|
Post by vandergraafk on Apr 12, 2007 17:35:19 GMT -5
Phoebe really has a dark side to her, a side that she will discover, much to her and her sisters' regret in Season 4. For now, though, Phoebe will relive that tragic day on 17 February 1924 when Phoebe Russell, present day Phoebe in a past life, a cousin to Piper and Prue in their respective past lives who unfortunately messes with the dark side, falls in love with a warlock and has learned to throw fire. Casting the past life spell lands Phoebe in a lot of trouble and only a locket can save her. Anton, of course, has other plans. He would like to sacrifice present-day Phoebe to the past in order to share the future with past-life Phoebe.
|
|
|
Post by vandergraafk on Mar 26, 2008 18:47:15 GMT -5
Since this episode once again takes up the question of time travel and provides us with more back story about the Warren line of witches, it is inevitable that continuity questions arise. Colehellsangel created a thread in the Charmed Cafe and got us started:
"I was watching Pardon My Past last night and something occurred to me. Past Leo was supposedly Past Piper's former lover because Anton glamors into him to distract Past Piper.
Well Past Phoebe's death(which is the area in her life we are exploring) was February 1924 so the same Leo that is in love with Present Piper is a six month developed fetus because according to his photo in the hall of fame in Saving Private Leo he was born in May 1924(And I think Exit Strategy gives him the same birth year as well so its a consistent fact).
Therefore it seems impossible to me for him to have a past life in 1924 to be a former lover of Past Piper when his soul is already in use during the same time period. And obviously despite that we never saw real past Leo we know he was alive at that time otherwise it would not work for Anton to glamor into him as Past Piper's dead lover can't just show up alive.
Unless Past Leo was a whitelighter too at that time but we are not told that. Its the only way it makes sense though."
|
|
|
Post by vandergraafk on Mar 26, 2008 18:51:18 GMT -5
Since colehellsangel raised a number of issues, my initial response concentrated on continuity issues:
"It's another continuity problem. Remember: we learn about Leo's age in Saving Private Leo (a fourth season episode). Pardon My Past was in Season 2. There are other problems involving this timeline. Whitelightertony has imagined an entire timeline for the Warren witches since Charlotte." (See above in Welcome to Charmedverse, A Time Line for Charmed.")
Since Colehellsangel also broached the idea of two entities sharing the same soul occupying the same space, I replied with a few that is derived from the film Timecop which declares that no two entities that share the same soul can occupy the same space. Thus, my contribution in the Charmed Cafe continued as follows:
"Really what you are asking is how two souls can occupy the same time? They can't. Thus, Leo as jilted lover and Leo as six-month baby can't really co-exist. Don't even get me started on Witchstock. That show is an absolute disaster with respect to the timeline. Apparently, the script was okay. But, Patty was supposed to be the hippie, not her mother!
I would strongly advise against making excuses for the writers. They blew this one. Leo did not become a whitelighter until after Guadalcanal during World War II. He was not a whitelighter prior to this time in any past life! The Elders allowed him to learn of his past lives, according to the story in Pardon My Past, because he had become a whitelighter. The only problem with that logic is that Charmed gave us no other reason for assuming that mortals had past lives. Magical ones, yes; but mere mortals no. Maybe Shirley MacLaine helped with this silly plot point."
Colehellsangel clarified his concern in this brief response:
"And no I am not asking how a soul can occupy two lives in one time period, I am asking how on earth there could have been a Past Leo to have been Past Piper's lover."
|
|
|
Post by vandergraafk on Mar 26, 2008 18:58:57 GMT -5
Ljones reminded us about other clues from different episodes about Leo's origins. The fact that these clues together appear not to make sense catapulted the discussion even further:
"Actually, I think that the real Leo was already alive in 1924 as a toddler. In Season 1's "Love Hurts", Leo revealed to Piper that he had been in medical school - not simply a four-year university - when he joined the Army in 1942. He even confirmed in early Season 3 that he was a medical student (and not pre-med) before he joined the Army. This only tells me that he was older than 18 years old when he died. I think that Leo was actually born several years before 1924 . . . probably somewhere between 1917-1920. By insisting that Leo was born in 1924, the writers only contradicted themselves from what Leo had revealed about himself in Seasons 1 and 3."
|
|
|
Post by vandergraafk on Mar 26, 2008 19:02:24 GMT -5
Whitelightertony took issue with another aspect of colehellsangel's concern. As Colehellsangel noted - and reprised above -
"And obviously despite that we never saw real past Leo we know he was alive at that time otherwise it would not work for Anton to glamor into him as Past Piper's dead lover can't just show up alive." Whitelightertony suggested another way to view this.
