Classic TV show you should be into/couldn’t get into (1 Viewer)

[Desslar]

Interesting points. No wrong answers on this thread, as it’s all subjective. It’s been over a decade since I watched Ironside, but I think a level of camaraderie does develop between Burr and his staff. As I recall Mark Sanger was pretty bristly in the early episodes. And I recall some later episodes where tragedy befalls “the Chief” and they get pretty teary eyed.

Regarding the theme, I remember it seeming cool and kids imitating that sound on the playground back in the 70’s…still like it.

I'll definitely give Ironside another look. Maybe the later seasons will strike me differently.

I'm trying so hard to like 'The Rockford Files'. Season 1 at about halfway through has done nothing for me, and I'm a fan of James Garner. Crossing my fingers something clicks before I pull the plug.

When I was a kid and first encountered Rockford in syndication I certainly would have agreed with you. At the time I couldn't get past the extremely 70s theme music and actionless montage in the intro, and Jim Rockford didn't really fit the flashy crimefighter mold I was used to from characters like Magnum, Matt Houston, and Sonny Crockett.

But over the years I read so many favorable comments about Rockford Files online that eventually I broke down and started watching it on Netflix (back when Netflix cared about classic TV).

Now I think it is one of the best PI shows, and has aged very well.

The locations are great and the show is slickly shot in general. Rockford's investigations take him and the viewer to all kinds of locations across over the LA area.

Rockford is an unusual hero for a U.S. series. Generally a well-intentioned good guy, but not necessarily always noble, gentlemanly or ethical. Not afraid to turn and run, or to fight, and he often ends up getting his head handed to him when he chooses the latter option. I like that he always calls people on their BS (even allegedly "good" people, and I think indirectly the screenwriters sometimes). So he is a very interesting character to watch, as he rarely does what others expect him to do.

And, although there is nothing about Rockford's demeanor to suggest he would be a hotshot driver, the occasional car chases are well done.

 

[jayembee]

Star Trek: TNG has it's share of episodes I skip over, especially in seasons 1 and 7. Compared to the Star Trek tripe on Paramount+ today, it's a masterpiece follow-up to classic Trek is not eclipsed by the acting and stories of DS9.

I've always felt that that TNG is a perfect example of a bell curve. Otherwise, I can't agree with you at all. I loved TOS back in the 60s. I still like a lot of it, but find a lot of episodes cringe. DS9 is still my favorite Trek series, but I love all of the current Trek shows (except Prodigy, which I haven't watched at all -- seems aimed at too young an age bracket for me).

 

[Bryan^H]

• Airwolf - I'm surprised at how well this series holds up, especially the first season. However, yeah, at some point, they decided to make this a message show. I wouldn't mind, but those episodes are just so heavy handed. However, the series is great fun and one of my favorites.
• Emergency! - I may be a little dry sometimes, but it's always been a favorite.
• Dallas - OMG this series is so fun to watch. Up to the 8th season or so, it's great. After the cast starts dropping off, though, these get dodgy.
• The A-Team - this was cheesy by design. It was goofy fun then and is goofy fun now.
• Buck Rogers - one of my favorite shows. Even at its worst.
• Knight Rider - see The A Team.
• Cosby - how has this series not turned cringey? Cosby man... Still, I can sit through I, Spy
• Magnum, PI - insanely good series
• Star Trek: The Next Generation - loved it when it was on, it's dull as dirt today.

Original Galactica is still one of my favorite shows. Many of the single part episodes tend to fall flat, but not all. And the two part episodes are amazingly good television!

Buck Rogers is escapism in its purest form. I love the BD set.

the problem with Star Trek TNG is the familiarity I have with it. It is so unfortunate that I know the episodes so well. I wish I could see it again for the first time. I'm going to give it a break for a few years, and hopefully I'll be excited to watch it again.

________________________________________________________

 

[bmasters9]

The locations are great and the show is slickly shot in general. Rockford's investigations take him and the viewer to all kinds of locations across over the LA area.

Same way on The Streets of San Francisco on ABC-- the investigations of Lt. Mike Stone and Insp. Steve Keller (and Insp. Dan Robbins in the fifth and final go, 1976-77) go practically anywhere in the Bay Area (San Francisco, Oakland, and pretty much anywhere else in that region).

