Revisiting The Six-Million Dollar Man...

[Warped9]

The Good: This is where the series rose to the occasion. Not perfect, and still somewhat dated in some ways, but still entertaining and effective.
Six-Million Dollar Man (pilot film)
"Population: Zero"
"Day Of The Robot"
"Doomsday, And Counting"
"Rescue Of Athena One"
"Dr. Rudy Wells Is Missing"
"Burning Bright"
"The Coward"

The Fair: Some decent stuff, but the overall execution is lacking in ideas, delivery and/or details. Not bad, but just not that engaging even though there were good moments throughout.
"The Solid Gold Kidnapping"
"Operation Firefly"
"Little Orphan Airplane"
"Eyewitness To Murder"
"Run, Steve, Run"

The Disappointing: Really lacklustre and uninspired and feeling rather paint-by-number and with very little redeeming moments.
"Wine, Women And War"
"Survival Of The Fittest"
"The Last Of The Fourth Of Julys"

Overall it's a slightly better than average season with enough good materiel to keep me interested and wanting to see more. In a less critical age when this was first broadcast it's not hard to see the appeal and popularity. I think it's a testament to the show that much of it still wears well today.

For myself there is still appeal in the show and its ideas for a number a reasons. Firstly there's the science fiction aspect. Steve Austin is a man whose body and life are destroyed by cruel fate. And yet modern science allows him to be "reborn" and to live and function again and with beyond normal human ability. But the essential part of who Steve Austin is remains intact: he remains a decent human being not corrupted by his extra-human abilities. He is an updated retelling of the Superman story. Yet Austin isn't an alien fallen among us, but one of us made into something of an alien to the rest of us. Yet he retains his goodness just as Clark Kent learned his from his human foster parents. Steve Austin is a high-tech superman, but he is also the old-fashioned Gary Cooper type hero who walks softly and carries a big stick. Austin still works as a character just as the portrayal of Steve Rogers in the recent Captain America film still works. His appeal is partly because he portrays the kind of person many of us would like to be given the same situation.

Steve Austin's character isn't really delved into as it would be today with a lot of introspection and angst. Rather his character is revealed over time by how he reacts in numerous situations. This allows the show to get on with the stories. The show also predates the era when the deconstruction of hero types began. Most of Steve's introspection is delivered in the pilot film and then occasionally with the odd moment in the early episodes.

It's easy to identify with Steve Austin, and even despite some dated aspects of how his abilities are depicted it's not hard to fantasize about what it might be like to do what he does particularly since his abilities appear somewhat more credible than Superman's. And being essentially science fiction (on some level) we don't worry too much about how genuinely credible Austin's abilities may or may not be.

I also have to say that the opening credits are one of the most effective in television history because they perfectly encapsulate Steve Austin's story and tantalize us with the possibilities of more to come, and all in the space of a minute. Cool.

 

[Admiral2]

Burning Bright? Really? The Shat hamming and cheesing his way around playing a crazy mutated guy? That was one of the good ones?

 

[RJDiogenes]

Interesting thread. It really makes me want to see all these episodes again. I'm surprised by both how much I remember, and how much I forget.

 

[Warped9]

Burning Bright? Really? The Shat hamming and cheesing his way around playing a crazy mutated guy? That was one of the good ones?

The story was good. Shatner was...serviceable.

 

[WillsBabe]

Nice overview and episode write-ups, Warped9. Really enjoyed this thread. Hope you carry on.

 

[Lt. Beatings]

They've been showing it on one of the digital channels here in Australia, and while I liked it as a kid, I find it impossible to watch now.

One of the reasons is that it's physically impossible for someone to do what he does, even with advanced prosthetics. Your cyborg arm is only as strong as the sinew it's attached to. The only super strength would be in gripping.

 

[Christopher]

One of the reasons is that it's physically impossible for someone to do what he does, even with advanced prosthetics. Your cyborg arm is only as strong as the sinew it's attached to. The only super strength would be in gripping.

True, but fiction -- even non-genre fiction -- is full of impossibilities. For instance, it's almost impossible for cars to blow up on impact, or for a person to survive being thrown through the air by a nearby explosion, or for a person to be able to continue functioning after being shot in the shoulder (or to heal fully from it afterward). Yet these things happen all the time even in "realistic" action shows.

 

[Warped9]

One of the reasons is that it's physically impossible for someone to do what he does, even with advanced prosthetics. Your cyborg arm is only as strong as the sinew it's attached to. The only super strength would be in gripping.

True, but fiction -- even non-genre fiction -- is full of impossibilities. For instance, it's almost impossible for cars to blow up on impact, or for a person to survive being thrown through the air by a nearby explosion, or for a person to be able to continue functioning after being shot in the shoulder (or to heal fully from it afterward). Yet these things happen all the time even in "realistic" action shows.

True, and I made similar references myself. It's also been discussed ad nauseum off and on line. But as science fiction, even tangental science fiction, there is creative licence and suspension of disbelief.

