From: "Jim Alexander" Date: Wed Jan 5, 2000 4:15 pm Subject: [probe_control] SAG 'Search' I obtained the following three numbers for the SCREEN ACTOR'S GUILD in an attempt to locate some of our favorite 'Search' castmembers. I will attempt to locate Tony Franciosa, Hugh O'Brian, Tom ("Harris") Hallick, Pamela ("Miss James") Jones, Ginny ("Miss Keach") Golden, Tony ("Ramos") DeCosta , Albert ("Griffin") Popwell, Ron ("Carlos") Castro, Amy ("Murdock") Farrell, or Byron ("Kuroda") Chung. I don't know how successful I'll be if they're NOT in the business any more (when was the last time we saw ANY of them on TV or film???), but I'll give it a shot!!! Start that 'list of questions'! If I'm successful, we MAY have a chance to use'em! More 'interview' fodder for the 'probe-control' web site!!! Here are the numbers, in case anyone's interested... (877) 514-2277 and (323) 954-1600 NY: (212) 517-0909 Jim Alexander jima@wevv.com From: actingman-jc@worldnet.att.net Date: Wed Jan 5, 2000 4:39 pm Subject: [probe_control] Re: SAG 'Search' I saw Tom Hallick in a commercial fairly recently. >(when was the last time we saw ANY of them on TV or film???), From: "Jim Alexander" Date: Wed Jan 5, 2000 5:02 pm Subject: [probe_control] "Griffin" R.I.P. Unfortunate news. I just found out that Albert Popwell ("Griffin") died after surgery on April 9th of last year, in L.A. Jim Alexander jima@wevv.com From: actingman-jc@worldnet.att.net Date: Wed Jan 5, 2000 5:20 pm Subject: [probe_control] Re: "Griffin" R.I.P. And so it goes... > Unfortunate news. > > I just found out that Albert Popwell ("Griffin") died after surgery on April 9th > of last year, in L.A. > > Jim Alexander > jima@wevv.com From: "Jim Alexander" Date: Wed Jan 5, 2000 6:15 pm Subject: [probe_control] Regarding 'Griffin' Forgive me if I'm telling y'all something you already knew... but after looking up Albert Popwell's credits, it suddenly 'clicked' as to who he was... Among many other roles, Popwell appeared in 5 Clint Eastwood films, four of them in the DIRTY HARRY series. Notably, Popwell was the 'street thug' in the very first HARRY film, as Eastwood halts a robbery. Popwell is the man to whom HARRY, as he has Popwell on the ground wounded and gun-drawn, gives the famous speech which goes something like: "This is a 44 Magnum... the most powerful hand-gun in the world... and can blow your head clean off. In all the excitiment, I've forgotten whether I've fired SIX shots... or only five. Do you feel lucky? Well DO ya... punk???" Popwell appeared as a Pimp in the next HARRY film (MAGNUM FORCE), and then as "Mustapha" in THE ENFORCER. He played "Horace King" in SUDDEN IMPACT. Interstingly, Popwell appeared in Eastwood's first American film of any note, COOGAN'S BLUFF. Sorry if any (or all) of that is 'old news'. I always liked the 'Griffin' character, and thought he was under-used. I liked his voice and his casual delivery. He always seemed completely in control (LOCKWOOD to GRIFFIN: "How do you say, 'What's shaking, baby?"). I thought that Popwell exuded a quiet dignity. A certain 'class'. I liked the 'pipe' prop, too. I wish he was still alive. I expect he'd have been a great interview. On a lighter note, Ford Rainey (the original "Dr. Barnett") is still alive! In fact, he was involved in not one, but TWO film projects last year! The dude is 92!!! Jim Alexander jima@wevv.com From: "Jim Alexander" Date: Fri Jan 7, 2000 6:13 pm Subject: [probe_control] Byron Chung and Tom Hallick-- located I called the Screen Actor's Guild a few minutes ago. They allow only 3 inquiries per phone call. I asked about Byron Chung, Tom Hallick, and Pamela Jones. Jones is apparently out of the business. Chung's representation is at this number: (323) 782-0515 Hallick is represented by the Agency at (323) 938-1188 The secretary rolled off the agency's names like I should know them, and I was too embarrassed to ask her to spell them. :) Anyway, I'll make more phone calls, and pursue this matter further. Getting that list of questions ready... just in case??? In case anyone else wishes to call, the number where I met with success is: (323) 954-1600. Here is the list of performers we might still pursue: Hugh O'Brian Tony Franciosa Ford Rainey Ginny Golden Tony De Costa Ron Castro and Amy Farrell Jim Alexander