Films and shows that COULD NEVER Be Made Today!

[Worf]

Lizzie mentioned in the TV thread that "Get Smart" could never be made today... She rightly pointed out that the "spy craze" of the 60's was the perfect time for this farce. Her comment got me thinking so I figured I'd ask you all what you think couldn't get made today...

1. The Beverly Hillbillies" - No way southerners would stand for this depiction of moonshine swillin' gun tottin' ruffians invading L.A. today.

2. "Hogan's Heroes" - I was amazed it ever aired the first time around so soon after WWII. I've never found anything funny about Nazis.

3. "Blazing Saddles" - Too funny, too smart and too offensive. Be thankful we got the original when we did.

4. "The Ed Sullivan Show" - Unless they made it a reality show or had live voting... just putting out performers from all genres wouldn't sell today.

5. "Welcome Back Kotter" - I'd say public education in America's inner cities wouldn't be a ripe place for comedy today.

6. "The Mod Squad" - I don't feel teenaged undercover cops would work so well either particularly ones that were clearly dated when they aired the first time.

7 . Blaxploitation - Some would say it's alive and well with Tyler Perry but he looks like Bergman compared to some of that old stuff. "Blackula"?

Well this is just some off the top of my haid at 3:00 AM on a Sunday morning.

Worf

 

[GHT]

Well this is just some off the top of my haid at 3:00 AM on a Sunday morning.
Worf

Sunday morning Worf?

 

[Edward]

Sadly, I think Allo Allo could never be made today. During and after the war, mocking the Nazis was one of the ways a lot of Brits disempowered them. As their generation dies out here, there's a rapidly growing, abs worrying, fetishisation of WW2 that regards any deviation from its mythology as effectively pro-Hitler. Dad's Army was considered touchy when first released in the 60s; now it would never get made.

The Alf Garnet stuff too: those shows were always pro tolerance and equality: Alf was the butt of the joke with his petty nationalism and bigotries. Some people missed that back then; nowadays, I think it would be worse.

A lot of films that are classics might still get made, but they'd have a screwed up ending. Casablanca would be unbearable, like what they did to Breakfast at Tiffany's.

One of Our Dinosaurs is Missing: Peter Ustinov in yellowface? Yeesh. (And yet, ironically, we've had two big pictures set in Ancient Egypt with all-white casts in recent years.)

 

[Fading Fast]

"All in the Family"

It's jarring to hear Archie's bigotry even now - even having heard it for 40 years now - but there is no way today's more sensitive / doesn't like to hear "bad things" culture would let that show start on the air today (certainly not on a mainstream network).

 

[LizzieMaine]

Nobody would like Archie -- or the Meathead -- today. Which is unfortunate, because as the years went on, everybody on that show evolved into complex nuanced characters. They weren't perfect people, which was the whole point. AITF was the first TV show that really forced America to look in the mirror, and if they didn't like what they saw, it wasn't Norman Lear's fault.

I remember watching it during its first year on the air, and even as a kid I was astonished to see something so explosively honest on television. Especially since it came on right after "Hee Haw."

As for my choices, you could never make the original "Star Trek" today. "Wait, so you have this science fiction deal where the special effects are secondary to the stories? And the stories are, like, allegorical or something? Seriously, dude? This guy is black on one side and white on the other? And he's played by the frickin' Riddler? Are you insane?"

And you certainly couldn't make "Star Trek: Deep Space Nine" today. "So this chick is an unapologetic former terrorist? And she's the female lead? What, are you trying to get us on a watchlist or something?"

Neither "Sanford and Son" or its British predecessor "Steptoe and Son" could be made today. Fred Sanford and Albert Steptoe never learn a moral lesson. They never have a tender moment. They aren't rascals with a heart of gold. They hate and distrust everybody they meet. They lie and manipulate and cheat to get their way. The only place such characters would have a home today is on a cable news channel.

"The Gong Show" wouldn't cut it. A complete haze of the whole idea of "amateur talent shows" which refuses to take the gameplay seriously. Where's the drama, Chuckie? Where's the paaaaaaaaathos?

I doubt you could make "Seinfeld" today. A show about nothing? Where's the concept, baby?

That "Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer" puppettoon thing where S. Claus is a bitter old man running an elf sweatshop and is a complete jackhole to everybody until he needs something? Well, it's realistic enough, but it won't sell much holiday merch, now will it?

And finally, if you came to a distributor and tried to sell a package of Hal Roach "Our Gang"/"Little Rascals" shorts, you would be immediately shown the door. Even with the racial gags edited out, you'd have a problem: "So you've got these kids who are in a *gang*, roaming the streets at will, don't take school seriously, carry knives and firecrackers and what not, always disrespecting the police, beating down respectable men in suits, and their pet is a pit bull? Too hardcore for us, baby."

 

[OldStrummer]

Rowan & Martin's "Laugh-In."

 

[3fingers]

"All in the Family"

It's jarring to hear Archie's bigotry even now - even having heard it for 40 years now - but there is no way today's more sensitive / doesn't like to hear "bad things" culture would let that show start on the air today (certainly not on a mainstream network).

I watched AITF with my granddad pretty much every week. It was his favorite show and he laughed all the way through it, but we also talked about what the point of the show was. I still think about those conversations to this day when I catch a rerun.