 

[FWAJMB]

I absolutely agree. This forum is a breath of fresh air on the interwebs. Other than the occasional heated exchange, mostly because of misunderstanding, this is a great group of people who share the same interest. If not in the details, at least in the overall topic of classic television. Some of the differing opinions have actually gotten me to rethin my stance and give shows I once dismissed another chance.

Airwolf could be amazingly good when it was hitting all the right boxes. Even as late as the third season, the show could deliver. But you can also see JMV losing his focus as his problems deepened. It was a shame, he was a good looking, interesting and intense actor. And while the intentions were good, Hawke hiking with paraplegics (who were being picked up by a crazy hunter of all things) and being a big brother to a mentally challenged boy wasn't - quite - why I tuned in every week. The series had a very small sense of closure when Hawke took in a little boy who may or may not have been his nephew, but thankfully we didn't see the adventures of Daddy String, as the series was cancelled with that episode. The series was victim to a network which couldn't leave the series alone. It was kind of popular in my age group but not a huge ratings winner. So they kept toying with the format, making Stringfellow more cuddly and the series more action oriented.

TNG had some amazing highs, but after the 3rd season (a year I consider to be nearly perfect) it began to focus more on family drama and message stories. There was a strict format of a and b plot and the b plot always had to be the Enterprise in some kind of jeopardy. The techobabble became heavy (with its apex on Voyager), but I still love the cast and, agreed, it's the best ensemble next to DS9. Most of today's Trek is lost on me.

I don't want to take this thread in the wrong direction, but:

1. The world may (or may not) be on the verge of ripping itself apart, so what a welcomed distraction to discuss our agreements and disagreements about classic TV without any radioactive fallout.

2. I really liked JMV in The Winds of War and which he had stayed on for War and Remembrance. BOTH of these series deserve a full restoration and re-issue on Blu-ray.

 

[Desslar]

Some shows that I liked as a kid I have a hard time with now. I used to enjoy Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea and Space: 1999. Now I find them dull as dishwater for the most part. I know both of these shows have rabid fanbases and I don't wish to crap on anyone's favorites. These two just don't do it for me. It's a controversial opinion, I'm sure, but I don't find Richard Baseheart, fine actor though he was, a compelling lead in VOTTBOTS. That show is just crying out for a William Shatner larger-than-life figure to pump some life into it. And Martin Landau and Barbara Bain - both so good in the first three seasons of Mission: Impossible - seem so dramatically inert and robotic on Space: 1999. The tech, props, ships, music etc. on both of these shows are great, but the stories and characters fall flat for me. I want to like these two, but it's a struggle for me to make it through an entire episode these days.

I'm not a big fan of Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea either. Seems like a low-rent version of Star Trek both in terms of visuals and stories (although I guess it pioneered this exploration of the unknown genre), with much less charisma as you pointed out (David Hedison always bores me for some reason). I do really like the submarine design, but the show primarily unfolds on very underwhelming interior sets. As I recall, the office of the captain of this highly futuristic vessel is adorned with an ordinary 1960s office desk and telephone (!).

Space 1999 on the other hand I think holds up quite well. The sets and effects were amazing for the time and still look pretty good today. If only Star Trek:TOS had looked this good. Yes, this is a another show like Mission Impossible and Hawaii Five-O where the cast isn't allowed to have much personality, but there's so much crazy stuff going on that they're usually too busy running for their lives to stop for a monologue anyway. And the show is surprisingly dark at times, with even featured cast members meeting grisly deaths. That's something we wouldn't see again in U.S. Sci-fi TV until... Well, I don't know. Have we seen it again?

 

[FWAJMB]

I don't want to take this thread in the wrong direction, but:

1. The world may (or may not) be on the verge of ripping itself apart, so what a welcomed distraction to discuss our agreements and disagreements about classic TV without any radioactive fallout.

2. I really liked JMV in The Winds of War and which he had stayed on for War and Remembrance. BOTH of these series deserve a full restoration and re-issue on Blu-ray.

Season 3 of TNG was nearly perfect. Watching Picard season 2 now, the Borg have been milked to death.

Funny you mention the technobabble. I saw an interview once where someone said the scripts had entries for "insert technobabble" and one of the science advisers would come up with something later by the time the episode was being filmed.

