"The Dick Van Dyke Show Season 3" -- A Personal Review (1 Viewer)

[Paul_Scott]

(rolling up his sleaves)

David, i was trying to remember the what other epsiodes out of the first season i actually did like and i think you named all of them in that post.
"Harrison B. Harding",
"Blonde-Haired Brunette",
"Curious Thing About Women",
"Empress Carlotta's Necklace",
and "Punch Thy Neighbor" -- all from Season One.

those were the ones (although frankly,i don't think Blonde-Haired Brunette is as good as the others mentioned).

the qualities that seperate those from the rest of that season are best exemplified, imo, by "Harrision B Harding".
a realistic situation that doesn't get so out of hand that it strains credibility before its resolved, and a resolution that works also without straining credibility.
and the humour isn't 'deposited in' like so many of the other epsiodes where the plot stops so that one of the characters can 'entertain' a group of the others with (usually) pratfalls and vaudville comedy (i mistakenly said burlesque earlier- i meant general vaudville)
you can see this effect marring what would have been another of the seasons strongest eps- when Rob gets his old mentor Hap a job on the writing staff.
2/3 of a truly great ep full of rich character development and solid complications and then comes the speech
"Oh Rob, i just don't think i have it any more...i like the old comedy...you know slapstick and pratfalls..."
as soon as i heard that, my eyes rolled to the back of my head 'guess whats coming next- 3 or four minutes of the comedy sketch they collabrated on replete with mugging, stork walking, and pratfalls...how surprising.'
i look at a great atypical ep like that, that had beautifully subtle nuances of character, and then they had to go and dumb it down for the big comedy finish.
sad.

as far as comparing the series to current fare- i would usually agree with you.
i'm definitely a nick at night/tv land kind of guy.
however, lately i've been catching King Of Queens (something i had never watched before a month ago) and i have to say the show clicks well- great chemistry amongst the cast- especially between the two leads.
in fact, i would say they are right up there with DVD and MTM as far as chemistry goes.
i would even say the show is superior to The Honeymooners (one vintage show i could never much get into) which is probably its most direct comparison due to the 'large' lead and his more comely spouse.
its so enjoyable (and relateable) i'm actually considering picking up the sets eventually which surprised the hell out of me.

oh, and the thing i liked about Washington vs. The Bunny was that it showed a fresher side to Rob.
his interaction with the person next to him was not like a conversation with Buddy or Sally that provides exposition with set-up/witless punchline.
there was that, but the punchline wasn't delievered as if it was supposed to be a 'high comic moment that stops the rest of the cast cold so they can laugh at its brilliance'.
it was just gentle mild good natured conversation with a stranger, and in that capacity it was much more belivable...or rather, enjoyable to listen to.
the dream sequence was uniques as it utitlized DVDs felicity with graceful movement for more than just the 'typical' gauche pratfalls.
it was odd to see something like Freudian (or would it be Jungian?) symbolisim in an ep of TDVDS, but that to me is what made the ep memorable and compelling.

different strokes i guess.

 

[george kaplan]

I like the Dick Van Dyke show a lot. As a matter of fact it's my favorite tv show of all time. But I will admit, that I do find some of the early episodes kind of clunky. But even the worse is watchable, and quickly you get some great episodes like the ones David mentioned. Still, there's no doubt that season 1 was the weakest of the five, and that the earliest part of season 1 was the weakest part of that season.

I definitely don't think that a handful of early episodes of season 1 is a fair barometer of the Dick Van Dyke show over it's run. On the other hand, if someone has watched season 2 including Bank Book 6565696, The Attempted Marriage, Don't Trip Over that Mountain, A Surpise Surprise is a Surprise and others, and you still don't like the show, then despite the fact that the show got even better in the following seasons, I think it has to be admitted the show is not for you, although I would have to admit to be fascinated to know what the favorite tv shows are of people who don't like the best of Dick Van Dyke.

