"The Fugitive" (1963): Season 1; Volume 1 Rumored To Be In The Works! - Page 9

michael_ks · 08-06-2007, 10:43 AM

Quote:

I don't know that someone who has never seen a show is the proper reviewer for it. Okay, maybe they can be objective but it's hard, especially taking the show out of the context of it's time.

Exactly. And if you're going to use modern phrases like "babe of the week" and apply it to this show you've already dug yourself a hole at the onset because it was never the intent in "The Fugitive" or any other Quinn Martin production to purposefully introduce "eye candy" into every episode in case the story should happen to not grab the audience. Unlike what has been in vogue in television for the last 25 years.

Female actresses had to be attractive in the 50s and 60s, yes, more so than their male counterparts, a bias we carry to this day. But at least actresses were not the insipid drones we now have who sport cleavage and thigh in just about every shot in the crop of current shows. Quinn Martin was a keen observer of talent and insisted on getting the best his budget could afford, which is why exceptionally talented (and yes, pretty) actresses such as Suzanne Pleshette, Vera Miles and others were hired. But "The Fugitive", like so many other shows of its era also routinely showcased actresses who were far from the "cover girl" tv actresses that are ubiquitous today, women like Geraldine Brooks, Gail Kobe, Jacqueline Scott, etc.

AndyMcKinney · 08-06-2007, 11:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by michael_ks

Exactly. And if you're going to use modern phrases like "babe of the week" and apply it to this show you've already dug yourself a hole at the onset because it was never the intent in "The Fugitive" or any other Quinn Martin production to purposefully introduce "eye candy" into every episode in case the story should happen to not grab the audience. Unlike what has been in vogue in television for the last 25 years.

I don't think he was referring so much to "eye candy", but to the ludicrous idea that Kimble would fall "in love" with such a quick succession of women week after week (in the early days). As he later said, if the "romantic interest" stories had been more spread out, it would've have seemed so silly, but then, it's quite possible (probable) that this is more the fault of the network, as the TV networks in those days wanted shows to be produced in such a way that they could be run in any order, so they often put what "they" thought were the best shows first, which wasn't always the case (NBC picking "The Man Trap" as the premiere for Star Trek being a prime example).

Quote:

But at least actresses were not the insipid drones we now have who sport cleavage and thigh in just about every shot in the crop of current shows.

What shows have you been watching? I find that there are far more strong, realistic portrayals of women on TV now than during the '60s (or heck, even during the '70s and part of the '80s). The "strong female" is no longer confined to the older/homely/overweight/matronly (i.e. unattractive, or "character" actresses). Even the "pretty" ones can play strong, believable characters these days, and best I can recall, the women who were considered "strong" female types back in the '70s (think back to Charlie's Angels, Bionic Woman, Wonder Woman, etc.) were far less covered-up than the women on current TV dramas.

Now, if you are just talking about the women in Quinn Martin's shows, I'll give you that, but if you're implying that roles on TV for women were better in the '60s in general, you've got to be kidding! Even so-called "progressive" shows like Star Trek have some of the most chauvinistic portrayals of women of the time!

Colin Jacobson · 08-06-2007, 12:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gary OS

Bravo, Hank. That was very well said, and I "amen" every bit of it. There's just something inherently wrong with a person reviewing a dvd of the FUGITIVE television series whose only reference point was the film. It sets the person on the wrong track to begin with. Then when you add in the major difference in television written nearly 50 years ago with television and how it's written today, you have a recipe for a negative review. And that's clearly what happened.

Gary, why are you obsessed with the concept that you think I gave the show a negative review? I LIKED THE FRIGGING SHOW! I RECOMMENDED IT! What part of that don't you understand?

The snobbery and arrogance being bandied about here drives me up the wall. Basically Gary and some others think I can't review anything that came out before I was old enough to watch it first run or I can't "really appreciate it". That's absurd and insane.

My words have been twisted - such as the one that claims I didn't like the show's music - and some people here clearly have an agenda of some bizarre sort. Shouldn't you be HAPPY that folks of a younger generation can watch the show - and that one of us actually recommended it?

I appreciate that some folks really like the show - which is why I'm so puzzled that you're ANGRY I gave it a positive review!

There's nothing "inherently wrong" with me reviewing this show - that's the worst kind of elitism. By that thought process, I can't review anything made before 1975 or so. That ain't gonna happen. My opinion is just as valid as anyone who just happens to be old enough to have seen the series first run...

Colin Jacobson · 08-06-2007, 12:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by michael_ks

Exactly. And if you're going to use modern phrases like "babe of the week" and apply it to this show you've already dug yourself a hole at the onset because it was never the intent in "The Fugitive" or any other Quinn Martin production to purposefully introduce "eye candy" into every episode in case the story should happen to not grab the audience.

I "dug myself a hole" because I pointed out that the series used a similar theme in its first few episodes? "Babe of the week" had nothing to do with their looks, though obviously they weren't going to pair up Kimble with some hag. It had do to with the monotony of the theme - if every episode had Kimble fall in love with a new woman, the series would get old in a very rapid manner. It'd be preposterous as well as tiresome.