"Why not? Maybe Anton had killed Past Leo offscreen, and assumed Past Leo's likeness (via glamour) as a way of deceiving Past Piper?"
Colehellsangel replied thusly:
"That is a good thought but why would Anton want to kill past Leo just to glamor him at least as long as he was not hanging around the area.
And even if you are right, it would still depend on when the murder happened for it to work with present Leo being a fetus/toddler(which ever is closer to what he would be at that time) in the same time period. He could have killed him but it would have to be a little whole before that day and I still don't see what the motive would be since he is her former lover so he has no role in her life anymore."
In his response, Whitelightertony sought to answer colehellsangel's concern while at the same he tried to provide us with a way of resolving continuity issues.
"It could have been part of a long-term plot hatched by both Anton and Past Phoebe to destroy her two cousins by manipulating events in their lives.
Let's suppose that Leo's actual year of birth (picking up as soon as Past Leo was murdered by Anton) was 1920 (rather than 1924)...that would have meant he'd been dead for 4 years at the time of the events from "Pardon My Past." Anton (glamoured as Past Leo) could have easily cooked up an excuse to be away from Past Piper during all of that time (1920-1924), with only occasional visits back to San Francisco where he was glamoured as Past Leo to deceive Past Prue and Past Piper. The cousins would have been none the wiser."
In his reply, Colehellsangel preferred to stick with canon, a point also made by Original P 3. First, Colehellsangel's response:
"True but when we see him go after Past Piper as Leo she knows right away that "Leo" is acting unusual. Although Anton did lay it on thick, perhaps he purposely blew his cover as part of the plan since he glamored out very quickly when she told him that he was acting weird.
Though despite that Charmed has its many inconsistencies it seems to be said more than once that Leo was born in '24."
Now, OP3's curt dismissal:
"What is this big controversey about?
Past Leo dies sometime in 1923..he's conceived for his new life and is born in May 1924.
In Feb '24 during Pardon My Past..Past Leo was already dead but Past Piper didn't know that. Obviously she had been married to Dan for a bit and even if she had't..she still would have been dating him for some time. Hopefully more than 6 months before marrying so the fact that Past Leo and Past Piper were lovers means nothing when looking at the time frame in regards to present/future Leo."
|
|
|
Post by vandergraafk on Mar 26, 2008 19:10:22 GMT -5
This unexamined perspective was challenged by ljones initially and met with some skepticism, as critics cited canon. In one of her postings, ljones noted:
"Here is what I believe. Leo was in MEDICAL SCHOOL when he joined the Army in 1942. He was not some high school graduate or a freshman college student. He verified this in two episodes - in late Season 1 and early Season 3.
The show had never hinted that he was some kind of child prodigy or a 40s version of Doogie Howser. Another thing is that Leo never looked like an 18 year-old . . . even in Season 1.
My personal theory? The writers had simply SCREWED UP in regard to Leo's age in Season 2 and beyond. Sorry, but I find it extremely hard to believe that Leo was born in 1924. It strikes me as so unbelieveable."
Colehellsangel ceded not one inch in reply:
"You stated that Leo must have been 18 when he died but did not say anything else like you were implying that its not logical for him to have died at eighteen. So I was only letting you know that it does make sense.
Now as for the Medical School thing thats still a young man mid 20's at most, s not much difference. I guess it could make sense for them to have screwed up his birth year but twice? Because it was said in both Exit Strategy and Saving Private Leo."
|
|
|
Post by vandergraafk on Mar 26, 2008 19:16:07 GMT -5
To bolster her case, ljones cited dialogue from both Love Hurts and Primrose Empath. She noted:
"Unless the show had hinted that Leo was some kind of genuis or Doogie Howser while he was a mortal . . . I disagree. Why?In S1's "Love Hurts", Leo made it clear that he was in medical school:
Leo: Human? Yes, it does. I was actually born right here in San Francisco. I had lived here all the way up till I went off to the war.
Piper: You mean, like Vietnam?
