The Classic/Retro Pop Culture Thread

[TREK_GOD_1]

Not sure how much of a demand there is, but I'm doing a watch-through now that I'm recording it from H&I....

The Green Hornet
"The Silent Gun"
Originally aired September 9, 1966

So, yesterday was indeed the 50th anniversary of this episode. Decades was playing episodes of TGH, The Time Tunnel, and one or two other shows that debuted on the same date.

I caught "The Silent Gun." The first completely serious TV superhero.

Like Batman, this one starts with a crimefighting career already in progress...in this case, without so much as referencing origin details (I'm not sure if TGH ever had one).

Not so much an origin, but Dozier's main title narration explains the hero's mission, how he's perceived by law enforcement, etc. That's more than his "across the street" cousin--the Dozier Batman.

I think I commented on this during an earlier TGH Binge, but the way all but one of the recurring cast are in on the hero's operation reminds me of the current CW superhero show formula. (Would I be coining an admittedly derivative term if I started calling them "Team Hornet"?)

The Green Hornet certainly launched that kind of team interconnectedness we see on CW shows. Even on the 1966 Batman, the heroes only had Alfred in on Bruce & Dick's superhero life, while they simply acted as agents of Gordon.

I found the plot somewhat hard to follow, such that I rewatched the first half of the episode after finishing. It was a bit too frontloaded with exposition about too many characters that we hadn't met.

Interesting. I thought the story needed that to not only sell the threat of the gun, but those who were using / demanding it.

Curiously enough, "The Silent Gun" is not TGH pilot. Like "The Man Trap" with the original Star Trek, or "Royal Flush" with The Monkees, this was aired out of order. All Class of 1966 premieres.

Also mildly amusing is that Kato's hand raised to Trump's face seems to be as much of a recognized threat as a gun.

That, and in-series, Kato and Hornet have a reputation for being brutal when necessary. Some criminals may not respect their methods of muscling in / extorting other criminals, but they kick so much butt that we have to assume fear of their physical abilities got around.

If the Hornet is riding with Trump's thugs, you have to wonder why they don't just try to take him down then and there. Even pretending to be one of the bad guys, a crimefighter with an identity to protect should be more careful about the situations that he walks into.

Perhaps James Kirk can answer that:

"Risk is our business!"

The hero has to put himself out there, as a measure of the hair-thin trust he's trying to build in the con; criminal are--by nature--hyper sensitive to being set up, so if the Hornet never involves himself, that would send up red flags that he's too much on the outside of a deal or arrangement.

When the tailing Black Beauty is chased by the police, we get a very unconvincing front seat shot of the squad car...you can see the entire body of the guy riding shotgun--almost like there's no dash!

Yes--they should have borrowed from the Jack Webb model: if you're using a car mock-up with no dash, the shot must be a close up. Leaving the entire seat exposed looked like behind the scenes footage.

The Green Hornet TV series has an odd history: at the time of its ABC debut, some critics tried to dump it in the same basket occupied by Batman. Dismissive journalists mocked ABC as being "the two car network" --implying that all the network was about were fantasy series with gadget-laden custom cars. Others thought the series had potential because it--at the same time as Batman--was (until its two-part series finale) an example of how serious superheroes could be effective.

Contrary to lazy, research-challenged writers (too many to count in this world) who have written something along the lines of "The Green Hornet was low rated--that's why it was cancelled," William Dozier and Van Williams have said the series was doing well, with Dozier claiming ABC was interested in renewing the series.

However, I paraphrase Dozier, who also claimed (and waffled a bit in various interviews) he wanted to expand the series to the one hour format, as he believed the series needed that kind of time to develop stories, but when ABC rejected that, he allowed the series to end. Again, that is just one story Dozier told over the post-1960s years, but there's some network evidence that supports the idea that TGH was winning its timeslot, and not the complete flop the aforementioned lazy writers have sold since TGH left the airwaves some 49 years ago.

 

[The Old Mixer]

Not so much an origin, but Dozier's main title narration explains the hero's mission, how he's perceived by law enforcement, etc. That's more than his "across the street" cousin--the Dozier Batman.

"Hi Diddle Riddle," though, had Bruce referring to his parents having been killed by "dastardly criminals," and later (after Batman gets the subpoena) musing about how all of his years of training, etc., will have been a waste if he's forced to reveal his identity. That's what I was alluding to.

