- View New Content
- Blu-ray, DVD, Streaming Video and Digital Downloads
- Home Theater Hardware
- Theaters, Remotes and Accessories
- Equipment Reviews
- DVD & Blu-ray Reviews
- Other Diversions
- Bargains and Deals
- Feedback and Testing
- Latest Blu-ray Deals
- Shop Amazon & Support HTF
- Theater Photos
DVD & Blu-ray Reviews
- Equipment Reviews
Blu-ray Release Listings
- Shop Amazon
- Support HTF
Warner Archive Streaming Service has The Detective Shows!
96 replies to this topic
Posted March 11 2013 - 09:03 AM
It should also be noted that in some of the WB western shows much use was made of stock western exterior footage from old WB movies, which sometimes explains the curious wardrobe choices by the actors when trying to match the clips from the library. In MAVERICK I've seen plenty of old Dick Foran B western exterior shots with Max Steiner music from CASABLANCA playing on the soundtrack, LOL. I yield to no one in my fondness for WB movies of the 30's-40's and can state unequivocally that I can watch ANY movie they made from that period, so infatuated am I with their product and all its commensurate trappings. But having stated my loyalty to the studio from that era, my affection for periods after that is more qualified and I have no problem acknowledging that when it came to their television production of the 50's they were pretty cheap. In fact, in industry trades they prided themselves on creating and running a FORMULA to keep their television costs down and profitable . This shouldn't detract anyone from enjoying their output, but I'm sorry, their production values were not all that distinguished at that time. If fans like Randy can overlook that and appreciate what is there rather than what isn't, I agree with Gary and say more power to them. I don't think anyone is judging them for it, only stating personal preferences.
Posted March 11 2013 - 11:16 AM
Well said, Glen. I'm glad you brought up the use of stock footage, because that was another issue I was going to raise in terms of why the WB westerns are not my favorites. There's no doubt they were pretty liberal with use of that type of stuff. Once again, it takes something away for me when I see it in one of their shows. You also are spot on with the "formula" comment. It's true and there's really no denying it. Gary "take care, buddy" O.
Posted March 11 2013 - 07:38 PM
Warner made no bones about the disdain they had for television, even when they got into the business. Their first series ran forty minutes with the last ten just a promo for their movies. That showed how little regard they had. Not to mention the fact that they would take their scripts and recycle them between all of their shows. I know that for a certain age group these shows hold a big appeal, similar to my affinity for most of the mid-60s sitcoms. It all pretty much has to do with what was on when you were 8 years old.
Posted March 11 2013 - 07:45 PM
I agree with Mark that Hawaiian Eye was a cut above the rest of the Warner shows. I think it was because of Connie Stevens. Whereas the other little hotties were just there as window dressing, Connie was so cute and perky plus she was far more involved in the plots. For me anyway, that's why I find HE to be the only one of the detective shows that's watchable.
Posted March 11 2013 - 08:03 PM
"Maverick" to me is a brilliantly devised show, the best of Warner's westerns and more watchable than "Bonanza" or "Rawhide" from my standpoint. For me, the key element is never one of whether the show is predominatly studio or location based but first off, do I like the format, and second do I get to see some interesting actors come through along the way. "Bonanza" for me suffers from a premise I just can't buy with a straight face of a thrice-widower who just happens to have three different sons, one from each marriage. That plus the fact that Lorne Greene to me is Commander Adama, not Ben Cartwright (Bonanza went off the air when I was four years old and the show did not play in rerurns when I grew up) is another reason I can never adjust to it. Sure, the color and the location work I'm sure is better but if I want a Western with a strong family unit, frankly "The Big Valley" does a better job in that department from my standpoint. I can believe in the Barkley family a lot more than I can the Cartwrights. I've noticed pretty much the same thing with other westerns I've come to sample based on whether I like the format/leads etc. and if that'll mean I'll stay with it. This is coming from someone who fifteen years ago pretty much hated the western as a genre outright. Now, I regard "Gunsmoke" as one of the best shows of all time (half hour version), and I also find "Have Gun Will Travel", "The Virginian" and to a lesser extent "Wagon Train" to be solid versions of the western anthology format. Ultimately, I don't think I'm going to get any Warner westerns other than the rest of "Maverick" for the simple fact that the formats don't sound as intriguing and I'm more bothered by the fact that Warner would recycle scripts from show to show. Now that I've read Roger Moore mentioning how most of the scripts on "The Alaskans" were just recycled from the previous year's "Maverick" episodes, I pretty much lose any reason to think its going to be worth it iif it ever becomes available. The location/studio aspect of their production is in the end something that is never going to be a dealbreaker one way or the other with me.
Posted March 12 2013 - 02:13 AM
Gary Why do our disagreements always come down to: "my toys are better than yours":)
...When you eliminate the impossible whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth
Posted March 12 2013 - 03:28 AM
The Alaskans is worth it just to see the actors sweating to death wearing heavy parkas in 80 degree Hollywood temperatures!
Posted March 12 2013 - 06:06 AM
Quote:No problems, Randy. We just have different tastes in this regard. I'm just more sensitive (for lack of a better description) to the sound stage syndrome. And yes, pretty much all the westerns utilized them to one degree or another. I just feel like those well known WB westerns, as a whole, were worse about it than any other studio. That's all I'm saying. But to each his own. That's what makes the world go round. Gary "as to your question, all I can think to say is 'boys will be boys' - LOL" O.