Leo: No. World War II. I left med school and enlisted as a medic. I wanted to help save people not shoot them. The last thing I remember, I was bandaging a soldier's head wound and I felt a sharp pain and the next thing I know I was floating surrounded by White Lighters. They offered me immortality and the chance to help special people like you. I never once ever doubted that I didn't make the right choice. Till I met you. Ever since all I can think is how I'd give it up and have a mortal life again to have a family, grow old... with you. In S3's "Primrose Path", he told Piper that he was a doctor:
Piper: I know, but if I had introduced you as my fiancé, she would've asked how we met, when are we getting married, where the hell my ring is. Questions that I can't answer now can I?
Leo: I suppose that's how I became a doctor too. Whether Leo was a med student or already a doctor, when he had joined the Army . . . I'm in the dark. But it is clear that he had at least earned a Bachelor's degree by December 1941/Spring 1942."
|
|
|
Post by vandergraafk on Mar 26, 2008 19:19:52 GMT -5
Somewhat bemused and bewildered by the back and forth, I weighed with these observations:
"So, let me get this straight. Anton kills past Leo offscreen. Why? Why would Anton worry about past Leo, whom Piper has rejected as a lover in order to be with Dan? Maybe Anton is worried about the future when future Leo and Piper are one. How would he know that. Even in Season 2's Pardon My Past, it is by no means certain that Leo and Piper will ever get back together. It makes no sense. "I'm so confused!"
Frankly, I have no definitive answer to pubesy's query. I can only state that many of us have tried to resolve contradictions in the time line. Some plainly have to be wrong. I don't see how a case can be made that the gravemarker in Centennial Charmed with respect to Paige's year of birth (1975) can be correct. There is too much other evidence to suggest that she was born on 1 August 1977.
In this instance, I am not even certain we can straighten out this contradiction. We might push up Leo's date of birth to, sometime, after 1924. But, that causes all kinds of problems. Indeed, ljones presents a convincing case that Leo's birth year should be something along the lines of 1920. If so, then we might consider pushing back the events of Pardon My Past to 1919. However, this too is problematic.
How could one credibly believe that a successful speakeasy had been flourishing at the manor when Prohibition had just been added to the Constitution that very same year! I don't know enough about Prohibition to say how long it took for the speakeasy system to get started; but, I might suggest that since San Francisco is not a border city, it might have taken longer to establish there than say in Chicago or Detroit, cities close enough to Canada to establish themselves faster. Maybe it took less time than to establish speakeasys in Denver because - unlike Denver - San Francisco is a major port city and maybe contraband could be smuggled in more easily."
I followed this up with a more pointed critique:
"Well, yes, I think several contributors have pointed out discrepancies in the timeline. But, there are other problematic sources as well. I suppose when establishing a time line for Charmed one has to look at the totality of information presented in Charmed and sort out the questionable from the sensible. One should also be aware that some really questionable episodes (Witchstock) may have been compromised by the unavailability of certain characters. As I understand it, that episode was supposed to feature Finola Hughes, who apparently was unavailable. So, the idea was re-worked to feature Grams as a hippie, a decidedly bad idea! Imagine a show where hippie Patty went up against straight-laced Grams. That would have led to some interesting conflicts!
As for Colehellsangel's concern about the whereabouts of Leo's birthplace... let's see. Burlingame is just north of San Mateo and just south of South San Francisco. Technically, it lies on the peninsula and that's how the area is generally referred to. But, anyone who is from that area is likely to say that a) they were from the Bay Area or b) San Francisco. They would NOT say they are from Oakland (the other side of the Bay) and would anyone really wish to admit they were from Oakland? Alameda, yes. Berkeley, okay. San Leandro, more obscure. Oakland Hills, okay! But Oakland, I'm not so sure! For Leo to say he was born in San Francisco is unsurprising, even if he might never have actually lived in the rather small city limits of San Francisco.