 

[Jaime_Weinman]

I like The Dick Van Dyke Show. A lot. But I do agree with a lot of what Paul has said about the first season. A lot of the time, Reiner will set up an interesting story and then throw character and story development out of the window for "comic" set-pieces that crack the other characters up but leave me feeling unsatisfied, because there's so much story and character potential left unexplored, and because the comedy just isn't that fresh. (On a sitcom, the best comedy is IMO the kind that arises directly out of the story, which Rob's routines or Buddy's early wisecracks often didn't.) I feel this way even about some of Reiner's later scripts -- like "The Return of Edwin Carp," which has a great premise but an underdeveloped story and a frankly lame ending.

But as the show went on, Reiner and his other writers started doing more episodes where they really dug in and explored the themes they set up, and that made the show funnier and better. But if it had been cancelled after season 1, I'd definitely wonder what all the fuss was about.

 

[Carlos Garcia]

Ok this brings up a question I've been meaning to ask. As we can all more or less agree here, the first season of THE DICK VAN DYKE show is probably the weakest. There may be only a handful of episodes from season 1 that may be considered GREAT or even EXCELLENT. I feel the same way about THE MARY TYLER MOORE SHOW. Since the first season of that show was also probably the worst of the series, this may explain why sales of the show's first season DVD set were so poor that the rest of the show has yet to surface. My question is simple, why is season 1 of DICK VAN DYKE doing so well, when the episodes were the weakest of the series, and why are the other seasons being released so soon after season 1 came out? It seems to me that even if sales of season 1 would've been bad, the entire series would've been released regardless. Why not the same with MTM?

Carlos.

 

[Jaime_Weinman]

Carlos -- I think the general rule for a series is that all the seasons sell at about the same level. Most consumers don't buy a series on the basis of which season was the best (in part because not everyone remembers which episodes are from which season), but just to see their favorite show with their favorite characters.

A good example of this is the first season of The Simpsons. Now, I think the first season is excellent (the occasional crudities and rough edges more than made up for by the strong characterization and stories). But a lot of people feel that the show didn't really hit its stride until the second or even third season. For this reason, and because the characters look and sound a bit different, Fox was reportedly nervous about bringing out the first season first, fearing that it might disappoint people (I don't remember where I read that, but I do recall reading, a few months before Simpsons season 1 came out, that some people at Fox were worried about that). As it turned out, of course, the first season was a best-seller.

So I don't think MTM Season 1 sold poorly because of the flaws of the first season (the first season of MTM is better than the first season of Dick Van Dyke, anyway); it sold at a certain level because that was the level of demand for the series, overall. With Dick Van Dyke there seems to be a broader fanbase, and that fanbase doesn't necessarily mind that the first season is rough around the edges.

I can't help wondering, however, whether Image's decision to release season 1 and 2 at the same time had anything to do with the perception that the show really hit its stride in season 2 -- it gave people who don't like the first season (like me) the option of starting with the second season.

 

[David*P]

For those of you who haven't seen a lot of the Dick Van Dyke Show (like me) but would like a preview of what is contained on what sounds like the best DVD sets ever, TV Land will begin airing the first season on Tuesday March 16. It airs at 7 AM MST. That way you can gauge whether or not investing in the sets would be a good idea.

 

[george kaplan]

Then again, I'm one who did skip season 1 of the Simpsons, but have bought all the other ones since (and will continue to do so).

 

[David Von Pein]

I, too, agree that the comedy in sitcoms is better when it seems "real", and not seeming like the previous seven lines of dialogue are there only to "set up" the punchline on Page 8.

However, I strongly disagree with your assessment that TDVDS, at virtually any point during its 5-year tenure on CBS, bowed down to this kind of "setting up the gag" humor. I can find very few instances where that happened on that show at all. In fact, Carl Reiner specifically went to great lengths to ensure that that kind of thing didn't happen on his show.

In my view, Carl Reiner was brilliant by making the main characters of TDVDS a writing team, thereby any such "setting up a gag" type of situation in a script can very easily be turned into a legitimate "Realie" (as it were ), because these people ARE in show business.

