MovieChat Forums > Pan Am (2011) Discussion > Changes you would make

Changes you would make

posted 13 years ago by violetstart
78 replies | jump to latest

So, Pan Am did not end up as great as I hoped. I love the fashion that is involved, but the storylines leave a lot to be desired. I do love Karine Vanasse (as Colette Valois), though. Basically the only reason I watch the show.

I wonder if any one had anything they would like to be changed in the show in the following episodes and in the (possible, though unlikely) second season. Or if anyone had any expectations for the show (like possible plots, etc.) that they thought might have turned out better than what is happening right now.

That being said, I would be sad to see the show go...

[–] jnhf24 13 years ago

It's kind of been touched on, but I think the show would benefit from stronger male leads. It's a combination of the way they are written and the way they are protrayed. I'm not sure I buy them leading the crew on this prestigious airline.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] srcb2 13 years ago

In addition to curtailing the CIA stuff, I would have showcased one, perhaps two characters in each episode. Secondly, I would have a few more episodes where everyone is centered on the same storyline, as was the case with Unscheduled Departure. It's become my personal favorite because of that.

[–] eamc1 13 years ago

As much as I like Kate, I wish they would focus on her less. It seems to have turned into Kate's CIA Adventures, rather than a show about Pan Am and it's stewardesses. We just get snippets of the other girls now. There's quite a bit of Colette stuff which is good because I love Colette. But I wish we could get more Laura and Maggie stuff. Especially Laura/Ted. I just watched episode 8 and I loved when Laura realised just how much Ted cared about her. But from what I've read the Ashley Greene character gets in the way of that over the next couple of episodes..

I do love the show though and I really hope it doesn't get cancelled.

[–] li_baby_18 13 years ago

As much as I like Kate, I wish they would focus on her less. It seems to have turned into Kate's CIA Adventures, rather than a show about Pan Am and it's stewardesses. We just get snippets of the other girls now.

I’m under the impression that Kate is the de facto lead of the show. Everything seems to be centered around her, and we know more about her and her family etc. then we do about any of the other characters. Also, if you pay close attention, she gets more screen time than anyone else, especially at the start of the series. Does anyone else get that feeling about Kate being the de facto lead?

[–] TheDuchessofM 13 years ago

Yes. I forget where I came across it, but I read that ABC was using Pan Am to build up Kelli Garner's career. If that's the case, don't be surprised if she's added to the cast of Grey's Anatomy or some other veteran show, or is the lead of a new ABC show. Hopefully, since Karine Vanasse became a fan favorite, ABC won't forget her (or Margot Robbie) when Pan Am ends.

[–] srcb2 13 years ago

We definitely have not seen the last of Karine in the US. She'll land another gig in no time.

[–] li_baby_18 13 years ago

I read that ABC was using Pan Am to build up Kelli Garner's career.

What I want to know is why is abc backing Kelli Garner's career? I mean don’t get me wrong, she’s a fine actress and everything, but she must have some sort of connection to get such support from the network. I wonder what her secret is…

[–] TheDuchessofM 13 years ago

Beats me, but you know how Hollywood works: a big wig finds an actress he likes and decides to make her a star.

[–] eamc1 13 years ago

I wouldn't even mind so much if I was expecting it. Like if they said "The show centres on Kate and her fellow stewardesses". Something that lets us know there is going to be a main character but I don't remember anything like that. It's like they've just decided to focus on her, and aren't giving the others enough screen time. It seems pretty obvious the writers prefer Kate and Colette to Laura and Maggie. I just wish the others were given a chance, and some good storylines. Everything with them just seems rushed, like they're giving them short storylines because they need to give them something at some point. It feels more like a duty thing..

[–] srcb2 13 years ago

It's tough to dole out equal time to everyone in an ensemble cast. In some shows, one or more principals will be absent from an episode when the storylines don't concern them. How many of you remember Eight is Enough? You had ten principals and they were all in every episode even if they weren't featured. They'd get a few token lines and nothing more. It got to the point where Grant Goodeve, who played David, became displeased with the lack of screentime he was getting and asked the writers to introduce conflict into his character's marriage to the point where he got divorced. Joan Prather, who played David's wife, Janet, wasn't too thrilled by that, but went along with it nontheless.

[–] li_baby_18 13 years ago

Yes it’s true that it’s hard to give such a large ensemble cast equal amounts of screen time. “Lost” handled it by giving each characters “feature episodes” and rotated the spotlight, but even then, there were still certain characters that got more attention and feature episodes than others.
The only show I can think of who handled giving equal screen time to was, “Friends”, I feel like in every episode each Friend had a good storyline and none of them were ever pushed to the side…funny thing is, “Friends” was only 30 minutes long (If I remember correctly) whereas “Pan Am” is an hour. Which means “Pan Am” has more time to go around and yet certain characters are ignored each week- namely Ted, and Laura, it wasn’t until recently that Maggie’s screen time got a bit bigger, but still it’s nothing compared to Kate’s and now Colette’s (after she gained popularity I assumed, considering in the first few episodes she was lucky if she even got a single line), and Dean’s by association to Colette.

