Cindy and Sue Ann in "Front Page"

['80sSitcoms]

Okay, so I just watched "Front Page", and I believe I've solved the mystery of the "What happened to Cindy and Sue Ann at the table?" scene.

So Cindy and Sue Ann are both at the table with Jo for their little scene. Then Tootie and Blair walk in through the cafeteria entrance, and the camera goes to a close-up on Natalie and Tootie as Tootie talks. Then the camera goes back to Cindy and Jo. Now, at this time, I believe Sue Ann has gotten up out of her chair when the camera was beyond her and close-up on Natalie and Tootie, because when the camera goes back to Cindy and Jo, you can see Sue Ann behind them in the background sitting at a table with 2 other girls in front of the windows. Now, at the end of this camera view on Cindy and Jo, Cindy starts to move just before the camera cuts away from them. I believe she may have been getting up to move, because then the camera goes to Natalie, Tootie, and Blair, and when it goes back to Jo, Cindy is seen sitting in the background at another table.

So it's my theory that there wasn't actually any strange or bad editing, but that the director Asaad wanted to smoothly get Cindy and Sue Ann out of the scene by having each of them get up when the camera was off of them, and go into the background, one at a time.

[Lorimar Television]

That’s interesting! It’s still too bad that they couldn’t stay at the table for the rest of the scene but oh well.

[RetroGuy2000]

Originally Posted by '80sSitcoms

Okay, so I just watched "Front Page", and I believe I've solved the mystery of the "What happened to Cindy and Sue Ann at the table?" scene.

So Cindy and Sue Ann are both at the table with Jo for their little scene. Then Tootie and Blair walk in through the cafeteria entrance, and the camera goes to a close-up on Natalie and Tootie as Tootie talks. Then the camera goes back to Cindy and Jo. Now, at this time, I believe Sue Ann has gotten up out of her chair when the camera was beyond her and close-up on Natalie and Tootie, because when the camera goes back to Cindy and Jo, you can see Sue Ann behind them in the background sitting at a table with 2 other girls in front of the windows. Now, at the end of this camera view on Cindy and Jo, Cindy starts to move just before the camera cuts away from them. I believe she may have been getting up to move, because then the camera goes to Natalie, Tootie, and Blair, and when it goes back to Jo, Cindy is seen sitting in the background at another table.

So it's my theory that there wasn't actually any strange or bad editing, but that the director Asaad wanted to smoothly get Cindy and Sue Ann out of the scene by having each of them get up when the camera was off of them, and go into the background, one at a time.

I both agree that the idea was to get Sue Ann and Cindy out of the shots without showing them leaving and disagree that there wasn't any bad editing. Anytime you attempt something like that, removing characters without showing them, you introduce continuity errors.

There isn't enough time elapsed for Sue Ann to get up, walk to another table, sit down again and begin talking with a new group of girls, and she simply isn't in the scene for a few seconds.

In this video, Sue Ann is seen sitting with Cindy and Jo until 16:28. at 16:29, we see the top of Jo's head, but no sign of Sue Ann's head. Did she duck under the cameras as she dodged out of the scene in one second? Who would do that? At 16:35, she is shown again, now in the background, sitting with other students. She had six seconds to get over there, which is physically possible only with her leaping out of her chair (and somehow pushing her chair in, like a good Eastland girl would do), and jamming herself into another chair before the camera switches back.

No, it's preposterous.

Cindy's transition to a new table is equally preposterous. She's still sitting at the table at 16:41, with her hands on the table, next to Jo's hands (their hands actually are touching for a few moments). At 16:43, we see Jo's hands in the shot, but no sign of Cindy, including her hands, which were just up against Jo's hands, when we should see some part of Cindy getting up to move to another table, unless she pulled her arms back in one second, and leaned backwards in her chair as she jumped out of it, to avoid the camera, as she moved to a new table.

I agree that Cindy was getting up at 16:41 to move to a new table, and that is why we should still see her at 16:43: it takes a few seconds to get out of a chair and move away from a table: try getting up from a table and moving away from it in less than two seconds and you will see how preposterous such a movement is.

['80sSitcoms]

Originally Posted by RetroGuy2000

No, it's preposterous.

Hey, you brought this up in a couple of different threads, I was just trying to help.

[RetroGuy2000]

Originally Posted by '80sSitcoms

Hey, you brought this up in a couple of different threads, I was just trying to help.

And I appreciate it, and the thread, but I just can't agree that nothing was edited out; they disappear too abruptly, with no footage of them getting up, for nothing to have been cut out.

