NBC to remake "Rockford Files"; David Shore to be show runner
Adam H. Kerman
http://variety.com/article/VR1118006650.html?categoryid=14&cs=1
I wonder if any of the original flavor created by Roy Huggins and
Stephen J. Cannell will survive, and I wonder if they understand the
need to carefully cast the role capable of an easy going charm and
subtle humor.
No more Pontiac Firebird! No more Pontiac division at all!
KegHead
I hope this is a go!
KegHead
AlbertClarkson
Haven't checked in here for a while. Good timing! Along with you I
hope Shore brings back some of the original flavor and that the
younger audience will go for easy-going charm and subtle humor. Maybe
there is some nostalgia, even if misplaced sometimes, for some things
about the 70s during this recession. Shore to me is a promising
choice. "House" gets old soon but at least the character is something
of a maverick. I like what Shore said about the good impact of TRF on
him when he was coming up. Agree, casting will be fascinating and I
hope inspired. But no eps should be set in Jersey.
AlbertClarkson
"...carefully cast the role...." Josh Brolin?
JJ Meeker
show. Still, NBC seems bent on doing remakes and screwing them up. I'm
surprised Rockford fans would be positive about this.
Adam H. Kerman
>"...carefully cast the role...." Josh Brolin?
I don't think so.
Garner was a few years older, anyway.
AlbertClarkson
> AlbertClarkson <agclark...@aol.com> wrote:
> >"...carefully cast the role...." Josh Brolin?
>
> I don't think so.
>
> Garner was a few years older, anyway.
True. But by the time NBC gets its act together, maybe the age
difference won't be too great! Though I'm hoping NBC gets with it
sooner than later.
Adam H. Kerman
I don't want James Garner to have a relapse. Jim is off fishing with his
father, retired from detective work and getting beaten up because his
lying client set him up.
Pravda
Great news, Kerman, but what's even more amazing is that you actually
posted a quality, relevant message that also broke news about the most
important thing relating to "The Rockford Files" since the DVD
releases. After years of striking out by posting messages about
"Marlowe" and obituaries of D-list "celebrities", you finally hit a
home run with this post. Your batting average in this newsgroup just
went up a few points.
So what do you think, Kerman. Will they go with the "bastard son"
cliche?
Adam H. Kerman
>Great news, Kerman, but what's even more amazing is that you actually
>posted a quality, relevant message that also broke news about the most
>important thing relating to "The Rockford Files" since the DVD
>releases. After years of striking out by posting messages about
>"Marlowe" and obituaries of D-list "celebrities", you finally hit a
>home run with this post. Your batting average in this newsgroup just
>went up a few points.
>So what do you think, Kerman. Will they go with the "bastard son"
>cliche?
Thanks for letting Usenet know that you continue to be nothing more than
a whiney little bitch who has never once made an on topic post in this
or any other newsgroup, in case I was wondering. I wasn't, of course.
Pravda
Well, I was basically complimenting you in the post I made. I guess
you haven't changed much either when you respond to a compliment with
your trademark prickliness.
Sorry, I can't sit back and give you a free pass for the way you've
marginalized this newsgroup over the years.
Adam H. Kerman
>On Aug 8, 12:23 pm, "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>>Pravda <c18tza...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>Great news, Kerman, but what's even more amazing is that you actually
>>>posted a quality, relevant message that also broke news about the most
>>>important thing relating to "The Rockford Files" since the DVD
>>>releases. After years of striking out by posting messages about
>>>"Marlowe" and obituaries of D-list "celebrities", you finally hit a
>>>home run with this post. Your batting average in this newsgroup just
>>>went up a few points.
>>>So what do you think, Kerman. Will they go with the "bastard son"
>>>cliche?
>>Thanks for letting Usenet know that you continue to be nothing more than
>>a whiney little bitch who has never once made an on topic post in this
>>or any other newsgroup, in case I was wondering. I wasn't, of course.
>Well, I was basically complimenting you in the post I made.
Days you don't post to Usenet are sufficiently complimentary, thank you
very much.
>I guess you haven't changed much either when you respond to a compliment
>with your trademark prickliness.
As no compliment was offered, I responded to an asshole.
>Sorry, I can't sit back and give you a free pass for the way you've
>marginalized this newsgroup over the years.
Another moderator of unmoderated Usenet demands to be laughed at.
You whine and you bitch and you moan, while never actually posting
anything on topic. What else is new?
Pravda
The way that you continually follow up to me with such vervor suggests
a guilty conscience on your part. The truth hurts, doesn't it Kerman?