Curiously enough, "The Silent Gun" is not TGH pilot. Like "The Man Trap" with the original Star Trek, or "Royal Flush" with The Monkees, this was aired out of order. All Class of 1966 premieres.

Ah, yes...I have to watch for the episode with the funny mask (which stuck out at me like a sore thumb when I caught it in the Binge). Which one is that?

That, and in-series, Kato and Hornet have a reputation for being brutal when necessary. Some criminals may not respect their methods of muscling in / extorting other criminals, but they kick so much butt that we have to assume fear of their physical abilities got around.

Very impressive when he isn't even known by a specific pseudonym in-story while masked. They just refer to him as "the Green Hornet's assistant" and such as I recall.

Yes--they should have borrowed from the Jack Webb model: if you're using a car mock-up with no dash, the shot must be a close up. Leaving the entire seat exposed looked like behind the scenes footage.

Or an SNL skit....

The Green Hornet TV series has an odd history: at the time of its ABC debut, some critics tried to dump it in the same basket occupied by Batman. Dismissive journalists mocked ABC as being "the two car network" --implying that all the network was about were fantasy series with gadget-laden custom cars.

Funny, because while there are obvious production similarities (Dozier's narration, the font of the post-opening credits), the two shows couldn't have been more different in tone and style. I was thinking that one thing that may have contributed to TGH's lack of longevity is that it probably would have worked better in the black & white era...it's very noirish and the crimefighting duo and their equipment don't have a broad color palatte. In 1966, TV was all about NOW IN COLOR!

Contrary to lazy, research-challenged writers (too many to count in this world) who have written something along the lines of "The Green Hornet was low rated--that's why it was cancelled," William Dozier and Van Williams have said the series was doing well, with Dozier claiming ABC was interested in renewing the series.

However, I paraphrase Dozier, who also claimed (and waffled a bit in various interviews) he wanted to expand the series to the one hour format, as he believed the series needed that kind of time to develop stories, but when ABC rejected that, he allowed the series to end. Again, that is just one story Dozier told over the post-1960s years, but there's some network evidence that supports the idea that TGH was winning its timeslot, and not the complete flop the aforementioned lazy writers have sold since TGH left the airwaves some 49 years ago.

I would take after-the-fact pronouncements about how well the series was doing with a grain of salt. Looking at the TV lineup for that season, they had some steep competition--The Wild, Wild West and Tarzan, both genre shows that lasted longer (4 and 2 seasons, respectively). Likewise, the one-season wonder that followed TGH, The Time Tunnel, was up against the second halves of those two shows, Hogan's Heroes, and the first half of The Man from UNCLE. It's easy to see how the ABC shows may not have been winning their timeslots. (According to the schedule listed on Wiki, Tarzan was in the top 30 for that season, and Hogan's Heroes in the top 20...TGH has no such distinction.)

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

I found Return to Planet of the Apes more interesting. The storytelling is relatively sophisticated for cartoons of the time even if the limited animation is quite...limited. The art isn't bad though and there's some interesting use of shadow and panning to compensate, to a degree anyway. Sometimes it comes off more as a motion comic than animation.

Funny you say it seems like a motion comic; the series storyboard direction (and many character layouts) were provided by the legendary Doug Wildey, who not only had a background in Golden Age & early Silver Age comic books (including DC's House of Mystery, The Saint comic strip, Atlas' Strange Tales, etc) , but took that style to TV when he and made a significant contribution with Alex Toth on a serious model of the motion comic, Space Angel (1962-64).

Wildey (not William Hanna and Joseph Barbera) largely developed Jonny Quest (ABC, 1964-65) which was rich with that style, though with greater fluidity of animation than RTTPOTA.

And General Urko sounds like Fred Flintstone which provides some unintentional amusement.

Then I guess it comes as no surprise that Henry Corden (who had voiced Flintstone since the death of original voice artist Alan Reed) was the voice of RTTPOTA's Urko.

I found Return to Planet of the Apes more interesting. The storytelling is relatively sophisticated for cartoons of the time

It had a running continuity for all parties--the astronauts, apes and mutants, which was rare in Saturday morning cartoons of most eras.

 

[Christopher]

Very impressive when he isn't even known by a specific pseudonym in-story while masked. They just refer to him as "the Green Hornet's assistant" and such as I recall.