Were someone to ask where I am from, I might reply Philadelphia. If I found out that the person with whom I am conversing is from the Greater Philadelphia area, then I am more likely to say that I'm from Norristown or the Northwest suburbs. That distinguishes me from anyone hailing from South Jersey, the Greater Northeast, the Mainline or Delware County. I might still be from Montgomery or Bucks Country, but that's another matter. The point is: the Burlingame of the 1930s - Leo's youth - was more rural. Since the area is within 15 - 20 miles of San Francisco proper, San Francisco would have been the focal point. San Mateo is and probably was a bedroom community, even though it is home to the Bay Area's premier race track: Bay Meadows, now threatened by development. Neither South San Francisco nor Daly City would have offered much in the 30s, I imagine. What binds these cities, I guess, is that they are all located along El Camino Real, Kings Highway from Spanish days, and a highway that connects the various mission cities along the California coast from San Diego to San Francisco, roughly the route traversed by US Highway 101, though in the Bay Area US 101 hugs the bay and the old El Camino Real is state highway 82, formerly US 101 business route and US 101 in the 30s. In short, I am quite comfortable with Leo stating that he grew up in San Francisco. To me, this is a distinction without a difference.
P.S. I would not make too much about the fact that Burlingame is not located in San Francisco County. First: northern California counties in and around the Bay Area and the Delta (Sacramento) are much smaller than southern California counties. Second, one could offer up San Francisco County as some sort of criterion, I suppose. I would advise against it, however. Though populous, it is very, very small in land area! Even San Francisco Airport is not located in San Francisco County (it's in San Mateo County!), but is owned and operated by the city of San Francisco. At least, Los Angeles International Airport is located in Los Angeles County and is part of the city of Los Angeles, even though it abuts El Segundo, a separate city in LA County!"
|
|
|
Post by vandergraafk on Mar 26, 2008 19:28:21 GMT -5
So much for preliminaries, after whitelightertony dissected my comments and added his own, ljones will ask a question that should have been solved easily. It wasn't until much debate about Guadalcanal ensued. But, let's not get too far ahead. Here's whitelightertony's critique:
"I don't know if I would accept 1920 as Leo's actual birth year. But I can accept it as one of a few possibilities.
It would make him 22 when he died...old enough to have at least started med school.
Or . . . the Leo was shown in 1924 could possibly be a relative of Leo's. Hmm, never thought of that possibility. But then, why would Leo have made it a point to say that the Elders knew he and Piper were lovers in their past lives?
So, let me get this straight. Anton kills past Leo offscreen. Why? Why would Anton worry about past Leo, whom Piper has rejected as a lover in order to be with Dan? Maybe Anton is worried about the future when future Leo and Piper are one. How would he know that. Even in Season 2's Pardon My Past, it is by no means certain that Leo and Piper will ever get back together. It makes no sense. "I'm so confused!"
Some possibilities:
Maybe Past Leo discovered Anton's true warlock identity, so Anton and Past Phoebe killed Past Leo in order to prevent him from squealing to the cousins?
Or, for some reason, Anton wanted to push Past Piper closer to Past Dan because he suspected that Past Leo could stir up trouble in discovering Anton's and Past Phoebe's schemes...perhaps Anton felt that Past Dan wasn't as bright, and would be easier to manipulate. By assuming Past Leo's identity and then concocting a story where he had to "go away," Anton would effectively push Past Piper into the arms of Past Dan, achieving that goal. He might also have planned to use the glamour (disguising himself as Past Leo) later on, to weaken Past Piper emotionally. Indeed, we appear to see evidence of this in "Pardon My Past."
Frankly, I have no definitive answer to pubesy's query. I can only state that many of us have tried to resolve contradictions in the time line. Some plainly have to be wrong. I don't see how a case can be made that the gravemarker in Centennial Charmed with respect to Paige's year of birth (1975) can be correct. There is too much other evidence to suggest that she was born on 1 August 1977. That one's easy: the alternate universe from "Centennial Charmed" was a product of Avatar Cole's memories/knowledge/imagination. Why would Cole bother to remember that Paige was actually born in 1977 rather than 1975? The "1975" on Paige's tombstone was simply Cole's subconscious overlooking a factual detail.
How could one credibly believe that a successful speakeasy had been flourishing at the manor when Prohibition had just been added to the Constitution that very same year! I don't know enough about Prohibition to say how long it took for the speakeasy system to get started; but, I might suggest that since San Francisco is not a border city, it might have taken long to establish there than say in Chicago or Detroit, cities close enough to Canada to establish themselves faster. Maybe it took less time than to establish speakeasys in Denver because - unlike Denver - San Francisco is a major port city and maybe contraband could be smuggled in more easily. It could have been the first speakeasy on the West Coast. And who's to say the cousins' speakeasy wasn't shut down shortly after Past Phoebe's vanquish?