 

[FWAJMB]

I'm not a big fan of Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea either. Seems like a low-rent version of Star Trek (although I guess it pioneered this exploration of the unknown genre), with much less charisma as you pointed out (David Hedison always bores me for some reason). I do really like the submarine design, but the show primarily unfolds on very underwhelming interior sets. As I recall, the office of the captain of this highly futuristic vessel is adorned with an ordinary 1960s office desk and telephone (!).

Space 1999 on the other hand I think holds up quite well. The sets and effects were amazing for the time and still look pretty good today. If only Star Trek:TOS had looked this good. Yes, this is a another show like Mission Impossible and Hawaii Five-O where the cast isn't allowed to have much personality, but there's so much crazy stuff going on that they're usually too busy running for their lives to stop for a monologue anyway. And the show is surprisingly dark at times, with even featured cast members meeting grisly deaths. That's something we wouldn't see again in U.S. Sci-fi TV until... Well, I don't know. Have we seen it again?

I have fond memories of Space: 1999 through the eyes of a 9-year old boy. More so, I think it was the connection of watching my dad watch Space:1999 and realizing there was something pretty col about the realism of the show. I lived in Fort Wayne, Indiana, and we had just gotten our first independent TV station, and they seemed to offer a lot of hard to find shows. Just recently, I splurged on the Blu-ray of the series. It LOOKS incredible! The effects shots with the Eagles LOOK incredible! The opening music is like a disco orgasm for nerds. Some episodes definitely do not hold up well while others are rather poignant. Some great guest stars like Christopher Lee, Peter Cushing and Jeremy Kemp. The big takeaway as I wrap up season 1 is Martin Landau was hopelessly miscast. He's not leader material, yells a lot and jumps to conclusions in a way Capt. Kirk never would have.

Isn't it sad/funny how I waited 40 years to see Space:1999 in HD?

And when will we get DS9 in HD?

 

[ScottRE]

I'm not a big fan of Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea either. Seems like a low-rent version of Star Trek both in terms of visuals and stories (although I guess it pioneered this exploration of the unknown genre), with much less charisma as you pointed out (David Hedison always bores me for some reason). I do really like the submarine design, but the show primarily unfolds on very underwhelming interior sets. As I recall, the office of the captain of this highly futuristic vessel is adorned with an ordinary 1960s office desk and telephone (!).

Space 1999 on the other hand I think holds up quite well. The sets and effects were amazing for the time and still look pretty good today. If only Star Trek:TOS had looked this good. Yes, this is a another show like Mission Impossible and Hawaii Five-O where the cast isn't allowed to have much personality, but there's so much crazy stuff going on that they're usually too busy running for their lives to stop for a monologue anyway. And the show is surprisingly dark at times, with even featured cast members meeting grisly deaths. That's something we wouldn't see again in U.S. Sci-fi TV until... Well, I don't know. Have we seen it again?

Voyage's visuals are the one thing that do still hold up better than Star Trek's. In camera model effects don't have the same degradation in film as green screen and matte work does. So the Seaview looks amazing as she cruises the seas, especially in the color episodes. The Flying Sub is a beautiful miniature and it looks great against the daylight skies even today. Whatever faults the series had in story and characterization, visually, Irwin Allen's shows tended to look great. Unlike Trek, it became the ultimate bottle show with nearly every episode in the last two seasons taking place on standing sets. While Trek didn't venture out that often in the last season, they did hit location more often.

I'll disagree about the actors, as I feel they did the best they could with some very thin material, but I get that people find Hedison's work a little dull. He didn't have the chops Basehart did, but he was in there giving it 110% every week. Basehart could work magic with a limp script. Irwin Allen knew what he was doing casting him.

Space:1999 looks insanely good in HD. It's a visual treat, and even in widescreen on the Network "movie" blu rays, it looks amazing.

 

[Desslar]

Same way on The Streets of San Francisco on ABC-- the investigations of Lt. Mike Stone and Insp. Steve Keller (and Insp. Dan Robbins in the fifth and final go, 1976-77) go practically anywhere in the Bay Area (San Francisco, Oakland, and pretty much anywhere else in that region).

