Ah, thanks. I wondered if it was a first class/coach thing. In that case the design people did a hell of a job (aisles maybe too wide, but aren’t they always in TV & film?). None of it matters of course, the show’s success will depend on its drama.
I’m very very suspicious that the supposed MI6 people who are giving the spy stewardess assignments are in fact not MI6 people at all. We never saw them show any ID, and the guy at the end was VERY paranoid about fingerprints for some reason. That would also explain part of what was going on with Bridget, potentialy.
I assumed the wife would say something..which.. seriously..how did she find out again?
Or Frenchy would have let something slip like a more intimate knowledge of the family then she would have gotten from the flight. Like knowing a pets name or something like that.
Hubby and I both really enjoyed this and will watch again. I don’t much care about period errors, and a good soap is fun once and a while.
I agree, more Christina Ricci would be great.
I’m really surprised that this show is getting so much better reviewed than The Playboy Club. They seemed pretty equally lightweight fun. The females have a smidge better characterizations and personalities on Pan Am, but the men are better on Playboy. I caught the youth of the pilots too. I thought any commercial pilot in those days had to be a WWII or Korean War vet. The actors are in their early 30s, so technically Korea was an option, but they seemed younger than the stews.
Both had melodrama added for tv, with an arc that can go over a season. Playboy recreates the music, Pan Am has a period soundtrack. Both are blissfully free of children, either teens or babies. That era was the last era of adults. Teen culture took over by the 1970s. You can’t have a successful nostalgia show about 70s adults. That 70s Show got the period right; the show about wife-swapping that lasted about two episodes made them all look like fools. Adults did look like fools in the 70s. Took them a decade to grow out of trying to re-live the 60s vicariously.
Only one 60s show will stay and that’s Pan Am. It got decent numbers, but more importantly it went higher than it’s lead-in, Desperate Housewives. Playboy’s numbers are equal to Community’s. That’s death for an expensive hour-long show, I think. The only thing that might save it is that all of NBC’s Monday night is that bad, since The Sing-Off is dying horribly, killing two full hours. They may decide to keep Playboy around until after Sing-Off ends in November in hopes of a better lead-in. But I wouldn’t bet on it.
I was hired as a Pan Am stewardess in 1970.
I flew 6 years.
I loved this show. Inaccuracies notwithstanding.
To me, the most glaring inaccuracy …
Pan Am pilots, and especially our Captains, were all WWII military trained.
These pilots on the TV show were too young. But, I still did not care.
I freakin loved it.
She put two and two together.
Even before boarding, she knew Hubby flew Pan Am a lot, and that it was a small world there. She also must have known, or suspected, that he didn’t keep it zipped on all those business trips. Then she saw the looks Hubby and Colette exchanged. That’s why she invited Colette to talk a bit, to see if she got uncomfortable talking to the man’s wife - and she did.
I didn’t recognize the woman in the pub window as Bridget, but that makes sense.
Yeah, I thought the same-trusty stew’s going to be in a pickle.
I liked, even though the men all look alike, and the women who aren’t Christina Ricci do too. Okay, Frenchie and Spy look alike, Blonde Runaway Bride is blonde, CR is a beatnik. But still, I liked it, but I think it’s going to get bogged down in overly complicated romantic attachments and some spy shit. Pregnancy scare within 3 episodes.
Lead flight attendant.
I hated it.
The wide aisles and the enormous head room, and the unreal distance between seat rows just ruined whatever I might have enjoyed. Then the “high-school aged” cockpit crew, plus the waaay too long hair on the pilot (it reached his collar!) just burst the bubble completely.
~VOW
There’s an excellent article in today’s Independent: http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/features/flights-of-fancy-a-new-tv-series-celebrates-the-swinging-sixties-era-of-pan-am-stewardesses-2362571.html
I love the quotes from a former Pan Am trolley dolly: “Life with Pan Am was very glossy in the late Fifties . . . We were the best-dressed, highest paid people in the airline industry. TWA stewardesses were looked down on as a bit raffish, Boac were a bunch of dykes and then there was us . . . You had to wear your hair off your collar, unlike the girls in the TV show, either short or twisted up at the back in a French pleat. ,No jewellery, except for a small pair of stud earrings. White gloves always. And high heels.”
The high heels bit is hilarious if you look at this publicity still.
Tall blonde Margot Robbie is wearing flats. Karine Vanasse and Kelli Garner wear moderate heels. And tiny five-footer Christina Ricci is tottering in four-inch stilettos. That’s so they can pose properly for this picture where they all look to be about the same height instead of Margot towering over Christina by a full head.
VOW, you can search for 707 interiors as well. Here’s a vintage shot. Aisles were wider in those days, and especially in first class.