Seriously, what evidence is there to suggest that Anton would glam into Leo and why bother? Past Leo and past Piper were passe! If anyone should have died, shouldn't it have been past Dan?
See my speculation above. It's likely that Past Leo was sticking his nose where it didn't belong, and Anton thought it was necessary to eliminate him. And we see that Anton clearly uses his glamour in "Pardon My Past" to try to go after Past Piper, so that could have been part of his plan all along.
Finally, perhaps coleshellangel is not bothered by two entities sharing the same soul occupying the same space at the same time, but I am of sorts. I just have thought this through thoroughly enough to wish this headache upon me. "I'm so confused!" We've seen it in late-Season 4, and in "Coyote Piper" and "The Torn Identity." But none of those examples involved past lives."
Before we get to ljones's innocent question that launched a thousand posts, here's my response to whitelightertony:
"Coyote Piper is not what I had in mind. There we had two souls competing for one space. Well, do I really wish to say two souls. We had a demonic entity possessing Piper and seeking to squelch what remained of Piper's soul. That's akin to what the Source did to Cole perhaps. What we are talking about rests on an understanding of past lives such that each of these lives shares one soul. If so, then the question can legitimately be raised whether two souls can occupy the same time-space at the same time.
In Charmed, there have been several instances where this has occurred: Forever Charmed; Chris after conception during Season 6; Paige in A Paige from the Past. Each of these episodes was of limited duration. Thus, perhaps there is a temporal way to allow the sharing of space-time for a brief period. However, a past Leo, alive and well, and a present Leo, a baby, do present a challenge. One might argue that the soul of baby Leo was ill-developed. Thus, for its soul to grow further the death of past Leo was required. In other words, an overlap between a mature entity and a developing entity is allowed, but ultimately the mature soul must move on, lest the nascent soul be arrested in its development.
As I indicated, of all the issues in Charmed, I place this on the back burner."
|
|
|
Post by vandergraafk on Mar 26, 2008 19:32:18 GMT -5
Innocently, ljones posed this short, and easily answered question. She asked:
"Exactly when did Leo die? In which episode was the exactly year of death given?"
There is an answer to this question. It can be found by examining the wall of honor depicted in Saving Private Leo where the date of his death is given as November 24, 1942. But, I didn't have the opportunity to view the episode before speculating about the circumstances presented in Saving Private Leo. Well, here's how I initially responded:
"It was never explicitly stated. But, in Saving Private Leo, we know that he died at Guadalcanal. The date of that battle is well known. It occurred between 7 August 1942 and 7 February 1943. (It was a protracted battle.) Leo died sometime between those dates.
As ljones has pointed out, with a birthdate of 1924, Leo would not have been able to attend medical school, let alone any college! For him to have died at age 22 or possibly 23, we have to kick back his date of birth to 1920 or 1919. That would allow perhaps a partial year of medical school. That, too, is pushing the limits rather tightly. Maybe we would want to push his date of birth back to 1917 or 1918."
Keep the date above in mind as we now descend into a debate that established a rough time frame and narrowed it ever more precisely.
|
|
|
Post by vandergraafk on Mar 26, 2008 19:39:15 GMT -5
As I present excerpts from these various postings, remember that there are factual errors, some of which perhaps can be laid at the feet of the writers, while others are the product of inference run amok. For example, ljones made this claim:
"I checked the manuscript for "Saving Private Leo". According to it, Leo was killed on the same day as his friends . . . only after their deaths."
I noted that "yes, 1942 was mentioned at the end of Pardon My Past when Dan tells Piper what his brother-in-law at the DMV had learned, i.e., that there was only one Leo Wyatt and he died in 1942. That still leaves a range between August and December 1942."
Ljones countered by noting that the Army did not arrive on Guadalcanal until October 1942. And, we know Leo was an Army medic.
"I don't think that the Army landed on Guadalcanal until October-November 1942."
If ever there was a word I regretted using, it was the opening NO in the next posting that responded to ljones' comment. I either should have written CAREFUL or reflected on the matter more carefully before conflating the Army with the Marine Corps. Here goes:
"No, you might wish to check out this entry from the Wikipedia.