Adam H. Kerman
All of Usenet feels sorry for you.
bcnmason
It just seems to be the same old, same old. They either try and come
up with some lame, so-called reality based program, or try and rehash
a hit from years past. Capturing the same feeling from a classic TV
show has never worked. Doing a Rockford remake? Ha! Sorry, but
there's no one out there that can compare to James Garner, nor his
portrayal of Jim Rockford. Not to mention, the skilled writing that
went into the series. But, leave it to those with very little
imagination. Next we'll have Corbin Benson starring as the new
"Kojak".
Speaking of which, outside of "Psych", I have very little inclination
to turn on the boob tube these days.
The new Rockford? Hmm,...never heard of it,.......
Wiseguy
c88856...@c34g2000yqi.googlegroups.com:
> Obviously the higher-ups in Holly-weird have no sense of creativity.
> It just seems to be the same old, same old. They either try and come
> up with some lame, so-called reality based program, or try and rehash
> a hit from years past. Capturing the same feeling from a classic TV
> show has never worked. Doing a Rockford remake? Ha! Sorry, but
> there's no one out there that can compare to James Garner, nor his
> portrayal of Jim Rockford. Not to mention, the skilled writing that
> went into the series. But, leave it to those with very little
> imagination. Next we'll have Corbin Benson starring as the new
> "Kojak".
>
They already remade Kojak. Ving Rhames played him on USA Network.
bcnmason
announcement of plans for a "Rockford Files" remake. They're dead-set
against it. So much, so, that they compared it to the idea of
remaking "The Bob Newhart" show, with someone else starring as Bob
Newhart. Kudo's to them! This is one BAD idea!
BAH
Agreed. James Garner made Rockford - it could never be done with
anyone else.
Wiseguy
96658b...@v20g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:
Technically, you meant "starring as Bob Hartley."
Brian
>Agreed. James Garner made Rockford - it could never be done with
>anyone else.
I remember when they tried to re-make Perry Mason. It just didn't
work. Raymond burr had become so associated with the role. It is
interesting to watch the old movies from the 30's with different
actors playing the role.
Adam H. Kerman
>bcnmason <bandi...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>>I love what the new issue of TV Guide had to say concerning the
>>announcement of plans for a "Rockford Files" remake. They're dead-set
>>against it. So much, so, that they compared it to the idea of
>>remaking "The Bob Newhart" show, with someone else starring as Bob
>>Newhart. Kudo's to them! This is one BAD idea!
>Technically, you meant "starring as Bob Hartley."
What was the difference? He did a lot of the same humor from his act,
especially the one sided telephone conversations he was famous for.
Wiseguy
@news.albasani.net:
The difference is he played a character (a psychologist), he did not appear
as himself (a comic).
Adam H. Kerman
>"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>>Wiseguy <epw...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>bcnmason <bandi...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>>>>I love what the new issue of TV Guide had to say concerning the
>>>>announcement of plans for a "Rockford Files" remake. They're dead-set
>>>>against it. So much, so, that they compared it to the idea of
>>>>remaking "The Bob Newhart" show, with someone else starring as Bob
>>>>Newhart. Kudo's to them! This is one BAD idea!
>>>Technically, you meant "starring as Bob Hartley."
>>What was the difference? He did a lot of the same humor from his act,
>>especially the one sided telephone conversations he was famous for.
>The difference is he played a character (a psychologist), he did not appear
>as himself (a comic).
He appeared as a character that was based in part on humor from his stand-up
routine. So, in order to recast Bob Hartley, a producer would need to
hire an actor capable of playing stand-up comic Bob Newhart.
Bob Hartley is not a character independent of Newhart.
It's certainly possible that you, as someone familiar with "The Bob Newhart
Show", would accept an actor playing Hartley incapable of playing Newhart,
but I suspect that you would be in a tiny minority of television viewers.
I believe I'm the only one on this newsgroup who has not seen the movie
"Maverick", even though Garner was in it. It's certainly been on
television plenty of times in the last 15 years so it would have been
easy enough to watch if I were so inclined. But I don't think I'd be
able to accept anyone else playing Bret, so I haven't bothered to.
Remakes tend to annoy me so I usually avoid them.
Wiseguy
news:h78rqm$gd8$1...@news.albasani.net:
> Wiseguy <epw...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>Wiseguy <epw...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>bcnmason <bandi...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
>>>>>I love what the new issue of TV Guide had to say concerning the
>>>>>announcement of plans for a "Rockford Files" remake. They're
>>>>>dead-set against it. So much, so, that they compared it to the
>>>>>idea of remaking "The Bob Newhart" show, with someone else starring
>>>>>as Bob Newhart. Kudo's to them! This is one BAD idea!