Originally Posted by Randy Korstick Gary Why do our disagreements always come down to: "my toys are better than yours"
Posted March 13 2013 - 05:43 AM
"Maverick" to me is a brilliantly devised show, the best of Warner's westerns and more watchable than "Bonanza" or "Rawhide" from my standpoint. For me, the key element is never one of whether the show is predominatly studio or location based but first off, do I like the format, and second do I get to see some interesting actors come through along the way. "Ultimately, I don't think I'm going to get any Warner westerns other than the rest of "Maverick" for the simple fact that the formats don't sound as intriguing and I'm more bothered by the fact that Warner would recycle scripts from show to show. Now that I've read Roger Moore mentioning how most of the scripts on "The Alaskans" were just recycled from the previous year's "Maverick" episodes, I pretty much lose any reason to think its going to be worth it iif it ever becomes available. The location/studio aspect of their production is in the end something that is never going to be a dealbreaker one way or the other with me.I have been watching the first seaon of Maverick, and I believe that it's a really great show. What appeals to me about it, is that it seems to be made more in the spirit of an adventure than a drama. With shows like Bonanza or Gunsmoke, it always seems like there is someone either hardened by hate and thirsting for revenge or some family threatened by an insane killer, and that kind of plot generally has no appeal to me. I don't really care where a show was shot.
Posted March 13 2013 - 06:42 AM
I always found it fascinating that the show could remain so popular during its' original broadcast with all the changes, additions/subtractions to its' protagonists. Brett, Bart, Beau, etc. and of course "Pappy". I attribute that to its superior writing and actors.
See you at the pah-ty, Richter.
Posted March 13 2013 - 08:05 AM
Originally Posted by Richard V I always found it fascinating that the show could remain so popular during its' original broadcast with all the changes, additions/subtractions to its' protagonists. Brett, Bart, Beau, etc. and of course "Pappy". I attribute that to its superior writing and actors.In fact, the ratings fell off after the first episode of the third season in which they introduced "Pappy." According to Ed Robertson's book that episode took quite the critical drubbing at the time and began a steady decline for the series both in quality and popularity. I also think that particular episode is awful and while there are good ones still to come after it, I did lose interest when Garner left, even though I like Jack Kelly. The Roger Moore ones were a shot in the arm, though by that time they were coasting as far as scripts go. Moore was unhappy with the direction and bowed out, which then led to some truly desperate measures like the "lost" brother played by walking two-by-four Robert Colbert. The first two seasons of MAVERICK are brilliant work, but sadly they just couldn't or didn't maintain that excellence throughout the run.
Posted March 13 2013 - 08:28 AM
Mr. Robertson's book is wonderful, and I recommend it to every Maverick fan, but his analysis of the ratings comes a bit too directly from Roy Huggins. The ratings for the third season were indeed lower than those of the second, but they were significantly higher than the ratings of the first season. Huggins left the show and both he and Ed Robertson believe the show suffered a fatal blow when he departed. They may or may not be right from an artistic standpoint, but they are wrong from a commercial one. The show remained in the top 20 throughout the third year and was deemed a valuable enough property by Warner Brothers that they offered James Garner a lot of money to stay even after he successfully sued to end his contract. It was only when James Garner left that the ratings dropped precipitously.
Posted March 13 2013 - 09:22 AM
I wasn't aware of Robertson's bias toward Huggins, so that's interesting to learn. It should also be pointed out that according to sources the Jack Kelly episodes rated higher than the Garner ones, but who knows what to believe after all this time. Robertson does indicate that the show remained popular, but at a much lower level than previously. I would think the actual records of the ratings exist somewhere online, but I'm not so invested as to find out where, LOL. In any case, I do agree with Robertson about that single episode being the tipping point artistically and aesthetically and the show just never seemed as unique or innovative after that. Whether that can be attributed to Huggins leaving the series or they just naturally ran out of steam is a good subject for debate.
Posted March 13 2013 - 09:48 AM
The series ranked 6th in the second season and 19th in the third season. It was not in the top 30 for any other season, including the first. (As per Nielsen annual top 30 listings in Brooks and Marsh's Complete Directory to Primetime Television Shows.)
Posted March 22 2013 - 07:04 AM
Any news on when this service is to go mainstream?
See you at the pah-ty, Richter.
Posted March 22 2013 - 07:44 AM
Any news on when this service is to go mainstream?
Nothing yet. I did receive an e-mail from them after the beta test was over thanking me , asking to fill out a survey, and telling me when they do roll out the service I will get a free trial to see what has changed since the beta test.
Posted March 22 2013 - 03:59 PM
I used to watch the original TV screening of all these series in Australia and liked them. The Kookie Lend Me Your Comb 45rpm was released here. A few years back a couple of episodes of 77 Sunset Strip appeared on a VHS. I could not get into them. I would buy the DVDs sets and I hope I get a better feel for them. It was not usual for me to have a negative feel for these shows.
No mention has been made of Surfside Six(set in Miami) which I also watched. There was a 77 SS crossover episode with SS. SS also had music by way of the character Cha Cha O'Brien played by Marguerita Sierra as a nightclub singer. She died at about 25 of a sudden heart attack back then.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users