It's been revealed, also, during the series that Buddy Sorrell's show-biz career extends well into the past, before he started writing for Alan Brady. So any of Buddy's "routines" are easily explained as being derived out of his own life experiences. (As you know, it must be quite hard to hold the tongue of "The Human Joke Machine" --- which was not only a moniker placed upon the shoulders of Morey Amsterdam, but in the very first episode of TDVDS, Rob introduces Buddy to party guests as just that, "The Human Joke Machine". So Buddy's spouting jokes night & day makes perfect sense to me. )

Now if Rob and Buddy and Sally had been insurance salesmen/(woman) -- which the network execs actually wanted! -- then many of the "performing" scenes we get on the show would stretch credibility indeed. But they aren't. They're in show biz. (With Laura's talent also fully realistic, due to the many flashbacks we see of her dancing in the USO shows. Therefore, her displaying this talent in later years doesn't seem far-fetched in the least.)

The TV series that stretched credibility the most, of course, was I Love Lucy (I'm sure we can all agree with that).

I think there are only a handful of completely believable episodes in that whole series, as well as any of Lucy's subsequent series, where a movie star just pops
up out of nowhere on "The Lucy Show" for no apparent realistic reason.

I realize that "Lucy" is a bit of a different "style" of writing and performing...but much of the basic outline (or overview) of I Love Lucy parallels that of the Van Dyke Show. I.E.: A husband-and-wife comedy series, with the hubby in show biz in some fashion. With a hubby-&-wife neighbor couple that figures prominently in many of the stories. But that's where the similarities end.

Absolutely nothing that Lucy Ricardo did could possibly even begin to fit inside our proverbial "Realistic Drawer". It's not that some of it isn't funny; but certainly not with the same believability factor that Rob & Laura & Gang possessed.

And while I like Lucy's "California Trip" episodes the best, TDVDS is miles & miles ahead of any Lucy outing....and shall forever remain there.

 

[DanFe]

Well, if my 13 year old kid can sit down and laugh out loud when he watches these shows, and when there is some of the trash comedy out there, then the DVD show is a total success. I love this show, every darn episode!

 

[Jaime_Weinman]

David VP --

Of course the comedy routines and such can be explained, within the show, as arising from Rob's job and his past experiences. But they often (IMO) don't have much to do with the story of the episode -- it is "realistic" that a comedy writer would act out a comedy routine, but it often strikes me as a distraction from the story. That would be jarring even if they were brilliant (which they usually aren't). It's not a question of believability, but a question of story structure. Lucy's slapstick routines may be unbelievable, but they always arise organically from the (unbelievable) stories, which makes them work. Or to take an example from the Dick Van Dyke Show, Rob's "post-hypnotic suggestion" in "My Husband is Not a Drunk" (an episode, BTW, that was ripped off point for point by the "Perfect Strangers" episode where Balki is hypnotized into thinking he's Elvis) is an excuse for Van Dyke to do his "drunk" act, and it makes for a less "realistic" episode than usual, but it works because it's part of the story, not a distraction from it.

A lot of the early Dick Van Dyke episodes strike me as the work of a talented writer who still had a lot to learn about structuring a sitcom story. Reiner, because of his work with "Your Show of Shows," had more prestige than most sitcom writers (because New York-based sketch comedy was considered to be higher art than L.A.-based sitcoms), but sitcom writing is quite different from sketch comedy, and some of his early sitcom scripts seem like sketches stretched out to 25 minutes and padded out with irrelevant schtick. I hasten to add that Reiner learned fast and was soon brilliantly teaching other writers about sitcom story structure.

 

[David Von Pein]

So you're saying Lucy's unbelievable slapstick within admittedly unbelievable storylines is better than Van Dyke's due to its "organic origins" within the ridiculously-outrageous stories which sparked it??

Hmmm....Curious. Most curious analysis, IMO.