>
>>>>Technically, you meant "starring as Bob Hartley."
>
>>>What was the difference? He did a lot of the same humor from his act,
>>>especially the one sided telephone conversations he was famous for.
>
>>The difference is he played a character (a psychologist), he did not
>>appear as himself (a comic).
>
> He appeared as a character that was based in part on humor from his
> stand-up routine. So, in order to recast Bob Hartley, a producer would
> need to hire an actor capable of playing stand-up comic Bob Newhart.
>
> Bob Hartley is not a character independent of Newhart.
>
Fine, every thing you said is true. But he still played a character
named Hartley and that is what I said in the original response.
> It's certainly possible that you, as someone familiar with "The Bob
> Newhart Show", would accept an actor playing Hartley incapable of
> playing Newhart, but I suspect that you would be in a tiny minority of
> television viewers.
>
No I wouldn't want to see another actor playing Dr. Hartley.
> I believe I'm the only one on this newsgroup who has not seen the
> movie "Maverick", even though Garner was in it. It's certainly been on
> television plenty of times in the last 15 years so it would have been
> easy enough to watch if I were so inclined. But I don't think I'd be
> able to accept anyone else playing Bret, so I haven't bothered to.
>
> Remakes tend to annoy me so I usually avoid them.
>
Did you watch the series "Bret Maverick"?
Adam H. Kerman
>Did you watch the series "Bret Maverick"?
Yes. I liked the characters. The writing of some of the episodes wasn't
very good. Parking Maverick in a saloon rather changed the show.
I vaguely remember "The New Maverick", which I didn't enjoy even though
it was written by Juanita Bartlett. Didn't care for Charles Frank as Ben
at all. I guess I watched him in an episode or two of "Young Maverick"
but I don't recall that show at all. epguides says there were 8
episodes, of which 7 aired. There's no way I saw all of those.
AlbertClarkson
> Wiseguy <epw...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
> >>Wiseguy <epw...@yahoo.com> wrote:
I haven't seen the movie "Maverick" either, and am not inclined to see
it for the same reasons you're not. I tried a few remakes a while ago
and they were enough, so generally I don't see them anymore; some I
tried which I think are especially bad are "Lolita," the "King Kong"
remakes (it took over an hour, as I remember, just to get to the
island in Marshall's and I didn't go ashore--in fact, I went overboard
before the foggy island came in sight), "Psycho," and "The Manchurian
Candidate." I've always liked Matthau's acting, so I tried the remake
of the Pelham story and one thing I did like is that the specifics of
the ransom plan are updated cleverly to fit in with the berserk
financial sector during Bush 43, i.e., the Travolta character has been
rethought interestingly.
By the way, on another subject I can't recall whether anyone has
commented about: I'm probably the only one who thought "A Fire in the
Sky" is not bad, though UFO's will have to land in Fenway Park during
a Yankees-Red Sox game for me to join telephone linesman Roy Neary
(Richard D. in "Close Encounters") and walk on board; and "Sky" is in
Garner's filmography (is that a word?); to me he's OK there as the
skeptic with a badge.
AlbertClarkson
The last "King Kong" is Peter Jackson's film, not "Marshall's."
bcnmason
> bcnmason <bandits1...@yahoo.ca> wrote in news:270f3fd5-3854-4815-88f5-
> c88856cb7...@c34g2000yqi.googlegroups.com:
>
> > Obviously the higher-ups in Holly-weird have no sense of creativity.
> > It just seems to be the same old, same old. They either try and come
> > up with some lame, so-called reality based program, or try and rehash
> > a hit from years past. Capturing the same feeling from a classic TV
> > show has never worked. Doing a Rockford remake? Ha! Sorry, but
> > there's no one out there that can compare to James Garner, nor his
> > portrayal of Jim Rockford. Not to mention, the skilled writing that
> > went into the series. But, leave it to those with very little
> > imagination. Next we'll have Corbin Benson starring as the new
> > "Kojak".
> They already remade Kojak. Ving Rhames played him on USA Network.
My bad. Guess it turned out to be as successful as "That 80's Show",
right? Seriously, I had no idea they did a remake of "Kojak".
bcnmason
> Wiseguy <epw...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >Did you watch the series "Bret Maverick"?
> Yes. I liked the characters. The writing of some of the episodes wasn't
> very good. Parking Maverick in a saloon rather changed the show.