Definitely, Streets of San Francisco is also amazing for locations. I would put both shows on the All Star team for 70s location shooting, along with maybe Columbo, Police Story, Police Woman, Movin' On, CHiPS, and Vegas.

 

[jayembee]

And when will we get DS9 in HD?

Probably never. DS9 has its fanbase (and is often mentioned as people's favorite of the Trek shows) but it's not a large enough one for Paramount to want to spend the money to create HD masters. Like a lot of CGI-heavy shows (including TNG and Voyager) the effects were rendered in Standard Def, and the post-production was done on SD video. In order to create HD masters, they'd have to re-render the CGI (or create it anew from square one) at HD resolution, and re-composite and re-edit all 176 episodes from scratch.

They were willing to try that with TNG, but not with either DS9 or Voyager. Maybe if the costs decrease enough, they might give it a shot, or decide that having it in HD for streaming purposes will make it worthwhile. But I wouldn't hold my breath.

 

[BobO'Link]

Until Star Trek: The Next Generation was mentioned I'd totally forgotten how I feel about this one.

It's absolutely one of those "made for me" series, yet I just can't get into it. From the pilot, "The Encounter at Farpoint," to the last episode the bulk of it just falls completely flat. And I *love* Star Trek. The original series is one of my all-time-favorite TV series.

There are just so many things that don't work for me with ST:TNG that they make it my least favorite Trek series and one I rarely rewatch - maybe once every 3 or 4 years. Conversely, I rewatch TOS at least once if not twice a year, DS9 and Voyager get rewatches every 12-18 mo. with Enterprise getting 18-24 month rewatches. In spite of that I *do* think the remastered vfx version is very well done and much better than the "remastered" VFX of TOS (I only watch that one with original vfx/audio).

 

[jcroy]

In spite of that I *do* think the remastered vfx version is very well done and much better than the "remastered" VFX of TOS (I only watch that one with original vfx/audio).

The ST:TOS daily reruns on various basic cable channels I watch, seems to be mostly the redone special effects with the screen delibrately tilt-n-scan cropped to 16:9.

IIRC, this particular redone fx + 16:9 cropped mutant variant of ST:TOS was actually listed in the cbs syndication bible.

Syndication Bible

synbible.cbstvd.com

 

[ScottRE]

In spite of that I *do* think the remastered vfx version is very well done and much better than the "remastered" VFX of TOS (I only watch that one with original vfx/audio).

100% agreed here. I don't know how many shots were rebuilt vs cleaned up, but the series looks amazing. TOS, IMO, doesn't have the same feel. It always looks like we're going to a different TV series when we hit the new FX.

 

[Desslar]

I felt the same way about Cannon-- I had VEI's condensed all-in-one of that 1971-76 CBS mystery/action series w/the late, great William Conrad in the title role, and for some reason (I think it was because it was set and filmed out in the middle of nowhere, among other things), I never could get into that series (as hit of a series as it was for William Conrad then).

That's an interesting comment about Cannon being filmed in the middle of nowhere. It's true that every episode I've seen seems to be set in some nondescript and very dull rural location. Is he supposed to be a small town detective?

Another issue I have with Cannon is that he just doesn't seem believable as a tough as nails detective to me. Especially when he is required to run, "intimidating" is not the word that comes to mind.

 

[bmasters9]

That's an interesting comment about Cannon being filmed in the middle of nowhere. It's true that every episode I've seen seems to be set in some nondescript and very dull rural location. Is he supposed to be a small town detective?

I think he and Barnaby Jones were like that (I may be incorrect about that, though).

 

[ScottRE]

Probably never. DS9 has its fanbase (and is often mentioned as people's favorite of the Trek shows) but it's not a large enough one for Paramount to want to spend the money to create HD masters. Like a lot of CGI-heavy shows (including TNG and Voyager) the effects were rendered in Standard Def, and the post-production was done on SD video. In order to create HD masters, they'd have to re-render the CGI (or create it anew from square one) at HD resolution, and re-composite and re-edit all 176 episodes from scratch.

They were willing to try that with TNG, but not with either DS9 or Voyager. Maybe if the costs decrease enough, they might give it a shot, or decide that having it in HD for streaming purposes will make it worthwhile. But I wouldn't hold my breath.

