Anyone surprised by this?

I enjoy tuning in for Wednesday's big 'ol fivehead.

Actually that is a lie. I have never watched this at all.

This is why I watch.

It's an abysmal show.

Wellon Dowd: This is why I watch.

[www.tvcentral.com.au image 332x524]

Here are two more reasons.

Just dont replace it with a reality show about flying

Wellon Dowd: Wellon Dowd: This is why I watch.

[www.tvcentral.com.au image 332x524]

Here are two more reasons.

[www.exposay.com image 391x620]

Y'know, if it weren't for the boobs, she'd be nothing but creepy eye sockets and gums.

/Yay for boobs.

My wife likes this show therefore I have to watch it. Or try to watch it. Or play Words With Friends while she watches. I would totally bang the French chick though.

It's like a Norman Rockwell painting of the ideal life of white people mixed with a smidge of feminist empowerment and a shiatty spying subplot. Also the CGI is crap (the landing scenes).

When I want by the numbers TV I'm sticking with Hawaii 5-0. The Jersey cop with anger issues has awesome dialog and Grace Park issues out random beat downs. So much better.

/although the French chick needs to keep finding work after Pan Am gets cancelled, she's good

just give the show to SyFy. they'll do something to get people hooked and then cancel it right when it starts to get interesting.

Yeah, the show has no redeeming qualities except for a wee bit of eye candy.

I know a bunch of people in the industry, so I hear about the pilots that get made evry year, and which ones get picked up, and which don't. Some great-sounding ones were passed over for this crap. I'll never understand how they pick these things.

The show started off fairly promising... but it's gone downhill pretty quickly. I was close to removing it from my DVR anyway, this "news" may make my mind up for me.

I watched the first episode for the lulz. I couldn't see how they could possibly pull off anything that would be entertaining for the long-term.

When the first episode took place on a flight, I thought "Oh god, they're going to start off with an air emergency right away", because, you know, airplane flights are boring as fark, and what else could they possibly do to create tension?

Instead they go with the completely ridiculous "Lots of flashbacks with an insane CIA intrigue subplot thrown in" route.

Amazingly, it was worse than I thought it would be. Surprised it's lasted this long, to be honest.

I watched the first two episodes and decided it just wasn't my thing. I almost watched the third episode because my grandfather was the American ambassador to Germany under President Kennedy and that episode was all about Kennedy and Germany, but even that didn't get me to watch it.

Yeah, hiring a writer from LOST will fix it.

9 penguins in my shirt: I know a bunch of people in the industry, so I hear about the pilots that get made evry year, and which ones get picked up, and which don't. Some great-sounding ones were passed over for this crap. I'll never understand how they pick these things.

I can explain that; programming execs are stupid. Pan-am got picked up for the simple reason that it sounded very much like Mad Men; same reason the Playboy Club was. What the Big Three Execs don't understand is that it isn't the setting that makes Mad Men successful, but the execution, the writing, and the willingness on the part of AMC to eat a few months of bad ratings for the sake of building audience share naturally. Hell, AMC runs its shows against HBO's big hitters on Sunday at 8 PM; none of these cheap imitations could last a night, let alone numerous seasons, in that slot.

The Networks don't have a clue what makes a show good, and whenever they get lucky and find one on their hands (like Lost of Heroes), they invariably screw it up with their meddlesome attempts to "make it better".

I really wanted to like the show, though it struck me as a blatant Mad Men ripoff. But here are the main mistakes they've made:

- Underutilizing Christina Ricci. She's the biggest name and the most interesting actor on the show, and they have her relegated to the small smartass role.
- Too much screen time devoted to the two unbelievably dull sisters. We're how many episodes in and the one chick is still lamenting leaving her fiance at the altar? WHO CARES - YOU'RE HOT, MOVE ON. And the spy sister - how do you make Cold War spying boring? Oh no, my sister took pictures with my spy camera! Again, WHO CARES.
- Cheap production values. The show is shot in NY?? REALLY??? WHY??? Every episode it's "Oooh, we're off to Rangoon!" (cut to CGI shot of Pan Am plane in the clouds) "We're off to Monaco!" (Another generic shot of the plane in the clouds). Even the Love Boat had some establishing location shots to give the illusion that the characters might actually be in the places described. The show feels like it's shot entirely on a soundstage.
- They don't take advantage of the story possibilities of all the passengers.

For a show about something as grand and huge in scope as Pan Am was in the early '60s, the whole thing just feels very cheap and small. It's probably too late to fix it at this point.

devildog123: I do think that if they could get modern stewardesses to look like the ones from the '60s, people would biatch a lot less about flying.

In the 60s you could fire someone for being old or ugly. Can't do that sort of thing these days, which in my view is a good thing. Of course, they could always promote more of them out into trainer or management positions, but good luck pitching that to the money-gluttons you'll find in most boardrooms, particularly those of the arthritic and subsidy-pampered airline industry.

