[everwoodfan52]

We know that Tom Amandes auditioned for the role of Andy. What would have been different if Tom Amandes was portraying Andy?

I can't imagine what the writers were thinking when they cast Tom for the part of Andy. Can you just imagine Tom with a scruffy beard and messy hair?

I can't visualize Tom as Andy in any way. I don't know...maybe because I'm so used to seeing Treat in that part. Treat is Andy. He has the right warmth and the right twinkle and the right intelligence and confidence to play Andy. He also has the right good looks/hotness for the part. Tom is a good looking man....but I can't see him as "hot". Of course, that's my opinion.

Tom was definitely Harold. I'm wondering how the writers were going to write the character of Harold if they had a different actor in the part.

[Dolfan13]

Wow. I actually never knew that Tom Amandes auditioned for the role of Andy. Tom and Treat both played their respective roles so well that I honestly cannot see anyone else playing Harold or Andy either.

[everwoodfan52]

Originally Posted by Dolfan13 (View Post) Wow. I actually never knew that Tom Amandes auditioned for the role of Andy. Tom and Treat both played their respective roles so well that I honestly cannot see anyone else playing Harold or Andy either.

Do you have the Season One WB DVD set? This fact is mentioned in one of the extras in the set. If you don't own it......you need to order it asap! It's a must for any Everwood fan.

[Dolfan13]

Actually, I don't. You're right. I should get that. Good to see that season two is coming out, as well.

Just finished watching the show on TheWB.com earlier in the day. Here's my list for season 4 (finally):

1. Goodbye, Love - I think this is probably my favorite episode of Everwood. I really liked the Irv character and was glad they gave him a great send off. They did such a good job of having him being involved in all of the flashbacks which were all well done. Great ending to the storyline with Andy and his dad, too.
2. Foreverwood, Pts. 1 & 2 - We were talking about how they changed the "Steady as We Go." The song they replaced it with SUCKS.
3. Getting To Know
4. All The Lonely People
5. Connect Four

Honorable mention to all of the episodes from "Getting to Know You" on. That is quite possibly the best string of episodes I've ever seen a show have.

['Tos]

Oh, Dolfan, you definitely need to get season one. *goes into blatant shill mode* Four of the best commentaries ever recorded, in my opinion, not to mention some really great deleted scenes, and an awesome featurette (wish it was longer) about the creation and production of season one. Even before we started this rewatch, I popped in at least once every two weeks. Plus it's nice and inexpensive. *blatant shill mode over* I really should get some royalties from the sales of that thing.

Very much agreed with your thoughts on "Goodbye, Love". Oh, it's just incredible. Nice choices for the rest of the list, too, but obviously "Goodbye, Love" seems to overshadow so much of the rest of the episodes. Which is insane, because as you said, there is a long stretch of episodes, a half of the season, that are all of the highest quality and you don't think the next episode could top the last one and it does. But then "Goodbye, Love" comes around, and it tops them all. I'd almost say combined, but I think Thief would kick me because that would have to include "Lost and Found". No, I really love all the other episodes so much in that streak of episodes too, But..yeah, I'm going to shut up about "Goodbye, Love", because really, words don't do justice,

We really need to make sure Gaby watches this streak of episodes!! It's a must for any fan of the show.

['Tos]

Since we're probably going to be discussing the DVD release and any little effort we do to get the word out, I thought we could continue to discuss any thoughts on Everwood's snubbing when it came to major awards here.

And the thoughts about the show being undervalued because it was on the WB made me also wonder (not really all that related to those thoughts, heh) what Everwood would have looked like on a major network channel, or a cable channel, compared to the WB? Would it have been the same show? Could it have been the same show?

[everwoodfan52]

I didn't watch Everwood when it was originally on the air. I'm not familar with the snubbing. I would love if someone would explain that to me and anyone else who doesn't know the situation.

['Tos]

Well, the show was highly critically acclaimed. Critics just absolutely adored the show, and still do to this day. It has always gotten accolade after accolade from them. It was regarded as extremely well acted and well written. Yet, despite all the acclaims from the critics, when it came to the people who vote for the the major award shows (the Emmys or the Golden Globes), it only got a much-deserved nomination for James Earl Jones and another for Blake Neely. Nothing for the core actors. Nothing for writing. Of course, those award shows rarely did vote for anything to do with the WB, so that was likely the big factor.

And these awards do matter, although it's not shocking that Everwood was completely ignored by them, because if you look at shows like 30 Rock and many others which have stayed on their air despite early ratings struggles and has gotten tremendous network support because of these awards, you just have to think of how much higher our chances of watching a season five would have been if we had one an Emmy or Golden Globe. I think Dawn would have no choice but to keep it.

We have no idea how close the show ever got to being nominated for more major awards, though.

[Thief Of Love]

Aw, I missed this thread.