I'd disagree again (re. Lucy). I don't enjoy the Lucy antics as much as TDVDS simply because, as is fairly evident, NOTHING about any of the crazy Lucy situations is the slightest bit realistic or believable. (Whether "organic" or otherwise. )

Plus, IMO, none of the V.Dyke material is ever "over the top", unlike Lucy, which is always way over the edge.

Exception to the above just might be the ep. Jaime referred to, "My Husband Is Not A Drunk", wherein we get a rather hard-to-believe scenario of Rob reacting to "bell rings" all day.

For one thing, I personally do not believe in THAT kind of hypnotism...the kind where a guy says a few well-chosen words, snaps his fingers, and suddenly a person is under his power. Silly. I don't believe it. WHY, then, couldn't ANYBODY ELSE (Rob, Laura, or you or me) simply do the very same thing and get the same hypnotic results? Why does it ONLY work for this "qualified hypnotist", when others could just as easily do the same thing and snap *their* fingers. Silly. I don't buy it. Kinda like UFOs...won't believe it until I see it in person.

But aside from my belief that THAT kind of random "non-drug-induced" hypnotism is simply not possible ... that particular Van Dyke ep. does "manipulate" the script in some ways to highlight Rob's malady....the most obvious and blatant is the way the phone rings once...then decides to NOT ring a second time for many, many seconds, thereby enabling Rob to stay "drunk" for these few extra seconds. Then we get two rings right on top of one another. Whose phone rings like that?? (Same thing with the office phone later in show.)

But, anyhoo, I still like even that episode because of the great cast, plus Rob's funny line, while "drunk" (and sobbing) to Mel -- "Just because I disobeyed you, you didn't have to cut off ALL your hair!!"

But that episode is, indeed, one I could never *fully* embrace with my normal 5-star Van Dyke passion, due to the hurdle about hypnotism in general that I cannot get around.

Interesting, too, that on the Commentary on that episode, Carl Reiner actually says that the network execs were concerned about viewers actually getting hypnotized right through their TV screens! I had to laugh at the prospect! HOW is that even remotely possible?? (Even if actor Charles Aidman WERE, in fact, a "qualified hypnotist"??) Impossible.

 

[David Von Pein]

This might be the best endorsement of all. Glad to hear this, Dan.



And always remember, my friend.....
"A second with you is like a year with an angry mob!" -- Buddy Sorrell

 

[george kaplan]

Well frankly I'm bothered by neither the structure of I Love Lucy or Dick Van Dyke. Both are great shows, amongst the best ever made, because, for the most part, they are very funny. The early episodes of Lucy are just as clunky as the early Dick Van Dyke ones, but it obviously got better, and I think that the best Lucy shows (e.g., road trip ones) rival the very best Dick Van Dyke shows (e.g., foot stuck in the bathtub, whatever that was called). But if I had to pick, I'd still take Dick Van Dyke as my #1 show of all time.

 

[Steve...O]

The thing that strikes me about the Van Dyke show is that it holds up very well. It doesn't seem dated nor is there any unintentional humor because we're watching it with 40 years hindsight. I also think it is a fairly realistic show which undoubtedly adds to its appeal. I lost track of how many times I thought that various season one episodes reminded me of a situation my wife and I have been in. That's timeless for you.

I understand and appreciate that not everybody is a fan of this show. Different people have different tastes and that is ok. For example, I have no desire to watch anything related to any incarnation of "Star Trek" or any of the science fiction genre shows.

However, I would definitely advise someone against a "blind buy" of a $50 DVD box set before sampling some of the shows which are aired on TV very regularly. Watching a few epsisodes should give you a flavor of whether or not you'll like the show enough to buy it.