As I said upthread the SMDM is basically Superman toned down and rationalized through fictional high-tech, and nothing wrong with that. When I go to see certain superhero movies, particularly the ones I've enjoyed, I already know most of what I'm going to see is impossible, but I can suspend disbelief and enjoy it all if it's well told and well done.

I could be harshly critical on the basis that there are a lot of things that would be done differently today if such a series were being produced, but that wouldn't be fair to the original producers. They weren't making a show with the thought of how well it would hold up thirty years later even if they had an inkling of what would be different decades later. They made a show with what they had at hand and relevant to their time.

I have to admit that as much as I can appreciate older shows and films even I have been affected by exposure to faster paced storytelling and more polished f/x. And so I try to base my judgement on the idea of how well do older works hold up even in comparison to more contemporary standards, and I also try to balance that with judging the work on its own merits.

It might be a touch different for me, perhaps. For two years now I've basically given up on commercial television. I don't see anything to really hold my interest anymore. The viewing times have gotten shorter, the commercial breaks longer and evermore frequent, and so much seems a retread. And I find a lot of it overly loud. I also accept the fact that I've aged out of the target demographic and so much of today's fare isn't trying to reach me. So much of what the younger audience seems to find dramatic or funny or interesting is just bland pablum to me.

The Six-Million Dollar Man as is wouldn't work today on television. But it does have enough good ideas in it that a good updating could work. Shows like Now And Again (which I basically liked) and the recent Bionic Woman remake (which I didn't care for) didn't fail because of the essential subject matter, but more because of the overall approach and execution.

 

[Christopher]

I don't get why the recent Bionic Woman even used that title and the name Jaime Sommers. Change those two things and nobody would've recognized it as being based on The Bionic Woman at all. (And as far as I could tell, they didn't give Kenneth Johnson any credit for creating the character anyway, which always bothered me. The V remake was just as awful, but at least they had the decency to credit and pay Johnson for the use of his concepts.)

 

[Vendikarr]

The V remake was just as awful, but at least they had the decency to credit and pay Johnson for the use of his concepts.)

They didn't want to credit Johnson, but he brought it before the WGA, and they decided there was enough of his work there to deserve credit.

I don't know if he brought a similar case before the WGA for Bionic Woman.

 

[RandyS]

Burning Bright? Really? The Shat hamming and cheesing his way around playing a crazy mutated guy? That was one of the good ones?

It was indeed. And it would have been one of the good ones weither Shatner was in it or not.

 

[Christopher]

The V remake was just as awful, but at least they had the decency to credit and pay Johnson for the use of his concepts.)

They didn't want to credit Johnson, but he brought it before the WGA, and they decided there was enough of his work there to deserve credit.

I don't know if he brought a similar case before the WGA for Bionic Woman.

Hmm... given how copyrights and such are defined, I'd think that just using the character name "Jaime Sommers" for a woman with technologically augmented abilities would constitute a clear-cut case of using Johnson's work.

I mean, the recent Human Target show had even less in common with its source material than Bionic Woman (no definite article) did. Like BW, it basically kept only the title and the main character's name, but it changed the basic premise too: the remake's Jaime Sommers was still made bionic as the result of an accident and worked for a secret government agency, so it had that much in common; but the recent Human Target's Christopher Chance didn't even perform the same distinctive role as the original comics character (or the version in the short-lived 1990s TV series), only working as a bodyguard for threatened people rather than impersonating them and literally making himself the target -- such a fundamental change in the concept that there wasn't even any valid reason to keep the original title. Even more than BW, it's a case where if you changed the title and one character name, nobody would imagine there was any connection to the original comic book. And yet that show still gave creator credit to Len Wein and Carmine Infantino. I would've figured that just by using the name "Christopher Chance," they had to, no matter how different the character was.

So while I may think that what the remake did with the character named "Jaime Sommers" was an insult to the name and its creator, I think it was even more insulting, and quite likely unethical and plagiaristic, to use that character name without giving due credit and compensation to its creator.

 

[Admiral2]

Burning Bright? Really? The Shat hamming and cheesing his way around playing a crazy mutated guy? That was one of the good ones?

It was indeed. And it would have been one of the good ones weither Shatner was in it or not.

So you're saying just ignore Shatner? He's playing the character the story's about!!

 

[Warped9]

Burning Bright? Really? The Shat hamming and cheesing his way around playing a crazy mutated guy? That was one of the good ones?

It was indeed. And it would have been one of the good ones weither Shatner was in it or not.

So you're saying just ignore Shatner? He's playing the character the story's about!!

Yes.

 

[Vendikarr]

The V remake was just as awful, but at least they had the decency to credit and pay Johnson for the use of his concepts.)

They didn't want to credit Johnson, but he brought it before the WGA, and they decided there was enough of his work there to deserve credit.

I don't know if he brought a similar case before the WGA for Bionic Woman.

Hmm... given how copyrights and such are defined, I'd think that just using the character name "Jaime Sommers" for a woman with technologically augmented abilities would constitute a clear-cut case of using Johnson's work.