Also, I think you'd find prettier stewardesses to be a double-edged sword. Better eye-candy means misogynists thinking they've got a better excuse to cause problems on your flight with their inappropriate "flirting" and the inevitable refusal to apologize when confronted, and the escalation that inevitably results from that. What would you rather have; an old stewardess or more flight delays due to woman-haters having to be dragged off?

Heron: I can explain that; programming execs are stupid. Pan-am got picked up for the simple reason that it sounded very much like Mad Men; same reason the Playboy Club was. What the Big Three Execs don't understand is that it isn't the setting that makes Mad Men successful, but the execution, the writing, and the willingness on the part of AMC to eat a few months of bad ratings for the sake of building audience share naturally. Hell, AMC runs its shows against HBO's big hitters on Sunday at 8 PM; none of these cheap imitations could last a night, let alone numerous seasons, in that slot.

The Networks don't have a clue what makes a show good, and whenever they get lucky and find one on their hands (like Lost of Heroes), they invariably screw it up with their meddlesome attempts to "make it better".

I basically was going to come to say this. This show licks nards because it's a "Mad Men" ripoff that never put the effort into understanding why "Mad Men" was actually good, therefore captured none of those things that made it actually good except for the time period - and then didn't even capture why the time period helps make "Mad Men" good.

But yeah, fundamentally "Mad Men" is good because it's not on a Network. If you try to put it on a network, you get shiat like "Pan Am" and "The Playboy Club."

fter debuting with a solid 10.8 million viewers, the ratings have gone into a nosedive, and the show's in danger of being grounded, thus canceling future flights. But ABC isn't going to let the show crash on autopilot; it's hired "Lost" producer Steven Maeda to get "Pan Am" out of its tailspin before it crashes into the World Trade Center and sparks a decade-long war on terror that includes a poorly executed and unnecessary invasion and occupation of Iraq. Okay, maybe that last one is a little bit of a stretch.

Ok, what farker wrote this.

I could accept the CIA subplot if the whole thing was played tongue in cheek, you know? That's the way I had hoped the series would go -- a satricial look at the 60s.

But no, they're trying to play it straight and getting so much just plain wrong. And HOW do you have a quirky subplot (the spy thing) and *not* give it to the quirkiest actor in the cast (i.e., Ricci)? That move proves how wrong-headed the producers are.

Gig103: Yeah, I had high hopes for this one, but the CIA subplot is asinine, and sibling rivalry is boring.

This is the problem. There's literally no plot to any of the episodes. The CIA courier is the only thing going on, and as you note, it's lame.

Heron: t isn't the setting that makes Mad Men successful, but the execution, the writing, and the willingness on the part of AMC to eat a few months of bad ratings for the sake of building audience share naturally

Mad Men is boring as fark.

+1 for the French chick.

Lumber Jack Off: just give the show to SyFy. they'll do something to get people hooked and then cancel it right when it starts to get interesting.

darkscout: fter debuting with a solid 10.8 million viewers, the ratings have gone into a nosedive, and the show's in danger of being grounded, thus canceling future flights. But ABC isn't going to let the show crash on autopilot; it's hired "Lost" producer Steven Maeda to get "Pan Am" out of its tailspin before it crashes into the World Trade Center and sparks a decade-long war on terror that includes a poorly executed and unnecessary invasion and occupation of Iraq. Okay, maybe that last one is a little bit of a stretch.

Ok, what farker wrote this.

The whole first part of the article sounded like a Fark headline submission, puns and all

imgod2u: Teaser: Yeah, the show has no redeeming qualities except for a wee bit of eye candy.

Hey, what about the sexism? The sexy sexy sexism.

The sexism is 50% of the marketing, especially when the louder, more objection-y parts of the Internet spend paragraph upon paragraph in their blogs talking about how horrible it is that it's being glorizzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Back when I was considering spawning, I wanted to name my putative daughter Pam Ann.

Not problems: actors, overall story, style

Problems: Bad pacing, bad dialogue, no real impact of any scene (each one just ends...), boring sister subplot, somehow making spying boring. I also agree with whoever said the Ricci character should have been given the spy story because the current girl is not spunky enough for it. Every scene with her is flllaattt, and it isn't because she is a bad actress but because the character is flat. She's whiny, annoying and a c*nt.

Fixes: get new writers, producers, directors and really anyone who has creative input into the show. Find a new direction because you will never, ever be like Mad Men.

I have watched all of the episodes and the only scene I think really delivered was when that co-pilot is watching the Mercury (?) rocket liftoff and you get a real glimpse at how the space program was developing. Otherwise? Fail.

The last episode, the Monte Carlo one was boring as hell.

Make it about the pilots and you've got a series.

I've been watching it mainly due to nostalgia, since my grandfather worked for 30 years for Pan Am. Every episode is always about the sisters b*tching over something stupid, the blonde sister moaning about ditching her finance at the altar, a bunch of cheap looking flashbacks, or that asinine spy crap. Poor Christina Ricci is being wasted here.The only thing that makes the show watchable in any way is the French chick. She's awesome. I'd bang her and I'm a total homo!

"She's awesome. I'd bang her and I'm a total homo!"

No you're not.