Steve O

 

[Carlos Garcia]

Interesting comparison, I Love Lucy and Dick Van Dyke, but I really believe that while both shows do contain similar elements, comparing them is like comparing apples and oranges. Let's remember, it took a show like Lucy to pioneer such shows as Dick Van Dyke. I love both shows, and also the classic Honeymooners, but of the 3, I also realize the most unbelieveable is, by far, Lucy. In fact, the show's unbelieveability was basically the premise of the show. The point was Lucy's antics were so outrageous, we had to wonder why Ricky put up with her. It could have easily been called "I Love Lucy because if I didn't, I would've killed her years ago!"

Let's also remember that when we think Dick Van Dyke is better than a show like I Love Lucy, we are comparing a polished product, to a rougher one. When Lucy was done, there weren't many other shows to compare it with, so future shows definitely took elements from Lucy and added to it to create something either a bit different or better. How many of us haven't seen a situation first on Lucy, and later done again on another show? Didn't Ethel and Lucy have an intercom in one episode? Didn't Rob and Jerry also have one. Didn't Lucy introduce Ethel to a new neighbor, who Ethel got jealous at because Lucy had more in common with the neighbor than she did...only for us to find out later that Ethel had more in common with that new neighbor and now Lucy was the one who was jealous? Didn't this situation repeat itself basically complete on the last season of Dick Van Dyke with Laura and Millie? I'm sure if we went through episode by episode, we'll find something that originated somewhere else. The bottom line is, both shows are classics, and it's a crying shame today's television is no where near as funny as it was during the classic era of TV comedy.

Carlos.

 

[David Von Pein]

Well said, Carlos.
Thank you.


I like that one.

 

[Shawn_Sm]

Hi all, I'm new.

I am also enjoying my new Dick Van Dyke boxset this week. Obviously the people putting these sets together care about what they're doing. It's a shame not all of our favorite shows are treated with such delicate care. Like someone said in another post, any quibbles with these sets are very minor and do not detract from my enjoyment at all.

Did anyone notice the colorized photo on Disc 1 of S3. I'm sorry I don't remember the exact episode gallery it was in and I don't have the DVD handy right now to look but I believe it was episode 3. I'm pretty sure it was colorized from a B&W photo because the color was characteristic of that. But what do I know. I was watching on a 20 inch screen.

I had a thought about the lenticular for the last season, which I'm pretty sure hasn't been announced yet. Could it be the shot of Dick sidestepping the ottoman in the one alternate opening? I'm sure it was definitely considered.

How did everyone like that episode of the Danny Thomas Show? I haven't watched it yet but I was pretty excited when I read about it being included. I don't think I saw anyone mention it. I apologize if someone did, I did read this post but it was a few days ago and I may have forgotten a mention of it since.

Shawn

 

[Kevin Porter]

Just a reminder, my set is still up for sale or trade in the software trading/selling forum.



David, did you miss out on the whole Seinfeld revolution? You'd be hard pressed to find anybody who considers that sitcom predictable by any means. Same goes for one of my favorite shows of all time, Sports Night. David, if you're looking for great acting, great characters brilliant, wholly original writing and and a thoroughly entertaining experience look no further. And don't think that an interest in sports itself is a pre-requisite. To put it in more relatable terms, Aaron Sorkin to me (showrunner, writer or co-writer of all but 5 episodes in the series) is like Carl Reiner to you. You really should try it out. In fact, I think it's only fair that you try it out seeing as how I bought TDVDS based mostly on your good praises .

 

[David Von Pein]

I liked it. But it's a far cry from TDVDS. It's kind of interesting seeing Buddy Sorrell popping up on another show.

Anybody take note of how that Danny Thomas episode is virtually identical in storyline to the Van Dyke ep., "Ray Murdock's X-Ray", where Laura gets irate with Rob for having revealed her personal foibles on natl. TV?

Then there's also the mistake of having Buddy writing for someone other than Alan Brady. Because we discover during a S.1 episode that Buddy has an "exclusive contract" to write only for Alan Brady. And yet here we have Buddy apparently moonlighting as one of Danny Thomas' writers.

 

[David Von Pein]

Yep. Never have seen the appeal of that program.