jima@wevv.com From: actingman-jc@worldnet.att.com Date: Sat Jan 8, 2000 1:24 am Subject: [probe_control] Re: Byron Chung and Tom Hallick-- located Well Jim', you're a ball of fire these days. Keep going. At 05:13 PM 1/7/2000 -0600, you wrote: >I called the Screen Actor's Guild a few minutes ago. They allow only 3 >inquiries per phone call. > >I asked about Byron Chung, Tom Hallick, and Pamela Jones. From: "CDR R. A. Benson, USNR" Date: Sat Jan 8, 2000 9:32 am Subject: [probe_control] Nice to See Some Activity Whew! You guys have been busy on these boards since I've been in transit to the South Pacific. I'm glad to see that, since I would hate to see this board die from neglect. For John and Bryan: I tried to send you my new screen name since reporting to Commander, Seventh Fleet (since I am forced to use a new server; my AOL account will be in limbo until I return stateside); but our Outlook is down on board the ship to-night. I knew of Albert Popwell's death. There is a film/television magazine called PSYCHOTRONIC VIDEO From: "CDR R. A. Benson, USNR" Date: Sat Jan 8, 2000 9:57 am Subject: [probe_control] Nice to See Some Activity Whew! You guys have been busy on these boards since I've been in transit to the South Pacific. I'm glad to see that, since I would hate to see this board die from neglect. _______________________________________________________________________ ________ For John and Bryan: I tried to send you my new screen name since reporting to Commander, Seventh Fleet (since I am forced to use a new server; my AOL account will be in limbo until I return stateside); but our Outlook is down on board the ship to-night. I'll get that off to you as soon as I can. Suffice it to say, I arrived safely, and am back in the sea-going saddle, again. _______________________________________________________________________ ________ I knew of Albert Popwell's death. There is a film/television magazine called PSYCHOTRONIC VIDEO--its content runs from adequate to cheesy; but it has one redeeming asset: it runs an obituary column that covers the names of actors/actresses/performers who wouldn't show up in the newspaper columns. I learned of Mr. Popwell's death that way. I always thought he was a man of considerable acting talent, when you consider the gulf between his erudite, scholarly "Griffin" and the street hoods he played in the first three "Dirty Harry" films. He played roles at either end of the spectrum with authority. _______________________________________________________________________ ________ I was hoping that the copies of the SEARCH episodes which Bryan was making for me would arrive at my home in time to screen at least some of them before I left. Unfortunately, they did not. I expect they will be waiting for me when I return home on leave sometime around late April, early May; and I can comment on them, again. _______________________________________________________________________ ________ What the "BE" stood for in the acronym "PROBE" has got to be the show's biggest mystery. One would think that Leslie Stevens had some idea in mind, but whatever it was has been lost to antiquity. My first idea, as a youngster, was that the "BE" stood for "By Electronics". But that doesn't quite have the gravity one would expect. "Bio-Electronics" comes closer to the essential idea; but it doesn't quite ring true, either. Any other ideas out there, guys? Fair winds and following seas, Adam Benson From: "Jim Alexander" Date: Sat Jan 8, 2000 3:23 pm Subject: [probe_control] PRO-- BE!?!? >... What the "BE" stood for in the acronym "PROBE" has got to >be the show's biggest mystery. One would think that Leslie >Stevens had some idea in mind, but whatever it was has been >lost to antiquity. My first idea, as a youngster, was that the "BE" >stood for "By Electronics". But that doesn't quite have the >gravity one would expect. "Bio-Electronics" comes closer to the >essential idea; but it doesn't quite ring true, either. Any other >ideas out there, guys? ----------------------------------------------- While I LOVE the 'ring' that BIO-ELECTRONICS has (and I WISH that utterly-cool phrase/concept was what it REALLY meant!), I agree when you say that it doesn't seem to really fit the words that come before it. BY ELECTONICS works well, and makes