I mean, the recent Human Target show had even less in common with its source material than Bionic Woman (no definite article) did. Like BW, it basically kept only the title and the main character's name, but it changed the basic premise too: the remake's Jaime Sommers was still made bionic as the result of an accident and worked for a secret government agency, so it had that much in common; but the recent Human Target's Christopher Chance didn't even perform the same distinctive role as the original comics character (or the version in the short-lived 1990s TV series), only working as a bodyguard for threatened people rather than impersonating them and literally making himself the target -- such a fundamental change in the concept that there wasn't even any valid reason to keep the original title. Even more than BW, it's a case where if you changed the title and one character name, nobody would imagine there was any connection to the original comic book. And yet that show still gave creator credit to Len Wein and Carmine Infantino. I would've figured that just by using the name "Christopher Chance," they had to, no matter how different the character was.

So while I may think that what the remake did with the character named "Jaime Sommers" was an insult to the name and its creator, I think it was even more insulting, and quite likely unethical and plagiaristic, to use that character name without giving due credit and compensation to its creator.

But Kenneth Johnson doesn't own the character of Jaime Sommers. She is owned by Universal. Since the studio owned the character, they could build a series around a familiar name without having to worry about securing rights to any of the properties associated with the novel Cyborg.

When Kenneth Johnson created the character, it was as a staff writer for the series SMDM. Depending on which version of the WGA contract was in effect was in effect when she was created regulates the writer's rights in regards to his creations. This is why Paramount changed T'Pau to T'Pol, so they wouldn't have to pay for the use of T'Pau each and every episode.

That same rule was not in effect in later versions of the contract. A writer can typically petition the WGA for a ruling on credits (and payment) for a character used after its creation.

Seeing as Johnson created the character, and I believe he created the series The Bionic Woman, his credit regarding the character may tie to any contracts he signed when the 70s series was created.

I do agree he should have received credit and payment for the 2007 re-imagining, but with the exception of the lawyers, who knows what agreements were in affect?

 

[Christopher]

But Kenneth Johnson doesn't own the character of Jaime Sommers. She is owned by Universal.

I'm not talking about ownership, I'm talking about the right to compensation, which is a completely separate question.

When Kenneth Johnson created the character, it was as a staff writer for the series SMDM. Depending on which version of the WGA contract was in effect was in effect when she was created regulates the writer's rights in regards to his creations. This is why Paramount changed T'Pau to T'Pol, so they wouldn't have to pay for the use of T'Pau each and every episode.

Yes, but Sturgeon didn't own T'Pau either -- Paramount did, just as they own every character and distinctive concept in Star Trek. Nonetheless, the creator of the character was entitled to royalties if they reused her. And that's what I'm talking about -- due credit and compensation, not ownership.

That same rule was not in effect in later versions of the contract. A writer can typically petition the WGA for a ruling on credits (and payment) for a character used after its creation.

Seeing as Johnson created the character, and I believe he created the series The Bionic Woman, his credit regarding the character may tie to any contracts he signed when the 70s series was created.

I find it odd that he could be credited as the creator of the show and character in every episode of The Bionic Woman but lose that entitlement in subsequent uses of the character. It seems contradictory. Even if there was a change in the rules, wouldn't he be grandfathered in because his creator credit was established before the change?

I do agree he should have received credit and payment for the 2007 re-imagining, but with the exception of the lawyers, who knows what agreements were in affect?

I just checked IMDb, and assuming its credits are complete (rarely a safe assumption), Johnson apparently got no credit for the three bionic reunion movies in the '90s either. That's weird.

 

[Silvercrest]

Could they be related? Perhaps before the reunion movies Johnson signed away his creator credit (for whatever reason) and that's why his name also doesn't appear in the 2007 show.

 

[RJDiogenes]

I don't get why the recent Bionic Woman even used that title and the name Jaime Sommers. Change those two things and nobody would've recognized it as being based on The Bionic Woman at all.

That seems to be pretty common these days.

 

[Christopher]

That seems to be pretty common these days.

Well, at least with Bionic Woman and Human Target. The V remake changed a lot, but at least the core concept was recognizable (at least the superficial aspects of it -- they totally missed the deeper allegory).

But in the cases of BW and HT, I have trouble understanding why they even bothered to pay royalties to the owners of the originals if they were going to do completely different shows anyway. Why not just change the titles and the main character names and sell them as completely original shows, with no need to pay any extra royalties and diminish their own profits? I can see why the producers of Bionic Woman might've felt they could profit from the name recognition, but Human Target is a pretty obscure comic book and the '92 TV version only ran for seven episodes, so most viewers probably didn't even know it wasn't a wholly original show. Why not just change those two proper nouns, then, and save themselves some money?

 

[RandyS]

Burning Bright? Really? The Shat hamming and cheesing his way around playing a crazy mutated guy? That was one of the good ones?

It was indeed. And it would have been one of the good ones weither Shatner was in it or not.

So you're saying just ignore Shatner? He's playing the character the story's about!!

No, I'm saying that I liked the episode, and would have even if Shatner had not been cast in the part.