Good Morning, Vietnam was supposed to be a TV series like WKRP with the military elements of MAS*H but nobody was interested until it became a two-hour vehicle for Robin Williams’ improv.
Maverick was a very popular show. James Garner was not a sheriff, though there was an episode where he pretended to be one in order to solve some problem or other. He was a professional gambler, as was his brother, played by Jack Kelley. Hence their “dandified” clothes, and the references to riverboats in the theme song. James Garner left because of a contract dispute. Roger Moore was brought in to play a cousin, but the show tanked without Garner.
Cuoco
That seems to happen with most period TV shows. The writers wring as much as they can out of “look how different this decade was” in the first season and then have to revert to writing a normal television show. Even Mad Men had a lot more “wink and nod” 60’s jokes in it’s first season.
I was actually thinking about this last night as we watched a good – but not really good – British police procedural series. Among other cliches, there were scenes wherein both cop and criminal had guns but instead of shooting had a long and tedious discussion:
“You really don’t want to do this, Criminal Guy, now put the gun down”
“No, Copper, you’re the one who doesn’t want to do this . . .”
Blah, blah, blah until inevitably it looked like the copper was going to die then was saved at the last moment. These kind of scenes have become so gimmicky/hackneyed that they instantly take me out of the plot and cause intense eyerolling :rolleyes: *
I was thinking about the difference between this oft-repeated scene where a long and philosophical discussion is conducted while guns are pointed, then x, y, z happens, and shows like The Wire and The Sopranos (especially The Wire). ISTM that in 99% of cases this kind of chit chat probably doesn’t happen and death by gunfire is sudden with no discussion. In particular, I’m thinking about the scenes in Wire when Idris Elba and later Omar are suddenly and shockingly blown away without prelude.
In sum, this is a gimmick that isn’t often used in more excellent crime and punishment shows and I personally hope it goes the way of the dodo for lesser shows.
*My other eyerolls include the inevitable kidnapping by a rapist of the troubled female cop who was raped as a teen; the snatching of cops’ kids and/or wife as a negotiating tool; and the “this is OUR case, FBI guy, and we’re keeping it!!” tropes.
I found – and still do – the era setting of Laverne and Shirley (which was a* Happy Days* spinoff). Was it supposed to be the 50s? 60s? There was a lot of time slippage . . .
The natural progression of time could have taken L&S into the 1960s (in fact, Happy Days itself got into the 1960s that way), but, as you say, there was a lot of time slippage. In one episode of L&S, an acquaintance of theirs turns out to be a fan of Star Trek - a cliche’d costume wearing mega-fan-type that probably never really existed, and which wasn’t even imagined by an unsympathetic general public until the mid-1970s.
Did they also move the characters from Milwaukee to California? IIRC, other characters like Lenny, Squiggy, and Carmine came?
Yes, and yes.
The initial premise of the show was that it would explore how Jerry came up with his bits for his stand up act. For example he had a bit about how a perspective date’s profession has a big impact on women but none on men. The show that featured that bit had Jerry’s girlfriend break up with him because she did not respect him after seeing his act despite the fact that she was a cashier. It mostly lost that aspect and became the Larry David inspired comedy of manners that we are familiar with.
In the title sequence they show L & S air kissing an early Beatles poster, as far as I know that’s the only reference to the time period they were supposed to live in.
After the series moved its setting to California, I remember Laverne and a friend singing (I Can’t Get No) Satisfaction in one episode. That would put the timeline up to 1965.