sense to me. Revealing that aspect might also might be the reason that LOCKWOOD is not able to share the last part of what PROBE stood for, with Ullie, in the Pilot. In other words, he'd have had to explain early-on (since it is apparent that Lockwood eventually reveals the capabilities of the Scanner to her in the final moments of the TV Movie) what the 'by electronics' meant, even earlier. Streeter is shown the 'inside' of PROBE CONTROL, but Ullie was never as fortunate. We may never know what the 'BE' meant, but 'by electronics' is just as plausible as anything... I LIKE it! :) Jim Alexander jima@wevv.com From: actingman-jc@worldnet.att.com Date: Sun Jan 9, 2000 1:13 am Subject: [probe_control] Re: PRO-- BE!?!? Except as we know, or will know depending on who's reading this, they didn't always keep it a secret. In The Murrow Disappearance, Lockwood tells the bad guy who's holding the gun all about the scanner and the witnesses who are watching if he shoots Lockwood. Of course this is a definite need to know basis. There's an interesting point to that, but I don't want to say it and spoil it for Adam when he returns stateside and gets to see the episode for the first time in 27 years. In Honeymoon To Kill, the woman they were searching for is in Control at the end of the episode, as are two policeman who come for Grover (so he gets taken away and Cameron escorts the lady to dinner...in other words...a humorous ending.) They of course don't want to go around advertising how it all works (would hamper the investigation), but at the same time I don't see it as top secret. The government has to know some of what they are doing...Probe is using the public airwaves...meaning licensing of frequencies, etc. It is propritary info, but we know that doesn't last. In Let Us Prey, the bad guy knew all about the electronics involved. In Goddess of Destruction, the Oriental underworld knew to take Grover's scanner and hit him in the jaw so he couldn't signal while he was meeting with the head of the organization. I think it is just as possible that Lockwood's statement that "B-E" is a secret was nothing more then a joke on his part. Part of an acronym is a secret? John At 02:23 PM 1/8/2000 -0600, you wrote: >Revealing that aspect might also might be the reason that LOCKWOOD is not >able to share the last part of what PROBE stood for, with Ullie, in the >Pilot. In other words, he'd have had to explain early-on (since it is >apparent that Lockwood eventually reveals the capabilities of the Scanner >to her in the final moments of the TV Movie) what the 'by electronics' >meant, even earlier. Streeter is shown the 'inside' of PROBE CONTROL, but >Ullie was never as fortunate. My permanent address is actingman@iname.com From: "CDR R. A. Benson, USNR" Date: Sun Jan 9, 2000 2:52 am Subject: [probe_control] Re: PRO--BE!?! Fellows, I think we have to keep in mind, as much as we would like to maintain the fictional universe of PROBE/SEARCH and all of its characters by trying to make every chapter play fit together, to acknowledge that the outside--real--world did influence what we saw on the screen. Specifically, the episodes of SEARCH, particularly the latter ones, sometimes went in an different direction than the intent of the pilot. Much of this was based on different producers, different writers, the removal of Leslie Stevens from involvement with the show, the greater budget allowed for the pilot, and so forth. In PROBE, care was taken to show the technical requirements of the devices which the Probes used (the equipment check which Lockwood underwent on the plane to Germany) and the exacting nature and detail of the equipment (the shot of the Norad antenna and the voice-over of the radioman describing the relay of the Probe transmissions). This, the palm-print-matrix lock on the door to Probe Control, and much of the dialogue implied that the Probe Division was a highly classified affair. I would see this as the same as certain private companies, such as Lockheed or Norton, which have government contracts for sensitive and highly classified aerocraft or armaments. Certainly, the U.S. government knows about Probes, and at a certain level, has access; but the quid-pro-quo of World Securities' arrangement with the government is that its (World