"The Guadalcanal campaign, also known as the Battle of Guadalcanal, was fought between August 7, 1942, and February 7, 1943, in the Pacific theatre of World War II. This campaign, fought on the ground, at sea, and in the air, pitted Allied forces against Imperial Japanese forces, and was a decisive, strategically significant campaign of World War II. The fighting took place on and around the island of Guadalcanal in the southern Solomon Islands and was the first major offensive launched by Allied forces against the Empire of Japan."
Since it does not appear from Saving Private Ryan that Leo was on the beach at Guadalcanal, we can probably conclude that he did not die in early August. By September, the Allied Forces had established a secure beachhead, but did not control the entirety of the islands. The protracted battle for Guadalcanal and the other neighboring islands lasted until November. Japanese troops remained on some of the islands until February 1943. Thus, maybe we can conclude that Leo might have died between September and November 1942.
We can probably be more precise if we considered another part of the entry:
"The initial Allied landings overwhelmed the outnumbered Japanese defenders, who had occupied the islands in May 1942, and captured Tulagi and Florida as well as an airfield (later named Henderson Field) that was under construction by the Japanese on Guadalcanal. Surprised by the Allied offensive, the Japanese made several attempts between August and November 1942 to retake Henderson Field on Guadalcanal. These attempts resulted in three major land battles, five large naval battles, and continuous, almost daily, aircraft battles, culminating in the decisive Naval Battle of Guadalcanal in early November 1942, in which the last Japanese attempt to land enough troops to capture Henderson Field was defeated. In December 1942, the Japanese abandoned further efforts to retake Guadalcanal and successfully evacuated their remaining forces from the island by February 7, 1943, leaving the island in Allied hands."
It seems to me from Saving Private Ryan that Leo is probably with a group of troops attempting to retain possession of Henderson Airfield*. As a result, he could have died any time between August and November 1942.
*Usually, Hollywood focuses on this airstrip whenever it shows the action on Guadalcanal. I wouldn't expect Charmed to be any different."
Ljones tersely and correctly retorted that:
"According to the World War II documentary made by Ken Burns, it was the U.S. Marines who first landed on Guadalcanal in August 1942. The Guadalcanal Campaign was strictly a Marine/Navy operation, until the U.S. Army had landed on the island in October 1942."
Ljones followed this up by recounting from family recollection:
"There are three ex-Marines in my family. According to them, Guadalcanal was a Marine/Navy operation, until the Army landed on the island a few months later. Ken Burns' documentary and several articles on the battle confirms this."
Uh oh, I can either concede the point (which I should have) or try to wiggle my way out (not such a good idea, as it turns out).
|
|
|
Post by vandergraafk on Mar 26, 2008 19:47:49 GMT -5
Mr. Wiggle - that's me - came up with the following response:
"Unfortunately, I have not had the opportunity to view Ken Burns' excellent (according to the critics) documentary on World War II. Nor do I have any ex-Marines in my family. My father was an MP who served both in the Pacific and in Europe. But he has passed on anyway. Wikipedia is a quick reference that unfortunately can contain bogus or misleading information. It can also be vague in ways that we might not suspect. Thus, please note how Wikipedia speaks of Allied forces without ever specifying which services constituted those forces. The information provided by ljones gives us an answer. And, if Wikipedia ever engaged in the sort of active editorial engagement that other encyclopedia do, we might be more confident in the information contained. Wikipedia doesn't and has only begun to exercise some editorial control because of the insertion of scurrilous postings and outright slander that accompanied a few entries.
As a result, I, too, am leary of Wikipedia entries especially given the sloppiness with which terms are bandied about. At best, they are a starting point. Ljones is quite correct that Guadalcanal began as a joint Marine/Navy operation. Marines, technically speaking, are amphibious shock troops. They are the ones who land on foreign shores to seize and secure a foothold until the Army can come to establish its presence, carry out the bulk of regular fighting, and root out any remaining resistance.
We know Leo was an Army medic. Thus, it is quite plausible that he did not arrive on Guadalcanal until October 1942, given the argument thus far. Since I have not seen the Ken Burns documentary on The War, I do not have any visual way of determining who was guarding Henderson Field after it was initially seized. I'm certain there were Army Air Corps Engineers present who were tasked with finishing the air strip so that it could be used by the Army Air Corps. (Remember: at this time there was no separate branch called the Air Force.) Whether Marines would have been assigned to provide protection for such a force, I can't say. That's not generally what the Marines are meant to do.
