![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Too much mush, already!
Mar. 5th, 2016 04:42 amUgggh, I have spent about ninety minutes wrestling with LJ, trying to find, read, and tag entries about The Fugitive, Route 66, Kojak, Charlie's Angels, and Vega$, as I've talked about them enough that they need to graduate from the "TV Shows" tag and get their own. I probably need to do the same thing with Get Smart, but that will have to wait. If LJ's search function would actually work, I wouldn't have needed to go through pages and pages of the TV Shows tag.
I think I need to re-watch more of the good episodes from Route 66. I was disenchanted by The Fugitive for a while and got over that; maybe the same thing would happen with Route 66 if I saw some awesome episodes again.
One thing that really annoys me about Route 66 that I thought I mentioned before but can't find, is that it takes the very stupid idea that people punching each other out is a good way to solve problems. At least twice they had Tod fight with somebody and then decide that everything was all good after they were both beaten black and blue. And one of my least favorite episodes had the idea that to stand up and be a man, one of the guest-stars had to face a gang and get beat up. Just ... what? Okay, so the guy was a crumb with the gang leader's sister and the gang leader wanted to beat him up for that. The crumb probably deserved at least a punch in the mouth. But honestly, why should the gang beating him up be encouraged? What if somebody got seriously hurt or worse? The plot followed that the gang kept coming around every day and bothering the people at the house because they wanted the guy to come out and get beat up, and he wouldn't do it because he was scared. Honestly, the character was lame and pathetic and I didn't like him, but he probably had good reason to be scared in that case. He did need to stand up and be a man, but I fail to see how letting himself get beat up is a good solution. That is just so dumb. It's like they were saying, "Okay, we can't control this gang, so you're going to have to get beat up." Does that mean that if the gang had actually wanted to kill him, going to face them would have still been presented as the solution to making them go away? **headdesk.** It's not the wild West and High Noon and the kid isn't a law enforcement officer, good grief! There are better ways of making reparations!
(Or maybe it was an actual fight instead of just getting beat up, but that's just as dumb.)
I guess that sort of juvenile, immature attitude dates back centuries to stupid things like fighting duels. I remember one time, maybe 15 years ago or so, this politician got so emotional and fired-up that he screamed he wished it was still legal to fight duels. I laughed. So did Mom. It was just such a stupid thing to say and he was so completely serious and sincere when he said it. I still remember his hilarious expression. (And no, I do not remember who it was.)
Also, as much as I adore Kojak, we've hit that stretch in season 5 where it seems like every episode involves some woman with Kojak either past or present. There was the one where he'd known the Mafia don's wife in the past. There was the two-parter where in the past he dated a barmaid and was going to marry a rich socialite (who eventually broke it off because she felt his work was more important to him, which it seemed to be). And tonight there was the one where he goes undercover as a P.I. and one of the suspects starts coming on to him.
I really don't remember this happening so much in the other seasons. I'm honestly pretty bored of exploring Kojak's love life by now, especially every night in a row, so I hope we're out of that stretch. It always kind of irritated me. I remember reading in this book about The Andy Griffith Show that the writers felt they had to have love interests for Andy Taylor or people would start mistakenly thinking he wasn't interested in women. LOL. I have to wonder if that's why they overloaded us with love interests for Kojak in season 5 when I don't recall it happening before. I also kind of wonder if that contributed to the ratings going down that season.
Also, I kind of want to see the TV movies they made after Kojak ended, but on the other hand I'm conflicted, because Kojak is a captain and the other characters from the show are not in the movies (except for one where Crocker is now working in the D.A.'s office). It would seem sad without the other characters still around. Plus, we just passed an episode where Kojak said he didn't want to be a captain and have a desk job; he liked what he was doing. He definitely isn't a desk guy. So him being a captain in the TV movies just doesn't seem right. But it would still be more Kojak to see and Darren guest-stars in one of the movies.... If I could rent them from Netflix, I would, but the only way I can get them is to buy them. Hmm.
In any case, I wouldn't consider them canon any more than I consider the Perry Mason reunion movies canon. It would just be one possibility of how things might go. Thing is, I like watching the Perry Mason movies, but I don't really want to spend money on any of them. I recorded the ones I wanted for keeps (the one with Scott Baio and the one where the murder victim ends up not being dead after all). At least with Kojak, though, he is my favorite character, so I'd still get to have my favorite character in the reunion movies, whereas with Perry none of my favorite characters are present (Hamilton and the police). I just wonder if Kojak is badly written in the movies, though, since they decided to make him a captain when he already stated he didn't want that. Seeing a favorite character badly written is never worth it.