Everwood -- or, at least, Treat (sometimes Greg and/or Tom, too) -- pretty much always made those fantasy ballots that Entertainment Weekly and TV Guide would put out of who they'd nominate for the Emmys. Even so, though, I think the show got just a little bit less buzz than did, say (to use a contemporaneous example), Gilmore Girls even when it came to the very concept of being snubbed. Everyone talked about GG, and, especially, Lauren Graham, being overlooked, but there was a lot less concern for Everwood and its stars. (It was less of a cultural phenomenon, though, so, given that, it's even more impressive that EW and TVG recognized Everwood amidst all the really heavy dramas of the early 2000s -- GG stood out more easily given the sorry state of comedy.)

And the thoughts about the show being undervalued because it was on the WB made me also wonder (not really all that related to those thoughts, heh) what Everwood would have looked like on a major network channel, or a cable channel, compared to the WB? Would it have been the same show? Could it have been the same show?

I was considering this question by trying to recall any similar shows that have aired on networks, and the closest I came up with -- looking at Everwood as a multi-generational family drama -- was ABC's Once and Again, which I adored and which, interestingly enough, ended its three-year run the same year that Everwood began. That show even had its own unique narrative device, in which, throughout each episode, you'd have a few cutaways to a black-and-white scene of characters communicating directly to the audience (I'm explaining that horribly; it worked a lot better than I'm making it sound, hee). The main thing, though, is that this network show did a bang-up job depicting the lives and family, friendly, and romantic relationships of characters ranging in age from 11 to 40-something, in about as thoughtful a way as Everwood did. Also, the cast was largely composed of then-unknowns, aside from Sela Ward and Billy Campbell, so the casting was really based on quality rather than name recognition. With all that in mind, I think a network Everwood could have looked pretty similar to what we had on the WB; even the strong sense of place could have been retained, looking at networks' periodic fondness for airing shows about quirky small towns.

That being said...I'm almost certain a network Everwood never would have been given four seasons; it was frankly a miracle that O&A even eked out three (and, to cite another purportedly excellent and similar show, that Friday Night Lights is being given the shot that it is) and most other truly thoughtful and not-overly-soapy family/multi-generational network dramas are lucky to have even one full season.

As for a cable Everwood, how cable are we talking? Because the prospect of an HBO Everwood sort of frightens me, hee. The only cable network I can think of that airs anything in this vein is, of course, ABC Family, and, though I've never watched any of their original series, I haven't heard especially good things, critically-speaking, about the majority of them, and the production values always seem a little cheesy from what I can tell from commercials. I think a basic cable Everwood might have suffered more than a network version would, in that ABC Fam really would have been just about the only place for it (cable networks being as niche as they are), and I don't think the ABC Family of 2002 would have been particularly willing to take on something with Everwood's darkness. Not that I know all that much about ABC Family, heh, but it seems to me that it's only been in the last few years that they've really started trying to make themselves seem less kid-oriented, a bit more mature.

So, uh, yeah.

['Tos]

Everwood -- or, at least, Treat (sometimes Greg and/or Tom, too) -- pretty much always made those fantasy ballots that Entertainment Weekly and TV Guide would put out of who they'd nominate for the Emmys. Even so, though, I think the show got just a little bit less buzz than did, say (to use a contemporaneous example), Gilmore Girls even when it came to the very concept of being snubbed. Everyone talked about GG, and, especially, Lauren Graham, being overlooked, but there was a lot less concern for Everwood and its stars. (It was less of a cultural phenomenon, though, so, given that, it's even more impressive that EW and TVG recognized Everwood amidst all the really heavy dramas of the early 2000s -- GG stood out more easily given the sorry state of comedy.)

I wonder if the attention to Gilmore Girls, especially Lauren Graham, had to do with how Lauren stood out so much on the show. I mean, it's a great ensemble cast, but she really really stood out and would have probably been the only one to be nominated (fair or not, obviously). With Everwood, it would be hard to nominate Treat, and NOT nominate Tom. Everyone stood out in our ensemble, which would have made it incredibly hard for anyone specific to get anymore recognition than they did.

Agreed that Everwood was less of a cultural phenomenon, too. Sadly, too. Gilmore Girls gets the (for the most part, very much-deserved) legacy as the critically acclaimed, undervalued, brilliantly written and acted show, and here's Everwood and it really gets overshadowed.

I do wonder about how much of a focus the younger characters would get if the show was on a more mainstream network channel, because I often think that focus being a WB trademark. It's also a trademark of family dramas in general, though, so I guess it could remain pretty much intact.

As for a cable Everwood, how cable are we talking? Because the prospect of an HBO Everwood sort of frightens me, hee.

We're talking Berlanti pilot script cable! Non-WB euphemisms all over the place! Yeah, not happening, hee. No, I can't see it on anything other than ABC Family either (a cheesier version, for sure), because while Everwood could be dark, it's never been Mad Men, Dexter or The Sopranos level dark.