From our present prespective, this is less clear today than it was then. As a result of Bush's debacle in Iraq, he has chosen to retain Marine troops in Iraq ostensibly to engage remnants of Al Qaeda and indigenous resistance forces. The Marine Corps, however, views this as essentially a mopping up operation that should be assigned to the Army. It prefers to consolidate its forces in Afghanistan where the action is hot and heavy still. Since Bush does not have anywhere near the requisite troop strength he needs to accomplish whatever it is he still thinks can be gained in Iraq, he has left Army, Marines, Reserves and National Guard troops to prevent a full-blown civil war from bursting forth, much to the consternation of the Marine Corps top leadership. Of course, you might wonder what amphibious has to do with a landlocked country like Afghanistan, but that's another matter entirely. The Marine Corps believe - rightly or wrongly - that its troops are better trained and more capable of executing a given task. Besides, battle is what they do. Mopping up is better left to the Army, Reserves and National Guard.
Besides, as the Wikipedia article does implicitly suggest and ljones confirms, both the Marines and the Navy were quite heavily involved in the protracted battle over Guadalcanal. The initial assault surprised the Japanese who fought back as best they could. This prevented the swift conclusion of the campaign, and may very well have delayed entrance of the bulk of Army troops who later arrived as the Navy/Marines continued their island hopping strategy and left Guadalcanal and the nearby islands in the hands of the Army.
Since most of the battle was over by the end of October 1942, it is quite plausible that that is the date when the Army assumed responsibility and the Navy/Marines prepared to move on.
That said, the War in the Pacific posed a different demand on military forces. Since the land areas to be conquered were relatively small, the Marines were probably the ideal force to use in conjunction with the Navy. Besides, as noted above, they are an amphibious shock corps.
Europe, on the other hand, was entirely different. Yes, the Normandy and Italian landings required an amphibious assault force and yes there were Marines involved. However, the D-Day assault was so massive that Allied forces could not simply rely on Marine forces alone. They provided the initial shock troops, but the Army followed close behind. Once the Army gained the upper hand by consolidating its gains around St. Lo, the Marines really had no further purpose there. The D-Day invasion became a highly mobile army assault across France until everything got stalled at the time of the Battle of the Bulge. That was a big battle whose outcome turned on the absence of adequate supplies of diesel to keep the German attack moving forward and the brilliant tactics of General Patton who found a way to engage his forces and alter the tactical advantage the German Army had briefly gained. Army grunts paid with their lives, however, to stop the German counter-offensive.
I'm not one for slogans. But, there is some merit to the Marine Corps claim: the Few, the Proud, the Marines. To constitute a successful amphibious shock troop, the Marines require a highly skilled and highly dedicated soldier whose training is exceptionally difficult (exceeded perhaps only by the Green Berets and Navy Seals) and whose tasks carry with them grave risk. Basic training for the Army might not be a piece of cake either, but I would suggest that the Marine Corps demands a heck of a lot more from its recruits.
Bottom line: October 1942 (highly plausible date for Leo's death) November 1942 (highly plausible, if early in November) August - September 1942 (possible, but only if we know for certain that Leo was at Henderson Field when he died and that Army troops were securing this partially completed air strip before the majority of Army troops arrived on Guadalcanal.)
Whoever said Charmed could stimulate an interest in history? Who, however, wants to argue that Charmed even considered the constitution of forces when deciding to include Army Medic Leo Wyatt as part of the Guadalcanal fighting force? I suspect for many in Hollywood: Army, Marines, ehhn, it's all the same to me, as Paige might say. Then, do we have to suggest that Leo was an Army Medic assigned to assist the Marines? None of the soldiers he is shown servicing, however, bears any outward indication that they are part of the Marine Corps. They look like Army grunts to me. And, didn't Leo say that he and his buddies signed up as volunteers for the Army?"
|
|
|
Post by vandergraafk on Mar 26, 2008 19:49:28 GMT -5
Ljones came back with this quick, but not entirely persuasive comment:
"According to "Saving Private Leo", Leo's two friends - Nathan and Rick - died in mid-November 1942. Leo was killed hours after their deaths."