Securities') bio-electronics set-up is confidentialto the general public. The inferrence is that Probe Division has performed jobs for the U.S. government, as well. Like all government-private sector partnerships, the government sets the conditions for divulging the confidental information, but the private company interprets those conditions. Therefore, Probe Division could decide to permit Mr. Streeter to observe its inner workings, subject to a Probe Division background check, of course. This is the the background atmosphere I believe that Leslie Stevens was going for in the pilot. Now, the show--SEARCH--airs. Without Stevens' hand at the helm, to keep the show from straying from his personal vision, several things make the show drift. Different writers who are only vaguely aware of the concept. The shift away from the electronic gizmos in the season's latter half--no doubt network executive inspired. Moreover, it is easier to write a "conventional" P.I. type of plot; than to force the writers to be clever. As John has pointed out, episodes where the scanners and the earjacks were disabled occurred far too frequently to be plausible; and that was because it was EASIER for the writers to do so, than for them to come up with intelligent, inventive uses for the Probe's equipment or methods to subvert it. The natural fall-out of this was that the concept of Probe Division being a highly classfied operation was sacrificed, either from neglect, oversight, or for the sake of a "clever", "humourous" tag-out. SEARCH was an unfortunate case of "too many Indians and not enough Chiefs". Commander Benson (from the balmy South Pacific) From: actingman-jc@worldnet.att.com Date: Sun Jan 9, 2000 10:04 pm Subject: [probe_control] Re: PRO--BE!?! I'm glad that Adam said what he did, because on some of the other tv show lists I subscribe to I am usually the one who says "Ah, folks...it was just a tv show. They made individual episodes that were designed to air in any order...you are trying to read too much into them...etc." I am curious about Adam's statement "removal of Leslie Stevens." His name was in the credits of every show as Executive Producer. Now that can mean as much or as little involvement as the EP wants. Gene Roddenberry wanted direct control the first two years of Star Trek, and very little the third year. Quinn Martin always had several shows going at once and I wonder how much direct control he exercised past keeping the network happy (did he ever write anything for any of his shows?) Glen Larson was EP on the first season of Buck Rogers, but not on the second season. I'm just wondering Adam if you have any specific info on Steven's involvement on the series. While Jim is in his blood hound mode, he should try and get a contact address for Robert Justman, who produced the first 15 episodes, and for Anthony Spinner, who was the executive story consultant for the first 15, and the producer for the last 8. In fact, I think ultimately Spinner would be the more important to chat with...since he was there for it all. John At 11:52 PM 1/8/2000 -0800, you wrote: >Fellows, I think we have to keep in mind, as much as we would like to >maintain the fictional universe of PROBE/SEARCH and all of its >characters by trying to make every chapter play fit together, to >acknowledge that the outside--real--world did influence what we saw on >the screen. > >Specifically, the episodes of SEARCH, particularly the latter ones, >sometimes went in an different direction than the intent of the pilot. >Much of this was based on different producers, different writers, the >removal of Leslie Stevens from involvement with the show, the greater >budget allowed for the pilot, and so forth. My permanent address is actingman@iname.com From: "CDR R. A. Benson, USNR" Date: Mon Jan 10, 2000 6:30 am Subject: [probe_control] Leslie, We Hardly Knew Ye John, I am embarrassed to admit that I never pursued the precise reason Leslie Stevens' active involvement with SEARCH ended. In fact, I wasn't even aware it had until a conversation I had with Angel right after I had viewed the copy of PROBE I had been fortunate enough to obtain (right around the second week of this past December). We were discussing her involvement with the show--something I hadn't done since my