Or "the Green Hornet's man" (as in manservant, valet). Later in the series, one or two villains do call him Kato, which is a mistake.

Funny, because while there are obvious production similarities (Dozier's narration, the font of the post-opening credits), the two shows couldn't have been more different in tone and style.

Because their source materials were. Batman comics of the preceding decade or so had been, if anything, even more goofy and bizarre than the sitcom was (the show never included such things as Bat-Mite, Ace the Bat-Hound, alien invaders, time travel, weird body transformations and costume variations, or ongoing prank wars with Superman). But The Green Hornet was based on a radio series and movie serials that had always taken a more serious tone -- a bit larger than life and featuring some sci-fi gadgetry, but not campy or comedic. Both Dozier shows were pretty faithful interpretations of the things they were based on.

 

[Harvey]

Again, that is just one story Dozier told over the post-1960s years, but there's some network evidence that supports the idea that TGH was winning its timeslot, and not the complete flop the aforementioned lazy writers have sold since TGH left the airwaves some 49 years ago.

That's probably embellishment on Dozier's part. From Variety, January 11, 1967:

The show most likely to buzz out as of now is "Green Hornet," which has failed to put much of a sting into the 7: 30 p.m. Friday period. Unless its ratings pick up, it stands to get swatted by ABC after its second 17-week flight...

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

Because their source materials were. Batman comics of the preceding decade or so had been, if anything, even more goofy and bizarre than the sitcom was (the show never included such things as Bat-Mite, Ace the Bat-Hound, alien invaders, time travel, weird body transformations and costume variations, or ongoing prank wars with Superman).

If you're referring to Batman as a sitcom...it was not, nor was it intended to be.

 

[The Old Mixer]

Yeah, while Batman was making high camp an art form, I wouldn't classify it as a sitcom...it was first and foremost an action/adventure show.

 

[Harvey]

If you're referring to Batman as a sitcom...it was not, nor was it intended to be.

At the time, Variety used all kinds of labels to describe Batman, but as far as I can tell, it never labeled the series as a sitcom. Here are some ways it described the show:

"pop-art camp"

"action-adventure series"

"there's somehow less to get mad at when a series does not pretend to be anything more than one of the lowest forms of literature."

"Should "Batman" click, it figures to give ABC-TV a terrific boost in the Nielsen averages and almost surely to trigger a new cycle in live action versions of adventure comics."

"While comedy is and has been the vogue, ironically, the most successful telefilmery in Hollywood is 20th-Fox TV, which doesn't have a single comedy series, unless it's "Batman," starting this month, should turn out to be in the genre. Based on comic books, it's more than likely."

 

[Christopher]

If you're referring to Batman as a sitcom...it was not, nor was it intended to be.

Of course it was. That's well-documented. It was inspired in part by the public's reaction to the recent re-release of the 1943 Batman serial, which was seen as unintentionally campy and a laugh riot. But what made it innovative was that it was a deadpan sitcom, with the characters playing absurd situations with absolute, hyperdramatic seriousness -- anticipating the same type of humor later featured in Airplane!, Top Secret!, and Police Squad.

Here's William Dozier in The Official Batman Batbook by Joel Eisner (Contemporary Books, 1986), p. 7-8 (emphasis added):

"When they tested the pilot at the preview theater, it got a rating of fifty-two. The passing grade was sixty-two. The network executives panicked. They had bought an entire run of episodes, and this was going to be the biggest bomb in history. So, they decided to see if there was anything they could do to salvage it. They came to us and asked if we would put a laughtrack on the film. We said OK, provided we could take it back to the theater for another test. They said OK, and we put the laughtrack on the film and took it to the theater. It got the same rating of fifty-two that it got without the laughtrack. They then asked us to put an introduction on the beginning of the show, informing the audience that this was a comedy and that the audience should hiss the villains and cheer for the heroes. They thought the audience didn't know what they were watching. We tried it, and again it didn't work. So, finally they left it alone, and when it finally aired it was a big success."
...
"I found out, a year later, that the network hadn't wanted a so-called broad comedic approach to the show. They had sense enough to know that you can't make it tumble-down slapstick, and I had a background of dramatic shows.... But this is what they wanted, so obviously it worked."

