The Green Hornet

[badwhale]

Ah well. But what about Star Trek as an example? That was corny as shit, but had T&A, so it worked?

To be honest, I've never seen any old Green Hornet footage.

Will

[CoventryCat86]

Ah well. But what about Star Trek as an example? That was corny as shit, but had T&A, so it worked?

To be honest, I've never seen any old Green Hornet footage.

Will

By today's standards, probably yes but back then it was hugely successful and had fans young and old. I would go so far to say the same for Batman but again, The Green Hornet was pretty bad.....it only lasted one season and it was not memorable.

Like George, I saw a couple of episodes on that ScyFy marathon a few weeks back and yep, that confirmed to me my vague memories of how poor that show was.

[badwhale]

God. Now I spent 5 minutes watching old Green Hornet footage on youtube. Yeah, it sucks, even with Bruce Lee.

Anyway, maybe the new movie is totally different and good.

Will

[heftysmokes]

By today's standards, probably yes but back then it was hugely successful and had fans young and old.

I don't know if you can really classify being nearly axed after the first season and only lasting a total of three seasons a huge hit. Cult following, maybe.
I think they're probably more popular now than they were when they originally aired.

[ggiese]

I don't know if you can really classify being nearly axed after the first season and only lasting a total of three seasons a huge hit. Cult following, maybe.
I think they're probably more popular now than they were when they originally aired.

I recall that Star Trek was not cut from the same cloth as a lot of the other programs on TV at the time. Some thinking at that time is we were going to a place that we perhaps should not. Space exploration and interaction with other space "cultures"? There was even a bit of reversion to the the "psychodelic" qualities of the show - the surreal, almost "acid tripping" kind of feeling some may have perceived while watching it. There was a fair amount of parents shielding their children's eyes from a perception that Star Trek may permanently destroy their child. Despite all of the "controversy", Star Trek still had a very significant following.

I do distinctly recall that at that time, Gene Roddenberry was nearly equally villified and worshipped for his show. Star Trek really did raise eyebrows and it's hard to argue that it was not influential in changes going forward to the way shows were written and produced. The fact that Star Trek had only three seasons on air seemed to me was more caused by the cast conflicts (it's since come out that William Shatner was incredibly hard to work with), versus a lack of viewers.

Batman even saw a pretty significant "evolution" during the time it was airing. Intially - it really was a show that was likely produced for a "younger" viewer (mainly children). I'm sure advertisers were very influential in changing the format of the show - trying to pull in viewers that would spend more money with advertisers. It seems it was at that time the more shapely, "sexy" actors were added to the cast. Once that seemed to be striking a chord with viewers, it seemed the "floodgate" opened...

[heftysmokes]

I think the whole point is, good stuff can come from bad, or at the very least ill-conceived, ideas. And to dismiss the new Green Hornet movie because the original tv show was bad is a little narrow. Besides, it was a good comic book before it was a bad tv show!

I thought the original Star Trek was stupid. True, I only saw it in reruns but I still gave the new Star Trek movie a chance...and I loved it.

And I may be younger, but I did spend the first 13 years of my life with a whopping 2 channels and a movie theater 30 miles away, so my entertainment choices were "limited" at best.

[ashauler]

Yep, I remember 3 channels very, very well.

I'll probably go see the movie 'cuz it sounds mindless and funny, which just happens to be what I look for in my entertainment. I don't go to movies to be educated, or to delve into meaningful social elements.....just some popcorn and laughter.

If I want social commentary or historical perspective, I'll stick with Gilligan and the girls on the island, and Hogans Heroes. Now both of those shows have a hell of a lot to offer.

[badwhale]

Yep, I remember 3 channels very, very well.

I'll probably go see the movie 'cuz it sounds mindless and funny, which just happens to be what I look for in my entertainment. I don't go to movies to be educated, or to delve into meaningful social elements.....just some popcorn and laughter.

If I want social commentary or historical perspective, I'll stick with Gilligan and the girls on the island, and Hogans Heroes. Now both of those shows have a hell of a lot to offer.

Ginger.....Mmmmm

For me, as far as great storylines & acting in TV series, I go with Airwolf. I wish they'd re-make that into a movie.

[ggiese]

Ah well. But what about Star Trek as an example? That was corny as shit, but had T&A, so it worked?

To be honest, I've never seen any old Green Hornet footage.

Will

It is so hard to describe the sucess of those programs in a way that would make sense to a younger generation - a generation that has been filled with entertainment options that were not available during that time.

Star Trek definitely had the chick thing (T&A) going for it, but more importantly - had "state of the art" special effects. you may be too young to remember, but the original recitation in the the radio version of "War of the Worlds" caused widespread panic because people seriously thought Orson Wells was describing an actual event. It was a very naive time.

During that time, Star Trek was very intriguing. It was filled with all kinds of gadgetry and effects no one had ever seen on TV before. They were defintely "cutting edge" at that time. The best way for someone to perhaps kinda/sorta understand it - Watch an old original Flash Gordon episode, and then watch a Star Trek episode. They were worlds apart, yet kinda cut from the same cloth...

However - changes in attitudes were coming. Green Hornet (like a number of other programs on TV at that time) had some of the "old school" mentality of leveraging the success of how things had previously worked, leading the producers to think they should stick to the way things had been done as a means of creating a successful program. They failed miserably...

Add to that - TV at that time had a VERY captive audience. There was not much choice - perhaps 3 or 5 channels - maybe 10, if you lived near a large urban area. And most of the TV stations were filled with silly or "boring" programs. Days were either soap operas or game shows (geared toward the female "work at home audience") and evenings were filled with the news broadcasts followed by the "big production" shows (like Star Trek). The shows were intended to "entertain" those hard working men that had slaved all day and needed something to relax to.

People at that time latched on to one or two shows they were most interested in (Bonanza, Mission Impossible, Star Trek, Hogan's Heroes, etc.) All either had "cliffhangers" or some kind of appeal that created anticipation for the next episode a week later.

What's interesting about this discussion, though - while growing up I was equally intrigued with why the "old timer's" still liked to listen radio broadcasts when TV was so much more "advanced". It seemed to silly. I'd point to shows like Star Trek as a measure of how things had changed since "back then" and use it as an illustration of the "boring" factor of radio. Not to dissimilar to the younger folks not understanding why an older generation would hang on to the original episodes of Star Trek.