first conversation with her, some nine years ago--and she mentioned that Mr. Stevens had been ousted from the show around the same time she had. I didn't ask her to elabourate--this was not too long before I discovered this board and your SEARCH website; had it been after, I would have asked for the sake of the readers here. But, at the time she told me this, I didn't consider it exceptionally odd. Case in point, your example of Gene Roddenberry: as the STAR TREK films developed into a series, Mr. Roddenberry was increasingly shunted aside by Paramount, although he retained the "executive producer" credit. I just presumed this was an occasional fact of corporate television. SIDEBAR: Sometimes the executive producer deliberately stays out of the way of his producers and directors. According to Roy Huggins, creator of the series THE FUGITIVE, Quinn Martin--who produced that show, amongst scads of others--was rarely seen on the set, preferring to let his people do their jobs unemcumbered. Higgins, himself, rarely stayed with the shows he created more than a season or two. The same goes for Sam Rolfe, who created THE MAN FROM U.N.C.L.E.; Rolfe had a policy of never remaining with a show more than one season--he felt it only took one season for him to mine everything worthwhile out of a series' premise. As to which leadership style--hands-off or micro-managing--is better for a show, it is hard to say; since I have seen both methods produce results. Obviously, Quinn Martin had far more successes than failures. But then, shows which have had an executive producer's firm hand at the helm have been responsible for a series' success, such as STAR TREK--as you mentioned--or QUANTUM LEAP. I have also seen a heavy-handed executive producer take down a show. The best case for this is Irwin Allen. Each of his series: VOYAGE TO THE BOTTOM OF THE SEA, LOST IN SPACE, THE TIME TUNNEL, and LAND OF THE GIANTS started with an intriguing premise and the first handful of scripts were intelligent and thought-provoking. But Allen believed that plots should be no more than action and the monster-of-the-week; and in each one of those series, the point where Allen usurped control from the directors and writers is almost painfully obvious. But, we were discussing SEARCH . . . . It's a little difficult from here, since my only easy communication with Angel from out here is via E-mail. But I will ask her what the circumstances behind the loss of Leslie Stevens' active involvement from the show were, and report back as soon as she answers. Again, it's hard for me to make a definitive statement, even of my opinion, until I have the chance to view some of the SEARCH episodes myself. But based on what you have reported, John, it seems apparent that the quality of the show slid into decline very shortly after the first handful of episodes. If that is true, then I would have to attribute part of the reason to Mr. Stevens' absence. Commander Benson (haze-grey and underway) From: "Jim Alexander" Date: Mon Jan 10, 2000 12:24 pm Subject: [probe_control] Search-retrieval program... I have recently secured contact numbers for: Hugh O'Brian Tony Franciosa Ford Rainey Ginny Golden Byron Chung Ron Castro and Tom Hallick Apparently, Tony De Costa is currently residing on Puerto Rico. I have been informed that Pamela Jones left the business some time ago, as did Amy Farrell. Now I will attempt to secure contact numbers for Anthony Spinner and Bob Justman (who, as John knows, worked on classic Star Trek, as well as the intitial season of Star Trek: Next Generation). Got those questions ready, yet? :) Jim Alexander jima@wevv.com From: actingman-jc@worldnet.att.com Date: Tue Jan 11, 2000 11:42 pm Subject: [probe_control] Re: Leslie, We Hardly Knew Ye I look forward to any insights into behind the scenes goings ons. I was going to mention Irwin Allen in my note, but he is a whole discussion in himself. He is a contradiction because while he did want the shows to go the direction that they all did, he is also the one who brought them to life in the first place, so I'm not sure I agree with him usurping control...he had it all along. Again it's a whole different discussion, but Starlog Magazine a few years ago interviewed a lot of his writers and it was interesting the things