The thing is, the '60s were an unusually innovative and experimental time for situation comedies. There were sci-fi and fantasy sitcoms like My Favorite Martian and Bewitched, there were adventure sitcoms like Get Smart and Batman, there was the Ernie Kovacs-like experimentation and pre-MTV music videos of The Monkees... even Gilligan's Island was exceptional for a TV situation comedy in its setting and subject matter and the increasingly bizarre and surreal stories it told, and Green Acres routinely smashed the fourth wall and made metatextual jokes of the kind that Deadpool is known for today. It was a wonderfully adventurous time for the format.

 

[The Old Mixer]

It was, at best (worst?) a hybrid show. Had it been a true sitcom of the day, plots would have revolved around things like Bruce and Dick engaging in wacky hijinks to prevent Aunt Harriet from suspecting their secret identities. (Which would have been par for the course in the comics of the era immediately preceding the show...at least in the Superman line.)

The example of Get Smart does blur the lines further in favor of perceiving Batman as a comedy, though. Perhaps not a situation comedy, however. The plots were action/adventure plots told with a comedic flare. They didn't revolve around "situations" in the sense that those of situation comedies do.

pre-MTV music videos of The Monkees

The Monkees gets way too much credit for that. They put it on TV every week, but they were aping the style of the Richard Lester-directed Beatles films. Watch A Hard Day's Night and Help! to see where the style of those music videos came from.

"Should "Batman" click, it figures to give ABC-TV a terrific boost in the Nielsen averages and almost surely to trigger a new cycle in live action versions of adventure comics."

Or at least, detective comics....

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

@ Christopher--

At the time, Variety used all kinds of labels to describe Batman, but as far as I can tell, it never labeled the series as a sitcom. Here are some ways it described the show:

"pop-art camp"

"action-adventure series"

"there's somehow less to get mad at when a series does not pretend to be anything more than one of the lowest forms of literature."

"Should "Batman" click, it figures to give ABC-TV a terrific boost in the Nielsen averages and almost surely to trigger a new cycle in live action versions of adventure comics."

"While comedy is and has been the vogue, ironically, the most successful telefilmery in Hollywood is 20th-Fox TV, which doesn't have a single comedy series, unless it's "Batman," starting this month, should turn out to be in the genre. Based on comic books, it's more than likely."

Yes, it was never labeled as a sitcom. In fact, Fox & ABC (like all networks and studios) held much influence over publications like TV Guide in how their productions were listed (not referring to critical reviews). On that note, from the March 29 - April 1, 1966 issue of TV Guide, (coincidentally, the Batman cover story) Batman's Wednesday/Thursday description was as "Adventure" not "Comedy," as in the case of then-aired series such as Bachelor Father, I Love Lucy or Gidget. Jump ahead to the fall of '66 (specifically the October 29 - November 4 issue) TV Guide lists Batman as "Adventure" not "Comedy" or "Comedy - Adventure."

The series was not a sitcom, and was not officially described as a sitcom.

 

[Saga]

when i think of Batman 66 the word sitcom does not come to mind. not at all.

 

[Christopher]

It was, at best (worst?) a hybrid show. Had it been a true sitcom of the day, plots would have revolved around things like Bruce and Dick engaging in wacky hijinks to prevent Aunt Harriet from suspecting their secret identities.

You're looking at it too narrowly. As I said, the '60s were a time when TV sitcoms became experimental and tried new formats and types of storytelling. They weren't trapped by formula the way they became again in later decades. They were pushing the boundaries and redefining the format, and Batman was one of the most innovative of the bunch. It was the exact same kind of comedy as Airplane! -- a deadpan farce, a serious adventure situation treated absurdly by the storytellers but played absolutely straight by the characters.

The example of Get Smart does blur the lines further in favor of perceiving Batman as a comedy, though. Perhaps not a situation comedy, however. The plots were action/adventure plots told with a comedic flare. They didn't revolve around "situations" in the sense that those of situation comedies do.

Yes, they did -- just around a different type of situations. A situation comedy is defined as "a television or radio series made up of independent episodes depicting the comic adventures of a fixed group of characters," or "a comedy series involving the same characters in various day-to-day situations which are developed as separate stories for each episode." The term refers to its use of comedy of situation ("in which the comic effect depends chiefly upon the involvement of the main characters in a predicament or ludicrous complex of circumstances") as distinct from comedy of character ("in which the emphasis is on characterization rather than plot or lines"). That definitely applies to Batman, a show that was driven by the bizarre plots and predicaments that Batman and Robin got involved with every week, rather than just by interplay between the characters.