It could be as simple as the video editor removing as little as two seconds of video, or maybe something more complex, such as removing an entire scene. But something was cut out, for them to disappear from the table without there being footage of a part of them moving away from the table, particularly when Cindy's hands are up against Jo's one second, and then she's no longer even at the table two seconds later.

[Lorimar Television]

Now now no fighting you two! You're supposed to be best friends!!!

['80sSitcoms]

Originally Posted by RetroGuy2000

Cindy's hands are up against Jo's one second, and then she's no longer even at the table two seconds later.

That's why I thought she got up. This doesn't even bother me as much as it does you, because the RoMG edit mistake is even more outlandish than this one; at least with this one the girls could shoot up out of their chairs and run out of camera view (even though that's not what happened, it's physically possible). The camera angles are still realistic for where the cameras are set. In Mr. Bradley's office, it's almost like vertigo or something when you realize it is impossible in the realm of physics for him to be standing behind his desk and then 1 second later he's in his doorway looking over at Miss Mahoney with no way for that to even happen. For some reason they spliced both tapings there in a way that is utterly jarring.

Anyway, yeah, the only reason I made this thread in the first place was because I saw something, and I thought I would help. I didn't examine the timing, I just saw the girls relegated to the background and thought I stumbled onto something. That's the only reason I even posted about it, but after feeling insulted, I wish I hadn't.

[RetroGuy2000]

Originally Posted by '80sSitcoms

That's why I thought she got up. This doesn't even bother me as much as it does you, because the RoMG edit mistake is even more outlandish than this one; at least with this one the girls could shoot up out of their chairs and run out of camera view (even though that's not what happened, it's physically possible). The camera angles are still realistic for where the cameras are set. In Mr. Bradley's office, it's almost like vertigo or something when you realize it is impossible in the realm of physics for him to be standing behind his desk and then 1 second later he's in his doorway looking over at Miss Mahoney with no way for that to even happen. For some reason they spliced both tapings there in a way that is utterly jarring.

I totally see what you're saying, and that edit is terrible.

Anyway, yeah, the only reason I made this thread in the first place was because I saw something, and I thought I would help. I didn't examine the timing, I just saw the girls relegated to the background and thought I stumbled onto something. That's the only reason I even posted about it, but after feeling insulted, I wish I hadn't.

I'm sorry, '80s. It was not my intention to insult you.

['80sSitcoms]

Thank you. Maybe I was oversensitive to it, but after posting in a, "Hey, I think maybe I've seen what it is! " way and assuming you'd be happy I maybe had the answer with this info no one's ever noticed before, I took it as insulting my intelligence when you debunked it by calling what I reached out with "preposterous". That's different than if it were a theory I strongly believed in 100% and we were maybe debating, this was just helpful offering. Plus, I saw that reply thing when I got up Saturday, which didn't help.

[Lorimar Television]

Awww Eights. I’m sorry too, I truly don’t think Retro would ever mean to call you preposterous, but the editors/ directors for doing that in the first place. I think your theory is very possible though. It does show a disregard of the lost girls on the directors part. Like just get them in the scene and out and then we won’t see them again for 5 more years. But I hope you know how much we appreciate you here, I know Retro feels the same way. After all you two are the Nat and Toot of the forum while I’m the Jo who came along later.

['80sSitcoms]

Originally Posted by Lorimar Television

After all you two are the Nat and Toot of the forum while I’m the Jo who came along later.

Are you saying I have to run a beauty school with him?? haha

[RetroGuy2000]

Originally Posted by Lorimar Television

Awww Eights. I’m sorry too, I truly don’t think Retro would ever mean to call you preposterous, but the editors/ directors for doing that in the first place. I think your theory is very possible though. It does show a disregard of the lost girls on the directors part. Like just get them in the scene and out and then we won’t see them again for 5 more years.

That's it exactly.

But I hope you know how much we appreciate you here, I know Retro feels the same way.

Yep. I try to respond to every thread because I appreciate the great commentary. There are so many details you two have caught, and it's all very fascinating.

After all you two are the Nat and Toot of the forum while I’m the Jo who came along later.

Ahem, I believe that's Toot and Nat.

[RetroGuy2000]

Originally Posted by '80sSitcoms

Are you saying I have to run a beauty school with him?? haha

Yes: Ret and Eights.

[Lorimar Television]

Aww guys! Get in here!

[Heenan Fan]

I just watched this ep this morning on MeTV. It was just bad editing IMO. The director deffintly wanted the two Julies out of site, out of mind. They were also disrespected in the classroom scene as well.