I think I need to re-watch more of the good episodes from Route 66. I was disenchanted by The Fugitive for a while and got over that; maybe the same thing would happen with Route 66 if I saw some awesome episodes again.
One thing that really annoys me about Route 66 that I thought I mentioned before but can't find, is that it takes the very stupid idea that people punching each other out is a good way to solve problems. At least twice they had Tod fight with somebody and then decide that everything was all good after they were both beaten black and blue. And one of my least favorite episodes had the idea that to stand up and be a man, one of the guest-stars had to face a gang and get beat up. Just ... what? Okay, so the guy was a crumb with the gang leader's sister and the gang leader wanted to beat him up for that. The crumb probably deserved at least a punch in the mouth. But honestly, why should the gang beating him up be encouraged? What if somebody got seriously hurt or worse? The plot followed that the gang kept coming around every day and bothering the people at the house because they wanted the guy to come out and get beat up, and he wouldn't do it because he was scared. Honestly, the character was lame and pathetic and I didn't like him, but he probably had good reason to be scared in that case. He did need to stand up and be a man, but I fail to see how letting himself get beat up is a good solution. That is just so dumb. It's like they were saying, "Okay, we can't control this gang, so you're going to have to get beat up." Does that mean that if the gang had actually wanted to kill him, going to face them would have still been presented as the solution to making them go away? **headdesk.** It's not the wild West and High Noon and the kid isn't a law enforcement officer, good grief! There are better ways of making reparations!
(Or maybe it was an actual fight instead of just getting beat up, but that's just as dumb.)
I guess that sort of juvenile, immature attitude dates back centuries to stupid things like fighting duels. I remember one time, maybe 15 years ago or so, this politician got so emotional and fired-up that he screamed he wished it was still legal to fight duels. I laughed. So did Mom. It was just such a stupid thing to say and he was so completely serious and sincere when he said it. I still remember his hilarious expression. (And no, I do not remember who it was.)
Also, as much as I adore Kojak, we've hit that stretch in season 5 where it seems like every episode involves some woman with Kojak either past or present. There was the one where he'd known the Mafia don's wife in the past. There was the two-parter where in the past he dated a barmaid and was going to marry a rich socialite (who eventually broke it off because she felt his work was more important to him, which it seemed to be). And tonight there was the one where he goes undercover as a P.I. and one of the suspects starts coming on to him.
I really don't remember this happening so much in the other seasons. I'm honestly pretty bored of exploring Kojak's love life by now, especially every night in a row, so I hope we're out of that stretch. It always kind of irritated me. I remember reading in this book about The Andy Griffith Show that the writers felt they had to have love interests for Andy Taylor or people would start mistakenly thinking he wasn't interested in women. LOL. I have to wonder if that's why they overloaded us with love interests for Kojak in season 5 when I don't recall it happening before. I also kind of wonder if that contributed to the ratings going down that season.
Also, I kind of want to see the TV movies they made after Kojak ended, but on the other hand I'm conflicted, because Kojak is a captain and the other characters from the show are not in the movies (except for one where Crocker is now working in the D.A.'s office). It would seem sad without the other characters still around. Plus, we just passed an episode where Kojak said he didn't want to be a captain and have a desk job; he liked what he was doing. He definitely isn't a desk guy. So him being a captain in the TV movies just doesn't seem right. But it would still be more Kojak to see and Darren guest-stars in one of the movies.... If I could rent them from Netflix, I would, but the only way I can get them is to buy them. Hmm.
In any case, I wouldn't consider them canon any more than I consider the Perry Mason reunion movies canon. It would just be one possibility of how things might go. Thing is, I like watching the Perry Mason movies, but I don't really want to spend money on any of them. I recorded the ones I wanted for keeps (the one with Scott Baio and the one where the murder victim ends up not being dead after all). At least with Kojak, though, he is my favorite character, so I'd still get to have my favorite character in the reunion movies, whereas with Perry none of my favorite characters are present (Hamilton and the police). I just wonder if Kojak is badly written in the movies, though, since they decided to make him a captain when he already stated he didn't want that. Seeing a favorite character badly written is never worth it.