As I mentioned earlier, if they'd spread out those episodes across the whole season, they'd seem less ridiculous and distracting. The fact that they come in rapid succession makes them more noticeable and does harm to the show's impact.

Can even the rabid fanboys here argue it WASN'T silly to put all of those shows at the start? Yeah, I'm sure you will - any thought about the series that doesn't praise it to the hilt will be attacked here.

I'm REALLY REALLY sorry I ever bothered to post my review. I thought some folks would be happy to get an advance word about the set, but instead I've been attacked by people who can't see the forest for the trees. They're so damned proprietary about the show they don't want to let anyone else have access to it. This whole thread has become sad...

Gary OS · 08-06-2007, 12:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Colin Jacobson

Gary, why are you obsessed with the concept that you think I gave the show a negative review?

Colin, why are you obsessed with my comments in particular? Between you and Andy, I'd think there's an agenda to jump down my throat. There have been numerous comments, by numerous posters, about your review and yet you continue to focus on me. I'm going to politely suggest you take a chill pill (as the old saying goes).

Bottom line - you posted a public review and I'm posting my thoughts on that review. Sure, at the end of the day you gave the show a recommendation for viewing, but along the way you stated many things that can be, and obviously were, taken as being negative. A few different posters have mentioned some of those comments (music only so-so; too many love interests too quickly; "after school specials"; not enough action; etc). Frankly, I'm shocked that you are shocked that some of us didn't care all that much for your review.

Gary "as I said before, I'm not going to get into a p***ing match with you or Andy over this - let's just move on" O.

P.S. One point that needs clarification. You state that I believe anyone not old enough to have seen the series on it's first run isn't qualified to review it. That's beyond ridiculous and not true at all. I was born in 1965 so I certainly didn't have a chance to watch the show during it's initial run. Fact is, I didn't discover the show until the early 90's when it was aired on A&E. My point was that you emphasized early in your review that the film version [i.e. the "action" one] was what you knew about the show before you viewed the dvds. You then seemed to base much of your likes and dislikes around that film. For instance, you didn't seem to like the fact that we don't see the origin until episode 14, while the film gives it to us right away. Your review just gave me the impression that you were looking for something in the series that you had found in the movie - and I thought that was unfair and unrealistic. But I'm certainly not suggesting that because you were born after the show aired that you can't review it properly. Not at all.

michael_ks · 08-06-2007, 01:19 PM

I dunno know, Gary...I'm no slouch either when it comes to being sniped at by the two posters.

Gary OS · 08-06-2007, 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by michael_ks

I dunno know, Gary...I'm no slouch either when it comes to being sniped at by the two posters.

Yeah, I guess I'm not being singled out as much as I thought. It's nice to know I'm not the only jerk in the thread.

Gary "I vow not to respond to any more of this sniping - I'm only going forward from this point on in the thread" O.

JoshuaB. · 08-06-2007, 02:22 PM

Well as someone born in the late 70s, I'm really excited about The Fugitive coming to DVD this month. I first watched the series in the early 90s on a Detroit station and mostly on A&E (back when it actually played "arts and entertainment") and I loved David Janssen's performances as Kimble. I only saw the film version because of my exposure to the television series (the film did a good job of modernizing the premise, but I still prefer the TV series).

Though I'm not happy with the split season sets, I'm confident The Fugitive will sell well enough to have the entire series released--I just hope it doesn't take four years. I've long since thrown away my handful of tapes from A&E broadcasts, so seeing the series again after so long will be a treat!

AndyMcKinney · 08-06-2007, 02:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by michael_ks

I dunno know, Gary...I'm no slouch either when it comes to being sniped at by the two posters.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gary OS

Between you and Andy, I'd think there's an agenda to jump down my throat.

Sniping? I was merely pointing out what I felt was some people here going a bit overboard in their criticism of a fellow user who gave an overall positive review but (shock, horror) dared to post the tiniest bit of criticism.

Gary, I have no agenda against you, Michael or anyone else, nor do I have any specific agenda go "back up" Colin, necessarily.

I certainly have my own favourite shows and I don't always agree with what others say, however I do acknowledge their right to opinion, whether I agree or not. I don't bitch and complain when someone posts criticisms of old shows that I like. In fact, I can see flaws in practically every television show I've ever watched. Does that mean I don't enjoy them? No, of course not!

Colin raised some valid points, and what a few people here seem to misunderstand is his review was positive! Your immediate dismissal of his opinions, just because they don't agree with yours, is what I find objectionable. I don't understand how you think that's a "personal attack", unless you're very "think skinned."

I guess another reason I "rose to the defence" is that some of these reactions to Colin's review come across as snobbish, rude and a bit "threadcrappy" (if were were over at DVDTalk). Surely, we're all more mature than that.

Quote:

Gary "I vow not to respond to any more of this sniping - I'm only going forward from this point on in the thread" O.

Let's hope we can all put this to rest now.

Joe Karlosi · 08-06-2007, 06:11 PM

Have there been any reviews yet from people already familiar with the show who will know what music has been altered, or if any edits have been made?