['Tos]

Random episode thought:

I was watching "He Who Hesitates" today, and how great is that Hannah/Emily scene where Amy tells Hannah about Rose's cancer? As weird and sometimes unrealistic their friendship could be, when they needed each other, it just worked. Yeah, that's sappy, heh, but man that is a great scene. And I don't even think it's too sentimental or overly trying to make us all cry. It seemed pretty damn real to me.

['Tos]

Ooh, the good ol' triple post! Heh.

Well, it's for a good reason: today, June 5th, makes it three years since the final episode of Everwood.

I thought I'd bump this up to see if anyone had any thoughts on the final episode three years later (just as satisfying, less satisfying, more satisfying as an ending than you thought at the time?) or remembering watching the final episode, curse words towards Dawn Ostroff and the CW, or anything of that nature.

[Thief Of Love]

Still no thoughts on Ostroff more coherent than "bite me." Guess the bitter never dies, heh.

Three years though, man. Do you ever wonder how long the show might have lasted without the creation of the CW? Given that Levin(?) was such a supporter, if he'd stayed on board and the ratings remained stable, could we have just seen a series finale this year, at the end of 7 seasons? Gilmore Girls pulled it off...but then, it also declined precipitously in those final three seasons. I'm not sure any show can really maintain its quality for that many years, so, as angry as I was at the time, and still am, a little, I'm forever thankful that we don't have to look at Everwood and complain about its bad years, when Ephram stole a yacht and Amy and Bright discovered that they weren't siblings and fell in love.

***

And now for a college essay exam! Sorry in advance, heh.

Earlier today, I was reading a discussion elsewhere about gender in television, and, more particularly, about the depiction in general of intelligent, creative characters versus average, everyday characters and the tendency for shows to present creatively/intellectually ambitious young male characters but more ‘ordinary’ – i.e. interested in their friends and social lives, smart but not really passionate about anything creative – young female characters. Someone brought up Everwood in a negative capacity, citing Ephram as a great example of the aforementioned type of young man, but claiming that the teenage female characters were depicted as lacking ambition and direction. Of course, this person failed to take into consideration the fact that the most aimless character on the whole bloody show was Bright, who, last I checked, was a dude, but anyway. This person’s argument did prompt me to think about two things:

1. How were the teenage girl characters – Amy and Hannah, of course, but also Laynie – presented as compared to those in other family dramas? (Not using teen dramas here, because that’s not what Everwood was and thus makes no sense as a point of comparison.) The adult women of Everwood were obviously solid, but I did, admittedly, ponder this point a bit. And my conclusions surprised me a little, but I’ll post them later.

2. Where do you think the show fell on the issue of extraordinary/ordinary – did the other characters suffer a little in their depiction for not being as gifted as Ephram? This point is rather silly to me, in that most people aren’t extraordinary – every person has some sort of gift, but there’s a reason really exceptional talents are considered exceptional. But, still, it might be worth discussing all the same. Would the other young characters have been better served if at least one of them had realized some great talent instead of Ephram being the only one to have a clear path?

(This might not be such a silly question after all, now that I think about it – look at what our primary concern has been for the other young characters in Virtual S5: making sure that each of them finds his or her niche. Hmm. Was it just something that wouldn’t have happened until a fifth season, when they were all focused on college anyway, or is it something that the show neglected to do that we’re now compensating for?)

If you've read this far, you get a [virtual] cookie! Meaning the kind with chocolate chips, not the kind that clogs up your hard drive.

['Tos]

I made it to the end! I want mah virtual chocolate chip cookie!

Neat questions! Although I'm going to skip them...for now, hee. I'm all exhausted after yesterday (hence why I'm just starting to post at 3 o'clock in the afternoon) and they require non-exhausted thinking.

I'm actually thinking that Everwood would have either gotten canceled at some point in season five, or treated like Reba and angering us all over again and then ending well enough, but with the same kind of respect that...well, we ended up getting for the actual finale, heh. Maybe that's the cynic in me, though. I still think Ostroff would have ended up hating it on the CW. It's not her kind of show. At all. Needs more sex, heh.

I'm not sure any show can really maintain its quality for that many years, so, as angry as I was at the time, and still am, a little, I'm forever thankful that we don't have to look at Everwood and complain about its bad years, when Ephram stole a yacht and Amy and Bright discovered that they weren't siblings and fell in love.

Although Ephram DID steal a boat.

I have to say, as much potential as a season five had (and I think we've proven that with our Virtual Season 5), it went out on top. That final season in amazing television. It had a long stretch of episodes of classic episodes. It really was season one quality. And I know you don't personally love season one Thief, hee, but I think for any of the misgivings some fans had in S2 and S3, they didn't have any for S4. If we had to go, I couldn't imagine a better season to go out with.

[everwoodfan52]

Needs more sex, heh.

I happen to agree with that. *I think I've said that before.*