they had to say. And to be fair to Search, some of the later episodes were very good, some in the middle were good, and some in the beginning were good. And some had problems through the whole season. It is difficult to understand in some cases what is happening. Sometimes people have different opinions. While watching the series Alien Nation, I was impressed by how some weeks it was a clear police story, some weeks it was a clear alien story, some weeks it was a story about prejudice, and some weeks it was a combination of those elements. Imagine my surprise when I read an interview with one of the writers on the show and they said the show was weak in the story telling because sometimes it was a clear police story, some weeks it was a clear alien story, some weeks it was a story about prejudice...etc. Leslie Stevens, from reading Robert Justman's book, seems like someone who had his own ideas to the point of being a wack job (but a creative one.) Reading his scripts I was surprised that he didn't put act breaks in them. I take this as either an artistic non-concern for such "trival" matters, or as an arrogance. If leaving was not his idea then maybe the network or the studio could not deal with the above. Who knows. At 03:30 AM 1/10/2000 -0800, Adam wrote in part: >I am embarrassed to admit that I never pursued the precise reason >Leslie Stevens' active involvement with SEARCH ended. > >In fact, I wasn't even aware it had until a conversation I had with >Angel right after I had viewed the copy of PROBE I had been fortunate >enough to obtain (right around the second week of this past December). >We were discussing her involvement with the show--something I hadn't >done since my first conversation with her, some nine years ago--and she >mentioned that Mr. Stevens had been ousted from the show around the >same time she had. > > > >The best case for >this is Irwin Allen. Each of his series: VOYAGE TO THE BOTTOM OF THE >SEA, LOST IN SPACE, THE TIME TUNNEL, and LAND OF THE GIANTS started >with an intriguing premise and the first handful of scripts were >intelligent and thought-provoking. But Allen believed that plots >should be no more than action and the monster-of-the-week; and in each >one of those series, the point where Allen usurped control from the >directors and writers is almost painfully obvious. > >But, we were discussing SEARCH . . . . > >Again, it's hard for me to make a definitive statement, even of my >opinion, until I have the chance to view some of the SEARCH episodes >myself. But based on what you have reported, John, it seems apparent >that the quality of the show slid into decline very shortly after the >first handful of episodes. If that is true, then I would have to >attribute part of the reason to Mr. Stevens' absence. > >Commander Benson (haze-grey and underway) > My permanent address is actingman@iname.com From: "CDR R. A. Benson, USNR" Date: Fri Jan 14, 2000 2:49 am Subject: [probe_control] Re: Leslie, We Hardly Knew Ye O.K., gang. Angel came through with the answer to why Leslie Stevens left SEARCH prematurely. I'll give her answer here, as she sent it to me: "Leslie Stevens shot himself in the foot (got greedy) and killed the show. While he was shooting SEARCH for NBC, he (at the same time) had sold a concept to CBS to make movies-of-the-week, splitting them up into five half-hour episodes and then splicing them back together for release to theatres. "When NBC got word (of his deal with CBS), it got so pissed at Leslie that he quit SEARCH in a snit, and the show only stayed on for one year, with four producers trying to fill Leslie's shoes. Leslie was the spark that ignited the show, and John Christopher Strong III, who was the associate producer, just couldn't pull it off without our insane, greedy leader." And now we know the rest of the story. Fair winds and following seas, Commander Benson From: actingman-jc@worldnet.att.com Date: Sun Jan 16, 2000 12:41 am Subject: [probe_control] Re: Leslie, We Hardly Knew Ye At the very least, many thanks for that. It raises more questions. But I'll leave them for another time. At 11:49 PM 1/13/2000 -0800, you wrote: >O.K., gang. Angel came through with the answer to why Leslie Stevens >left SEARCH prematurely. I'll give her answer here, as she sent it to >me: