How "My Fair Lady" ought to have ended

[Jamie123]

This is much closer to how George Bernard Shaw wanted the story to end. I agree with him. Higgins is (a) much too old for Eliza and (b) much too big a jerk for anyone. Shaw wanted her to marry Freddy, who may have been "a bit of a silly arse", but at least he was Eliza's age, and he could have matured as he got older.

Modern feminist versions have her marrying no one, but striking out as an independent woman.

I'm happy with either - just so long as she doesn't marry that old fossil Higgins, who just cares about having his slippers brought to him.

Edited August 16, 2023 by Jamie123

[The Folk Prophet]

3 hours ago, Jamie123 said:

This is much closer to how George Bernard Shaw wanted the story to end. I agree with him. Higgins is (a) much too old for Eliza and (b) much too big a jerk for anyone. Shaw wanted her to marry Freddy, who may have been "a bit of a silly arse", but at least he was Eliza's age, and he could have matured as he got older.

Modern feminist versions have her marrying no one, but striking out as an independent woman.

I'm happy with either - just so long as she doesn't marry that old fossil Higgins, who just cares about having his slippers brought to him.

Hmm. I never got the sense that she came back to "marry" Higgins.

I don't disagree that the ending could have been something better...but not this. This was terrible -- empty -- sad -- unsatisfying. I think ideally there needed to be a true equilibrium established between them somehow that kept them in each other's lives for the better. Not sure what that would be. But her just walking off forever does not feel satisfactory.

[Carborendum]

My Fair Lady was to be the more light-hearted musical version of the play Pygmalion by George Bernard Shaw.  His version had her leaving to go marry Freddy.

She declares in an earlier scene that for her to change from a flower girl to a lady, she had to be treated like a lady.  But that wasn't Higgins' doing. It was Pickering's.  Despite all his coaching, she never actually responded to Higgins' lessons.  But she did respond to Pickering's common courtesies and his dedication to being the utmost gentleman in the presence of any woman of whatever social status she may be.  It was that treatment that gave her the power to become a lady.

I don't recall such a scene in Lady. If there was one, they certainly didn't emphasize it enough.

And in the end, that is why she went and married Freddy (in Pygmalion).  Even though Freddy was a half wit who had no money, no job, and no prospects, he would always treat her like she was someone special.

This ending leaves me a bit at odds with myself.

I was always raised thinking that whatever sort of person you hope to marry some day, you need to do everything you can to prepare yourself to be the worthy partner to such an individual.  But this message seems to be that we can't really become such a person until we're treated like that to begin with.

I suppose there's a bit of truth in both those philosophies.  And they aren't mutually exclusive.

[laronius]

5 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Hmm. I never got the sense that she came back to "marry" Higgins.

I don't disagree that the ending could have been something better...but not this. This was terrible -- empty -- sad -- unsatisfying. I think ideally there needed to be a true equilibrium established between them somehow that kept them in each other's lives for the better. Not sure what that would be. But her just walking off forever does not feel satisfactory.

I agree. I don't think marriage was really the point in all this. Mr Higgins set out to turn her into a "lady" but in the meantime she was also having a refining influence upon him, as loath as he may have been to admit it. Had they tried to force some defined relationship the whole point might have been missed. I actually like how it ends.

[Jamie123]

12 hours ago, Carborendum said:

My Fair Lady was to be the more light-hearted musical version of the play Pygmalion by George Bernard Shaw.  His version had her leaving to go marry Freddy.

You're right - that is how Shaw wanted it to end. The printed version of the play does end with that. He even wrote an extensive postscript, explaining how Eliza and Freddie marry and open a flower shop together (a step down the social ladder for him!), and how she continues to receive tuition from Higgins. The theatre directors however almost NEVER went with this ending, defied the author, and had her return to Higgins. This drove Shaw nuts, but they told him "our ending sells tickets!"

By the way, don't you think Wilfred Hyde-White (who played Colonel Pickering) was one of the greatest character actors ever? I loved him as the cardigan-wearing Dr. Goodfellow in the second season of Buck Rogers. He was such a "jolly good fellow" - hence the name! My own cardigan period between around 1997 and 2003 stems (If I'm to be perfectly honest) from a desire to be like Wilfred Hyde-White.

While we're on the subject of Buck Rogers (and I'm going off on a real tangent here!), Wilfred Hyde-White was about the only good thing about the second season. In the first season, Erin Gray (Colonel Wilma Dearing) was sexy enough, but in a Listen-up-boys-I'm-in-charge-so-just-you-do-as-I-tell-you! kind of way. In the second season she looked like a cross between a cinema ice-cream-selling lady and a sexy French maid!

What were they thinking of? I mean - I ask you!

Erin Gray in the first season:

Erin Gray in the second season:

(Don't get me started on that bird-man...er...thing...)

Edited August 17, 2023 by Jamie123

[Carborendum]

4 hours ago, Jamie123 said:

You're right - that is how Shaw wanted it to end. The printed version of the play does end with that. He even wrote an extensive postscript, explaining how Eliza and Freddie marry and open a flower shop together (a step down the social ladder for him!), and how she continues to receive tuition from Higgins. The theatre directors however almost NEVER went with this ending, defied the author, and had her return to Higgins. This drove Shaw nuts, but they told him "our ending sells tickets!"

There is a literary purpose to what Shaw wanted -- beyond his personal preference for 'integrity".  It is the story of the original Pygmalion, itself as it was modified by HIggins' in the story.  We need to realize that while it was inspired by Pygmalion, it was not meant to be a complete copy.

All Pygmalion could do is create the dead statue.  And no matter how much he worked on it, it would never be alive.  Although he even made love to this statue.  But that didn't make it a living thing.

It took divine power from Aphrodite to breathe life into that statue.  And this was possible because he was in love with his creation.

In Higgins' narrative, we see that he was not in love with her as Pygmalion was.  He was dead set on continuing to be the creator.  He would continue to sculpt her (manipulate and dominate her).  She would never be human to him because there was no god but him.

Eliza had to burst those bonds if she were to ever have a real life.  She would now take that form that Higgins had given her and the life that Pickering had breathed into her and become a living being with the power of choice, with desires, passions, needs.  She wanted to be important to someone (even if it was to a doofus like Freddy).  Basically, she wanted to be worshiped just as Higgins did.

It really gets pretty deep in this symbolism.

4 hours ago, Jamie123 said:

By the way, don't you think Wilfred Hyde-White (who played Colonel Pickering) was one of the greatest character actors ever? I loved him as the cardigan-wearing Dr. Goodfellow in the second season of Buck Rogers. He was such a "jolly good fellow" - hence the name! My own cardigan period between around 1997 and 2003 stems (If I'm to be perfectly honest) from a desire to be like Wilfred Hyde-White.

I'm kind of wondering if I'd say that - based on the idea of a "character actor."  I'd say that he was a one trick pony.  And that one trick was very useful in many settings. And he certainly did a good job of it.

But I've never seen him play any other character than the "jolly good fellow." So, was he actually "acting?"  So, I'm wondering...

4 hours ago, Jamie123 said:

Erin Gray in the first season:

Erin Gray in the second season:

(Don't get me started on that bird-man...er...thing...)

Erin Gray was a beautiful woman anywhere, anytime.  So, I didn't really care.  I do wish she had a more substantial role than being eye candy.  But the show wasn't called Wilma Deering.  I was called Buck Rogers, so...

I liked Hawk.  'nuff said.

[Jamie123]

19 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Erin Gray was a beautiful woman anywhere, anytime.  So, I didn't really care.  I do wish she had a more substantial role than being eye candy.  But the show wasn't called Wilma Deering.  I was called Buck Rogers, so...

I recall hearing/reading somewhere that Erin Gray was something of an afterthought in Season 2. She wasn't originally supposed to be in it, but she and Gil Gerard had become such good buddies during Season 1 that he refused to be in it unless she was too. Perhaps the ridiculous costume was by way of revenge!

And another thing: how dare Buck Rogers flirt with Wilma Deering? For all he knows, she might be his great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great granddaughter!

And another 'nother thing: where was Princess Ardala in Season 2? In Season 1 she was the main recurring antagonist. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall her even being mentioned in Season 2!

Edited August 18, 2023 by Jamie123

[Carborendum]

4 hours ago, Jamie123 said:

I recall hearing/reading somewhere that Erin Gray was something of an afterthought in Season 2. She wasn't originally supposed to be in it, but she and Gil Gerard had become such good buddies during Season 1 that he refused to be in it unless she was too. Perhaps the ridiculous costume was by way of revenge!

And another thing: how dare Buck Rogers flirt with Wilma Deering? For all he knows, she might be his great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great granddaughter!

And another 'nother thing: where was Princess Ardala in Season 2? In Season 1 she was the main recurring antagonist. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall her even being mentioned in Season 2!

That's interesting.  I didn't know that about Erin Gray.  But in answer to your question about Hensley, I'd say they did the same thing to her.

I was actually wondering how they magically brought Ardala back to life after dying in the pilot (movie).  No mention of how she escaped.  No mention of the entire ship blowing up.  She's just back.  OK.  So, now she's just gone.  No explanation.

But Hensley got into a couple of movies (like Agent 34 on the Maxwell Smart film) and then she landed the part of CJ Parsons on Matt Houston.

I remember Matt Houston.  That was just a fun show with just enough action to keep it lively.  Only lasted three season, I think.  Then it was just forgotten.  I've never heard anyone mention it after it was cancelled.

Hensley continued acting for just a little bit afterward in stuff I never saw.  But she decided to retire and become a homemaker after she got married.  She even published a cookbook.  I guess she's happy.

Yeah, season 2 was an attempt to become Star Trek.  Come on, the name of the ship was The Searcher.  It was just a completely different show.

Edit: After 500 years, and the population bottleneck after the devastation per the narrative, chances are 50/50 that she is related to Buck.

Edited August 18, 2023 by Carborendum

[Vort]

8 hours ago, Jamie123 said:

And another thing: how dare Buck Rogers flirt with Wilma Deering? For all he knows, she might be his great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great granddaughter!

Assuming he is her ancestor along only one line, he would be less related to her than he would be to almost anyone among his actual contemporaries. Looks like 2^-23. That's, what, one ten-millionth?

[Jamie123]

21 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Yeah, season 2 was an attempt to become Star Trek.  Come on, the name of the ship was The Searcher.  It was just a completely different show.

You're quite right - with the motto "per ardua ad astra" ("through difficulties to the stars")...

...which is also the motto of the Royal Air Force: 

Not to be confused with "Ad astra per aspersa" ("to the stars through spikes") which is the motto of Kansas.

[Carborendum]

18 hours ago, Vort said:

Assuming he is her ancestor along only one line, he would be less related to her than he would be to almost anyone among his actual contemporaries. Looks like 2^-23. That's, what, one ten-millionth?

That's assuming early gestation at each generation (i.e. first born of each generation).  Average would be more like 2^-18.  Jamie's number of "great"s and grand??? ... exaggeration.

Yeah, I'm being anal  

Edited August 19, 2023 by Carborendum

[JohnsonJones]

23 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Yeah, season 2 was an attempt to become Star Trek.  Come on, the name of the ship was The Searcher.  It was just a completely different show.

Edit: After 500 years, and the population bottleneck after the devastation per the narrative, chances are 50/50 that she is related to Buck.

It was a Glen Larson vehicle if I recall correctly, and the second season sort of tied into another one of his series...Battlestar Galactica...though by the barest threads.

Glen Larson was also a member of the Church if I recall correctly and in Battlestar Galactica he initially had two characters get sealed (Apollo and Serena?) with them singing "I am a Child of God" at some point.  That scene was deleted out though, I think but many other items derived from the Church's ideas at the time made it into the series.

He also made Magnum P.I. as well as a few other series originating with him.

 

Edit:  At the time I think I enjoyed watching Rockford Files, C.H.I.P.S. and Dukes of Hazzard...or something similar around that time period. I was much younger so probably didn't take care to be as careful with what I watched.  Then again, TV shows were a lot cleaner than they are today and studios took care to ensure certain things didn't get on TV.  On the otherhand, the rating system was newly out and even if a movie was PG it could still have some very scandalous stuff in it so you had to be careful what you saw in the cinema.  It would normally be edited for TV if you caught it that way, though we still avoided R-rated Movies.  There were MANY movies that were even rated PG that I didn't allow my children to see or watch.

Edited August 19, 2023 by JohnsonJones

[Jamie123]

23 hours ago, Vort said:

Assuming he is her ancestor along only one line, he would be less related to her than he would be to almost anyone among his actual contemporaries. Looks like 2^-23. That's, what, one ten-millionth?