The things I missed out on, not having seen the original series.
You're right, Bret was pretty much parked in the saloon as I recall.
Still though, I thought the show was darn good. I think perhaps that
the timing wasn't quite right for a Western, but what do I know?
Heck, I wish "Man of the People" was still on. And, I'm definitely in
the minority on that one!
They do air the series (Bret Maverick) on the Western Channel here in
Canada. I don't have access to that particular station,
unfortunately. It sure would be nice to watch those old episodes
again. As I remember reading, Jim suffered some broken ribs falling
off of a mechanical horse in one episode. Gotta give him credit,...I
mean over 50 and still doing his own stunts.
Brian
bcnmason
I have "Fire in the Sky". It's a decent movie. I thought the role
was right for Jim. Nothing spectacular, or memorable, in terms of his
character, mind you.
Adam H. Kerman
>They do air the series (Bret Maverick) on the Western Channel here in
>Canada. I don't have access to that particular station,
>unfortunately. It sure would be nice to watch those old episodes
>again.
I've never noticed it in second run syndication here. I'd watch them again.
>As I remember reading, Jim suffered some broken ribs falling off of a
>mechanical horse in one episode. Gotta give him credit,...I mean over
>50 and still doing his own stunts.
Still, he probably wasn't hurt as often on that show as he was on Rockford.
dw
"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote in message
news:h7v02f$7sk$3...@news.albasani.net...
> bcnmason <bandi...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
>>They do air the series (Bret Maverick) on the Western Channel here in
>>Canada. I don't have access to that particular station,
>>unfortunately. It sure would be nice to watch those old episodes
>>again.
>
> I've never noticed it in second run syndication here. I'd watch them
> again.
>
If you have access to Encore Westerns it airs every Saturday morning.
dw
"dw" <chev...@telusplanet.net> wrote in message
news:p8Eom.42903$Db2.15377@edtnps83...
Actually they just aired episode one this morning. They skip episode two
every time through so next Saturday will be episode three.
Adam H. Kerman
>"dw" <chev...@telusplanet.net> wrote:
>>>>They do air the series (Bret Maverick) on the Western Channel here in
>>>>Canada. I don't have access to that particular station,
>>>>unfortunately. It sure would be nice to watch those old episodes
>>>>again.
>>>I've never noticed it in second run syndication here. I'd watch them
>>>again.
>>If you have access to Encore Westerns it airs every Saturday morning.
>Actually they just aired episode one this morning. They skip episode two
>every time through so next Saturday will be episode three.
Weird. I find one more episode listed, then nothing else. I set it to
record. No "Nichols", unfortunately.
Wiseguy
79d7eb...@38g2000yqr.googlegroups.com:
2-hr pilot and 8 hour episodes in the 2004-05 season.
It wasn't too bad. Still had the tootsie pop.
dw
"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote in message
news:h7vajm$k2e$4...@news.albasani.net...
I downloaded Encore's schedule for Sept and they have it listed every
Saturday in Sept.
I've watched for Nichols for years and have never seen it. I do have a few
episodes but they are pretty poor quality.
Adam H. Kerman
>I downloaded Encore's schedule for Sept and they have it listed every
>Saturday in Sept.
I watched "Bret Maverick: Anything For a Friend", the Billy the Kid
episode. The A plot was just ok. The B plot, involving general
interactions among the townsfolk and Maverick ignoring preparations and
assembly of his mail-order barn kit was much better. The surprise ending to
the B plot was very funny.
Stuart Margolin was very good, playing a character far more subdued than
Angel.
I remember what I didn't like about the show: Too much angst. I didn't
care for Tom's character, and he's the second lead. And M.L. didn't work
as a love interest.
The character actors who played much more traditional Western types were
the best part of the show.
Also from "Rockford Files": Luis Delgado and the bruddah.
Adam H. Kerman
"Horse of Yet Another Color" was on this morning. Simon Oakland! He'd
only give a few more performances after that.
Wiseguy
news:h9l3qs$gii$2...@news.albasani.net:
Don't forget the two-parter guest-starring Robert Webber as a swindler
involving an elaborate con where everything seems to go wrong.
It was called "Never Send a Boy...", uh, I mean, "Faith, Hope and
Clarity."
Adam H. Kerman
>Don't forget the two-parter guest-starring Robert Webber as a swindler
>involving an elaborate con where everything seems to go wrong.
>It was called "Never Send a Boy...", uh, I mean, "Faith, Hope and
>Clarity."
Nine weeks away.