[–] VideoNitekatt 13 years ago

A BETTER TIME-SLOT!

[–] RetiredRanger 13 years ago

The change I would make is to give the show a chance for another season. Apparently it has been cancelled after 14 episodes. I liked the spy part of the plot as well as the political and racial material. Those were the times folks, although I'm not sure any flight crews were involved in espionage! To leave out the tensions with the Soviet Union and the racial issues of the time would be very unrealistic. I was glad they were depicting women's rights issues.

When the show was advertised last summer I though it was going to be about a bunch of ditzy stews buying clothes, going to the beach in bikinis that appeared to be from the mid 90's, their sex lives and other fluff. I watched the first show expecting this and found that it was more than that. For me I was not old enough in the late 50's and early 60's (born in 1950) to wake up and see what was going on around me. Pan Am was showing me what some people who were 10 or more years older than I were doing in relationship to the issues of the day.

Networks are no longer giving shows a chance to produce a following. Why watch a good show if they are always cancelled? All the other drivel on TV (unreality shows) get no viewer time with me. No wonder I watch National Geographic, PBS, The History Channel and Discovery 80% of the time.

[–] oephellia 13 years ago

I agree. Give it a chance. I love this show.

And I'll bet a lot of people love the show. Fresh air after all the reality shows.

[–] Eolan 13 years ago

This is obviously completely unrealistic if we keep in mind that ABC has gone from the start for a non-intellectualized, easy soap-like show, but I'd love the show to just feel more real and serious...

I would keep it a good balance of comedy and drama, but I'd definitely change the tone of the series, both in the way it's written and directed. Despite good costumes, nicely picked locations and scenery, a good variety of characters and interesting plotlines, the show consistently feels out of touch with the 60s, develops storylines (albeit with an interesting basis) into melodramatic clichés, puts the characters into super sappy situations, uses empty and unrealistic dialogue, and is shot in a very easy-TV way...

I'd instigate a major rework of all that: have the characters smoking and drinking for one (everybody did, back then, especially in airplanes), have the humor be more subtle and adult, have the political stakes feel more serious and real, have the era-specific issues (feminism, racism) be outlined in a more visceral and realistic way, have the moral ambiguity of several characters be acknowledged...

I'd definitely have it shot in a more Hitchcockian way too - I feel like it would suit many of the storylines (especially the espionage ones). If you're going for an idealized depiction of an era (which obviously it's going to be, what with the CIA and that super young pilot and Andy Warhol), why not play with it, why not make it a pastiche or a tribute to the great pictures of that era?

Don't get me wrong, I like the show (or a good 60% of it), the production value is great (especially the art direction). But the actors have the chops to tackle much more serious and demanding roles (or some of them at least - Vanasse, Ricci, Garner have in the past)... I just feel like, given the right twist, it could be a show that's both serious and hilarious about real historical issues, real mystery, real women getting out of their molds, real interpersonal drama, and the real sixties.

Maybe it's one of the reasons it hasn't worked? People didn't buy into it because it didn't feel real enough?

[–] leonglapgong 13 years ago

i think that the changes you outlined could have been made if Maeda was serious and did not follow the *beep* Sony and ABC made him do. Thomas Schlamme and Jack Orman were the people behind countless good, serious shows like Alias, Lost, 24 and West Wing. So this is not their territory. It felt like they were trying to make a 24 influenced, West-wing executed, Lost-interesting Soapy show which also has Screws of a kid version Alias. I think this show was supposed to be a Show about Kate Cameron and Colette Valois being Stewardesses in the 60s. Hell, their chemistry reminds me of Get Smart!. But instead, they got Christina Ricci and Margot Robbie to balance this and make an ensamble cast. Frankly, I feel the concept got bastardized and only ABC, Writing and the conflict of Artist vs Funder made this show a screw up.

[–] jnhf24 13 years ago

Bridget would have been the double agent. I'm still wondering where she went. Plus, I liked Anderson better than Richard.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Ithilfaen 12 years ago

I'd have given the characters more depth and less love interests. By the end of the season, every storyline they had was about getting a man or wanting a man they couldn't get. Zzzzzzzzzzzz

For every lie I unlearn I learn something new - Ani Difranco

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] pioneergrrrl 12 years ago

I would have gotten rid of the spy story line.

Have more realistic arcs

*the women struggle with the bitch supervisor who weighs them...etc for a couple of episodes. And what is her own back story? Her character could have been developed further.

* they attempt to get contraception so they can sleep around with co-workers and/or the guys they meet on the flights...despite being single and unmarried. This was not available until 1971.

*Story arcs about struggling with sexuality pre-glbt. Or (since they are in New York, what happens during the 1969 stonewall riots.

*What happens when one of them does find out she is pregnant?

* Addition of 'flight attendants'--when/if the series made it into the 1970's. How do the women--and the pilots react? How do the passengers react?

There was lots of room for stories with tension/drama...etc. There would have been material for several seasons.