I haven't done the math, but I'm pretty sure the odds would be better than that. I'm too lazy to attempt it right now, so let's hand the question over to Professor Chat GPT:

What are the odds that Wilma Deering is a descendant of Buck Rogers?

Quote

In the fictional universe of "Buck Rogers," Wilma Deering is often depicted as a colleague and close ally of Buck Rogers. However, the question of whether Wilma Deering is a descendant of Buck Rogers is not a canonical element of the original stories. The original "Buck Rogers" stories were created by Philip Francis Nowlan, and they don't explicitly address a familial relationship between Buck Rogers and Wilma Deering.

It's worth noting that various adaptations, retellings, and adaptations of the "Buck Rogers" story have been produced over the years in different media formats, including comic books, radio shows, TV series, and movies. In some of these adaptations, there may be alternate storylines or interpretations that explore different relationships between characters. However, as of my last knowledge update in September 2021, there is no widely accepted canonical information suggesting that Wilma Deering is a descendant of Buck Rogers.

If there have been new developments or adaptations since then that have introduced this concept, I wouldn't have information about them. If you're interested in the most up-to-date information, I recommend checking official sources, recent adaptations, or any new stories that might have emerged since my last update.

I'm talking about the TV series from the 1980s. Can you estimate the odds statistically?

Quote

In the 1980s TV series "Buck Rogers in the 25th Century," Wilma Deering is portrayed as a colonel in the Earth Defense Directorate and a close companion to Buck Rogers. However, the show doesn't explicitly state that she is a descendant of Buck Rogers. The concept of Wilma Deering being a descendant of Buck Rogers is not a central plot point in the show's storyline.

Given the lack of explicit information and the fact that the show does not delve into this relationship, it's difficult to estimate the odds statistically. Without canonical information or specific data provided within the show, any estimation would be speculative at best.

If you're interested in exploring the relationship between Wilma Deering and Buck Rogers within the context of the TV series, it might be worthwhile to analyze the show's character dynamics and interactions. However, keep in mind that unless the show's creators or official sources have provided information on this topic, any conclusions drawn would be based on interpretation rather than explicit canon.

Well OK. In that case, can you estimate the odds that any given person alive today is related to another given person 500 years ago?

Quote

Estimating the odds of any two specific individuals being related over a span of 500 years is a complex task and depends on various factors such as population size, migration patterns, intermarriage rates, and more. Additionally, as time passes, the number of potential ancestors for any given individual increases exponentially, making the likelihood of distant relationships quite high.

However, I can provide a simplified perspective:

1. Exponential Growth of Ancestors: As you go back in time, the number of direct ancestors you have doubles with each generation. This exponential growth means that after a certain number of generations, the number of ancestors becomes larger than the total population of the time, indicating that many individuals share common ancestors.

2. Endogamy and Migration: The likelihood of distant relationships is influenced by factors such as endogamy (marriage within a specific group) and migration patterns. If a population is relatively isolated and practices endogamy, the chances of shared ancestry within that group are higher. On the other hand, migration can lead to mixing of different genetic lineages.

3. Population Size and Bottlenecks: The smaller the population size in a particular region, the higher the chance that individuals share common ancestors. This is due to the phenomenon of genetic bottlenecks, where a small group of individuals becomes the ancestor of many in a subsequent generation.

4. DNA Analysis: Genetic genealogy and DNA analysis can provide some insights into shared ancestry. By analyzing DNA markers, researchers can estimate the probability of two individuals sharing a common ancestor within a certain number of generations.

5. Random Chance: Over a long enough time span, purely random chance can lead to individuals being distantly related. As the number of potential ancestors increases with each generation, the likelihood of shared ancestry becomes more likely.

In summary, while I can't provide an exact numerical odds for any given two individuals being related over a 500-year period, it's safe to say that the odds are relatively high due to the exponential growth of ancestors and the interconnected nature of human populations over time. Shared ancestry becomes more likely the further back you go in history. Keep in mind that these odds are theoretical and can vary significantly based on specific historical, cultural, and demographic factors.

I'm not asking for an exact number. Just a ballpark figure.

Quote

Understood. While it's challenging to provide a precise ballpark figure due to the complexities and variables involved, one rough estimate you might consider is that there's a reasonable chance that most people alive today share at least some distant common ancestry with individuals who lived 500 years ago. This is due to the exponential growth of ancestors and the interconnected nature of human populations over time.