It didn't help that the Blu Rays of TNG didn't sell nearly as well as they hoped. DS9 was never a ratings juggernaut like TNG was, apparently, and all those episodes make it too big and expensive a project to tackle. Ironically, if DS9 had failed and been cancelled after a couple of seasons, it may have stood a better chance. SeaQuest DSV has been restored and it looks amazing. There's no chance the SeaQuest fanbase is as large as DS9's, but the fact that it lasted a mere 2 and a half seasons probably made the project more manageable financially.

But, I will allow that as a way to keep it alive for streaming may tip it towards restoration one day. Maybe not a physical release, but streaming? It may just save a few Trek shows.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

I recall reading back at the time that the TNG seasons on BD were selling less than 3000 copies each, with each new volume selling less than the previous one. You can’t recoup a multi-million dollar investment that way. For years, fans said they wanted exactly that release, and then didn’t show up to support it. That’s why I mentioned in our Star Trek thread that anyone who wants to support more older Trek being remastered should give serious consideration to signing up for Paramount+ to watch the restoration of Star Trek: The Motion Picture on or near its release date (supposedly 4/5). Paramount+ went out on a limb financing something that the company has wanted to do for years but could not find a path to profitability for previously. I think this is the one shot. If too many people make the perfect the enemy of the good and say “I’ll wait for it to come out on disc” or “I don’t like streaming on principle,” then I think we are looking at the final nail in the coffin on DS9 and Voyager ever being remastered in HD. On the other hand, if the viewership numbers meet or exceed what Paramount+ expected when they greenlit the work, future projects may be possible.

 

[Doug Wallen]

Our household was a very involved "television" household. My father was a factory worker (Whirlpool - icemaker division) and he would come home tired and enjoyed watching lots of prime time series of the 60's and 70's. As was the case, the first show of the evening decided where the channel stayed throughout the evening. So, we were basically a CBS family, with forays into NBC for a variety (that was how I found Star Trek).

Obviously, there were westerns aplenty. But it seemed like the nights I really wanted to watch shows were Sunday night and Wednesday (unavailable due to church and midweek Bible study). I was always missing what happened with Disney, Ed Sullivan, Batman and Lost In Space.

By the time I got home on Sunday, there was Bonanza - cool theme song but not enough western "action" for me. I do own vrious seasons now because I found them for $5.00 at Big Lots and they are better than I remember. I remember that my Mom enjoyed the medical shows (Dr. Kildare and Ben Casey) but I just didn't enjoy them. Same way I felt about The Fugitive. I wanted to like The Lucy Show, but it just seemed the same type stunts, same with Here's Lucy.

Gunsmoke was always intriguing as well as The Wild Wild West and the modern spy take, The Man From U.N.C.L.E. . Get Smart was a favorite then, not so much now. I really enjoyed the detectives (Mannix, Cannon, Ironside and to a lesser degree, Barnaby Jones. Lee Meriwether was the deciding factor in that one).

I got hooked on Perry Mason, The Rifleman, Cheyenne, Sugarfoot and Dark Shadows as they were syndicated and played in the afternoon when I came home from school. Still couldn't get into the Cartwright clan. Once owning shows became a thing, I started collecting anything that I remembered from that period (whether it was any good or not). I ended up with several series that I remembered foundly but truly had no interest in owning.

Collecting has caused me to be much more discriminating about purchases. Growing up, I was wild for comedies and enjoyed them all. Now that I am in my 60's, I don't feel as warmly to them. I own I Love Lucy, and that is mostly for all the stated "historical" reasons. I do find some episodes funny. I also have The Andy Griffith Show and most times I feel the same way about it. They are classic for a reason, andI feel I should have them if for nothing else to show my son what shows I grew up watching. Hard pass on Gilligan, Jackie Gleason, Laugh-In, Hogan, Carol Burnett and the Lear shows.

Great topic and very interesting discussion.

 

[bmasters9]

Once owning shows became a thing, I started collecting anything that I remembered from that period (whether it was any good or not). I ended up with several series that I remembered foundly but truly had no interest in owning.

That's what I did too-- anything and everything from the 80s, I bought, mainly to see if I could enjoy what was on during my childhood. A few things, I did indeed enjoy (Hardcastle and McCormick and Riptide, among them), but most have not held up all that well (but how was I to know how they would hold up, if not for the purchases and trials?).