Speculation only gets one so far. So, of course, I tried to speculate further:
"And, I hadn't actually completed my research by re-watching Saving Private Leo. So thanks for that information. However, I am less inclined to believe that Leo's buddies and Leo himself died in mid-November. By early November, the fighting was mostly over. We are led, though, to believe that Leo sacrificed his buddies in order to help those more in need of immediate care. That would suggest a heavier order of fighting than probably occurred during mid-November.
Having said that, let me now argue the opposite. Perhaps what happened was that once again the Japanese attempted yet another aerial strafing of Henderson Field. This caught the camp somewhat unprepared. Note the scrambling that occurs on screen during this airstrike. That might make it seem more plausible that the attack occurred in mid-November.
The point is: through collective efforts we have a) confirmed that the Charmed writers got it (mostly) right and b) Leo died in November 1942."
|
|
|
Post by vandergraafk on Mar 26, 2008 19:52:58 GMT -5
The discussion seems to shout out for someone to actually watch the darned episode. I did (eventually) and here are my findings:
"Now that I had time to carefully study Saving Private Leo, the following comments can be made:
1) On the wall before Rick (I believe) destroys Leo's army photo, both Leo's date of birth and date of death are clearly visible.
Born: May 6, 1924 (ironically, the exact same date as my father) Died: November 24, 1942
2) Nathan and Rick were interred at the local VA on 22 November 1924.
Thus, they did NOT precede Leo into death by several hours. Rather, it was probably on the order of 10 days. Why?
Even if Nathan and Rick were interred in San Francisco on 22 November 1924, their deaths probably occurred a week or more before this time. Their bodies would have had to have sent by ship to Honolulu, then (perhaps) by plane to San Francisco. If by boat, make it even longer.
3) Yes, the writer Doug E. Jones may have done some basic research. But, there are still problems. How does Leo die after the vast majority of the fighting has been completed and still emerge with a Medal of Honor? Heroism would have required performance above and beyond the call of duty. For that, major action would have been required. By late November, that was no longer the case.
4) Leo's unit was stationed near Henderson Field. When Nathan and Rick die, the unit has just been ambushed by an airborne Japanese unit that is strafing the area and presumably bombing the field. Most likely, there was not armed combat among soldiers. If that's what the writer wanted, then the history is way off. The Marines would have been the units fighting, not the Army!
5) I actually like this episode a lot. It was a welcome relief in the dreary, dark Source as Cole story arc that may have been too depressing for many fans. Of course, I like dark, depressing things so I wasn't bothered. I did like the break that this episode represented.
6) That said, I am not happy with the strange twists in Charmedverse that appear here. First, Leo self-heals after Rick flings a carving knife at Leo and stabs him in the gut. Two, Leo uses magic to heal a leaky drain. There might be a way to reconcile these two.
One could argue that this episode represented a test for Leo. How would he respond to the challenge posed by Rick and Nathan. Would he cower as did Sam Wilder and, thus, lose his powers? (Yes, he did for a period of time!) Were the Elders watching over Leo and allowing him to heal the pipe, but not the teacher, whose death at the hands of Rick causes Leo to question his existence as a whitelighter. Does that explain, too, how Leo is able to self-heal? Maybe the Elders can heal from a distance!"
|
|
|
Post by Fourever Charmed on Apr 27, 2008 19:04:14 GMT -5
Okay, so we know that Leo was born May 6, 1924, which means that Leo had to have been concieved about August 14, 1923. (And that's as long as he wasn't born either late or early.)
This means that (ignoring the possibility of a premature or late birth), Past Leo had to have died before (about) August 14, 1923. Given that Past Leo did not actually appear in "Pardon My Past," only Anton who glamoured as P. Baxter's former lover, then I find it possible that Past Leo could've died sometime prior to the events of February 14, 1924 without P. Baxter's knowledge, given that she was already with Gordon Johnson and was even surprised that (who she thought was) Past Leo was even at the Manor in the first place.
Personally, I don't really get the feeling that Anton killed him, though since we don't know much about the Past Leo/P. Baxter relationship (i.e. when it took place, how long it lasted, how and why exactly P. Baxter chose Gordon over Past Leo, the emotional reactions resulting from P. Baxter's choice), it still remains a possibility.
I've always kind of speculated that maybe Past Leo committed suicide after P. Baxter picked Gordon, but of course that's just my own personal opinion to explain his demise at seemingly such a youthful age, and has no canon evidence other than that he probably died young.
|
|