Considering the exponential growth of ancestors, if we assume a rough average of 25-30 years per generation, over 500 years, there could be around 16-20 generations between the present day and that point in the past. Each individual has a potential of over a million direct ancestors within that timeframe.

Keep in mind that this estimate doesn't necessarily mean direct descent from a particular ancestor, but rather shared ancestry through various lines of one's family tree. It's also important to consider factors such as migration, population size, endogamy, and more, which can significantly impact these estimates.

In summary, while this is a very rough estimate, it's reasonable to think that many people alive today likely share some level of distant common ancestry with individuals who lived 500 years ago, given the way human genealogies intersect and the expansive nature of family trees over time.

Can you give me that as a probability?

Quote

Sure, here's a simplified way to express it as a probability:

The probability that two randomly selected individuals alive today share some distant common ancestry with individuals who lived 500 years ago is quite high, perhaps approaching or exceeding 99%. This is due to the exponential growth of ancestors and the interconnected nature of human populations over time.

However, please note that this is a rough estimate and the actual probability can vary based on a multitude of factors such as population dynamics, migration patterns, cultural practices, and more.

So there you go. There's a 99% chance that Wilma carries some of Buck's DNA!

Edit: Then again, there was supposed to have been a massive nuclear war, which may have happened not long after Buck originally left Earth. (This was cold-war era, remember!) So it's possible that any children Buck may have fathered were killed at that time. Rather depressing, really...

Also, the Earth's population 500 years ago was a lot less than it was in 1987 (when Buck left) so there were fewer people back then for us today to be related to. Something to think about...

By the way, the rocket shown in the opening titles was a Saturn V, the type used for the Apollo lunar missions in the 1960s/70s, which certainly would not have been used in 1987. I know that because I built the plastic model kit when I was 10. (I also built kits of the Saturn IVB and an Apollo LEM.) I was besotted with the Apollo missions long after most people had lost interest. ("Men on the Moon? That's so...1969!" *yawn*) I always insisted on getting up in the middle of the night to watch the launches on TV!

Edited August 19, 2023 by Jamie123

[Carborendum]

2 hours ago, Jamie123 said:

So there you go. There's a 99% chance that Wilma carries some of Buck's DNA!

Edit: Then again, there was supposed to have been a massive nuclear war, which may have happened not long after Buck originally left Earth. (This was cold-war era, remember!) So it's possible that any children Buck may have fathered were killed at that time. Rather depressing, really...

The fact that the protected population was around Chicago, and it appears that Buck considered that his home city, I'd say it gets to around a 50/50 chance that his children would have survived.

If that was so, then after 500 years, there's a pretty good chance of familial DNA.

[Carborendum]

I thought Erin Gray was given a much more tangible role in Silver Spoons.

There were a whole bunch of late 70s, early 80s shows that were so popular at the time, but just faded into obscurity.

Ricky Schroder was really a talented child actor. But as he grew older, we saw less and less of him.  He started going by Rick insteady of Ricky (which is understandable).  And he was later converted to the Church.  Some of his acting roles got more obscure after that.  I liked his character on 24.  He was the younger agent that we understood could have become Jack Bauer if given the time.

[Vort]

7 hours ago, Jamie123 said:

So there you go. There's a 99% chance that Wilma carries some of Buck's DNA!

Well, yes, of course. There's a much better than 99% chance that we carry some of each other's DNA.

[Carborendum]

16 minutes ago, Vort said:

Well, yes, of course. There's a much better than 99% chance that we carry some of each other's DNA.

Hey!  You just keep your DNA to yourself.  I ain't carrying nothin' for you.

[person0]

Simpleton here:  I always just enjoyed the show and never considered the ending to be problematic in any way.  I also never read any of the source material.

[Carborendum]

22 minutes ago, person0 said:

Simpleton here:  I always just enjoyed the show and never considered the ending to be problematic in any way.  I also never read any of the source material.

Hey, you just stay away from our threadjack.

[Jamie123]

16 hours ago, person0 said:

Simpleton here:  I always just enjoyed the show and never considered the ending to be problematic in any way.  I also never read any of the source material.

The ending was fine, except they should have added a bit where she says "your slippers? Oh, I shoved them down the toilet and now it's blocked! Good luck fixing that, Prrrrrr...*blows raspberry*....rrrrofessor Higgins!" and storms out.