't hiding is a lot different than tracking him down when he's trying to get lost.  So mentor it was.  And as for him wanting a better life for the kid, sure, but Chalmers didn't think his life was so bad.  Getting caught was a risk, but so was crossing the street, lol.  (His mindset I'm sure) It was his profession and in the long tradition of fatherhood, he wanted to pass on his knowledge and his craft. He's proud to have his kid follow in his footsteps.    

Now why Daniel allowed him to run off and become a South American Boxer aka the  Kilkenny Kid, Pride of the Pampas for a year or so, is more the puzzle, but I could see Daniel deciding it's better to let the kid go so he would be willing to come back to him later.  Or maybe they got in a fight, he took off (hence being that angry kid Barney, his one time manager, met) and reconciled later.  Either way, Daniel and his son/protegee stayed in in each other's lives, leaving to do their own thing and coming back together out of choice time and again until that is when Steele met Laura and from Chalmers viewpoint, settled down.  Their relationship changed.   

That leaves why Daniel would send the watch.  First, I assume that Patrick O'Roake was an old friend, probably one that Steele wouldn't be able to trace back to Daniel. That he was from Ireland isn't that shocking since if he was Steele's father, then he would have been IN Ireland at some point.  But back to the bigger question, WHY?  

Frankly, I don't think he ever intended or thought Steele would be able to track anything about the watch down.  He may have sent it just because he was feeling sentimental, but still never wanted to ever tell him or maybe (and this is the one I think is most likely) he did it in the hopes to rattle him and make him restless in his cozy set up with Laura.  Which worked, Steele took off in search of answers right away the first time, then later, when things were uncertain with Laura, he once again was lured out to go searching.  It was the search and the looking that was important, but since it was just some near random watch he stole, Daniel had to think it would be just a rabbit hole for Steele to go down.  And at the same time, he also at least was able to let his son know that he did care.  Something Steele would have grown up never believing.  

  Either way, sentiment, con or combo of both, I think Chalmers was flabbergasted that Steele actually tracked it back to the Earl.  He still thought of "Harry's" time as Remington Steele as a con.  Underestimating his detective skills wouldn't be surprising.    And since he didn't want to tell him the truth for fear of losing him, he'd rather let him think the Earl was his father,  and big bonus if this unknowing con actually netted Steele any profit.  I can see Chalmers finding the whole thing absurdly funny.  

And I can see how Chalmers, when dying, might confess to a man he'd bonded with about his very own lost son.  Or maybe Chalmers conned him into putting him in his will. Either way works for me.  

And that leaves the coincidence that Chalmers was planning a con on the same guy that the stolen watch actually belonged to.  Well, it's possible that he actually did know who the watch belonged to.  He could have somehow heard the story while drinking and decided what a shame it was for this watch to be just sitting there, meant for a long lost son, but never delivered and took it upon himself to steal it and send it to his son instead, lol.  Then maybe that it came from the Earl, set him thinking up a con involving the Earl (I cant' remember which came first the con or the miners involved with the con, I want to say the con)  Or, there's the other alternative.  It was just one of those coincidences that do happen in life, but even more often on TV, lol.

The show already would have us accept that the one man out of all the London population that Steele thought might be his father was also the one that Chalmers was trying to con.  So if I could swallow that, it doesn't stretch my credulity much to also toss in that Chalmer had stolen the watch the Earl had intended to go to his son.  When it comes down to it, I could accept that one detail as just serendipity.  

Edited by BkWurm1
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post

×
×
  • Create New...

Customize font-size