A lot of '60s sitcoms were built around putting the characters in unusual types of situations. You mention Get Smart, which used spy/adventure situations. Gilligan's Island's situations were about trying to survive the dangers of a desert island and trying to get rescued -- a very different type of situation from the home/family/school/work stuff that most sitcoms focus on, but nobody would deny that Gilligan's Island was a sitcom. (Although it was driven as much by comedy of character as by comedy of situation, I'd say.) The main thing that made Batman different from those was that it didn't have a laugh track -- but it almost did.

The Monkees gets way too much credit for that. They put it on TV every week, but they were aping the style of the Richard Lester-directed Beatles films. Watch A Hard Day's Night and Help! to see where the style of those music videos came from.

Yes, of course, that was part of their inspiration too, but they took that experimental spirit and ran with it. And the music videos are the least of it where The Monkees' innovation is concerned. The non-linear storytelling, the fourth-wall demolition, the self-mockery (like having Mickey storm over to the writers' room and have them turn out to be a bunch of chimpanzees)... this was subversive stuff. It was a hell of an interesting decade for TV comedy.

 

[The Old Mixer]

You're looking at it too narrowly.

Or you are, in attempting to put a "sitcom" label on it. I'll concede that it was at least part comedy, but it wasn't a situation comedy. The "situations" in this show were action/adventure plots with a good deal of absurdity.

BUT...I have no intention of getting into a long, drawn-out argument over this, or of convincing you specifically. Let's just agree to disagree on this.

 

[Christopher]

Or you are, in attempting to put a "sitcom" label on it. I'll concede that it was at least part comedy, but it wasn't a situation comedy. The "situations" in this show were action/adventure plots with a good deal of absurdity.

Yes, but they were still based on situations rather than on character. That's the actual definition of a sitcom. There is nothing in the definition of "situation comedy" that requires the situations to be limited to particular subject matters -- only that the show has continuing characters who get into a different situation each week and that the comedy arises from the situations. There is nothing in the definition that prohibits those situations from involving adventure or danger. You're mistaking what most sitcoms choose to focus on for part of the intrinsic definition of the term. And that just proves how much more limited and boring the sitcom genre has become since the anything-goes '60s. You've just been brainwashed into thinking sitcoms can't be more than the usual run of the mill, because so few of them try.

 

[J.T.B.]

The term refers to its use of comedy of situation ("in which the comic effect depends chiefly upon the involvement of the main characters in a predicament or ludicrous complex of circumstances") as distinct from comedy of character ("in which the emphasis is on characterization rather than plot or lines").

In practice, though, I think "situation comedy" was generally used to differentiate shows where the performers were the same character in the same situation each episode, as distinct from the sketch comedy programs which were such a part of early TV. Many or most of what are considered sitcoms blend "situational" and "character" comedy. It occurs to me that The Jack Benny Program covered all the bases: sketches in the variety show, sitcom behind the scenes and at home, Jack getting into various odd situations and Jack just reacting to everyone as his self-centered, oblivious, tightwad character.

 

[The Old Mixer]

You've just been brainwashed

Wow...I say let's agree to disagree, and you say this. That's a little below the belt.

 

[Christopher]

In practice, though, I think "situation comedy" was generally used to differentiate shows where the performers were the same character in the same situation each episode, as distinct from the sketch comedy programs which were such a part of early TV.

Yes, that's the other part I was trying to remember, thanks. Sketch comedy is often about different characters in each sketch, or can be; for instance, in one sketch, Carol Burnett would play Eunice, in another she would play Mrs. Wiggins, in another she would play the star of a movie or a soap opera, etc. In one sketch, John Cleese might be the Minister of Silly Walks, in the next a Gumby, in the next a newsman, etc. But a situation comedy always uses the same characters and puts them in different situations. Batman was clearly not a sketch comedy, therefore it was a situation comedy.

Wow...I say let's agree to disagree, and you say this. That's a little below the belt.

It's not aimed at you, it's aimed at the formulaic sitcoms of the past few decades that have brainwashed most people into assuming that's the only thing sitcoms can be. Although maybe "brainwashed" is too strong a word, on second thought. Let's say "conditioned" instead.

 

[Saga]

You've just been brainwashed

 

[The Old Mixer]

Will...rob...Gotham...National...Bank...master....