 

[LizzieMaine]

I think one of the finest half hours of television I ever saw was the AITF where Archie and Mike get trapped in the cellar of the bar, get drunk on the stock, and Archie rambles out his brutal life story. It's like something out of Clifford Odets. "Shoe-Bootie."
(Warning -- there is very strong language, even by 1978 standards.)

 

[Worf]

Sunday morning Worf?

Bite me! It was a long day/night! LOL!

Worf

 

[MondoFW]

I'd say, Some Like It Hot. This is one of my favorite movies of all time, and besides the gruesome murders shown, there's also the jokes that would offend, err, certain people.

 

[Bushman]

That "Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer" puppettoon thing where S. Claus is a bitter old man running an elf sweatshop and is a complete jackhole to everybody until he needs something? Well, it's realistic enough, but it won't sell much holiday merch, now will it?"

OMG! You don't realize it when you're a child, but that's completely true!

 

[Fading Fast]

Other than on a niche Christian channel, I doubt a show like "The Big Valley" could get made today.

The show had a basic plot formula - a very wealthy California ranching family in the later 1800s deals with the usual family, business and community problems that 1960s TV dealt with. But the philosophy and theme of the show was very Golden Era (i.e., pre-'60s)-Christian America.

The show (effectively) preaches self reliance, hard work, a struggle-through-hardship attitude. It avers that if you do those things and play within the rules (the legal and religious ones - and do that with sincerity, not cutting corners or finding loopholes), then what you earn is morally and rightfully yours.

If you earn and make a lot that way, then you should feel no guilt or remorse about your success. If you cheat - then you should be caught, punished and have your ill-gotten gains taken away. These are not deeply buried themes in the show - they are the explicit themes of many episodes where someone / some group is jealous of the Barkley's (the wealthy family) success and by the end the jealous people either see the error of their thinking or are defeated as they try to steal what the Barkley's earned.

But there is also a very Christian charity theme running through the show. You help others through their hardship not because you have to and not through some government program; you help others because you want to / because it's the right thing to do / the Christian thing to do.

You forgive your enemies and turn the other cheek as much as you can - and, many time (not always), that leads to the other person seeing the light / changing their bad behavior. But if they don't, then you fight to win because good should defeat evil - this was not a morally ambiguous or diffident Christianity or charity. It gave and gave, but fought for what it earned and fought for what it believed was right.

Also, people are to be judge by their character not skin color or other surface identity. But as to judging, the philosophy of the show was work hard, earn your keep, be charitable, but also, judge and be judged, i.e., live a moral life that can hold up to judgment by others and judge others by that same standard.

The philosophy is a muscular mash-up of the Puritan work ethic and Christian charity with some '60s social outlook grafted in, but driven by a self-reliant work ethic and Christian morality and charity, not government-led charity or programs. I'm not proud of the how of it, but in my "anti-religious, never heard the word philosophy or ethics (heard 'right' and 'wrong' plenty but not with an explanation)" home, shows like "The Big Valley" had a major impact on my own beliefs, then, and to this day.

As noted, the show didn't use the word Christianity or quote the Bible a lot, but those ideas were there in almost every story. That philosophy is, IMHO, too far out of step with the philosophy now aggressively asserted on the major TV networks for "The Big Valley" to get made today with its themes and morality.

 

[3fingers]

Other than on a niche Christian channel, I doubt a show like "The Big Valley" could get made today.

The show had a basic plot formula - a very wealthy California ranching family in the later 1800s deals with the usual family, business and community problems that 1960s TV dealt with. But the philosophy and theme of the show was very Golden Era (i.e., pre-'60s)-Christian America.

The show (effectively) preaches self reliance, hard work, a struggle-through-hardship attitude. It avers that if you do those things and play within the rules (the legal and religious ones - and do that with sincerity, not cutting corners or finding loopholes), then what you earn is morally and rightfully yours.

If you earn and make a lot that way, then you should feel no guilt or remorse about your success. If you cheat - then you should be caught, punished and have your ill-gotten gains taken away. These are not deeply buried themes in the show - they are the explicit themes of many episodes where someone / some group is jealous of the Barkley's (the wealthy family) success and by the end the jealous people either see the error of their thinking or are defeated as they try to steal what the Barkley's earned.

But there is also a very Christian charity theme running through the show. You help others through their hardship not because you have to and not through some government program; you help others because you want to / because it's the right thing to do / the Christian thing to do.

You forgive your enemies and turn the other cheek as much as you can - and, many time (not always), that leads to the other person seeing the light / changing their bad behavior. But if they don't, then you fight to win because good should defeat evil - this was not a morally ambiguous or diffident Christianity or charity. It gave and gave, but fought for what it earned and fought for what it believed was right.

Also, people are to be judge by their character not skin color or other surface identity. But as to judging, the philosophy of the show was work hard, earn your keep, be charitable, but also, judge and be judged, i.e., live a moral life that can hold up to judgment by others and judge others by that same standard.

The philosophy is a muscular mash-up of the Puritan work ethic and Christian charity with some '60s social outlook grafted in, but driven by a self-reliant work ethic and Christian morality and charity, not government-led charity or programs. I'm not proud of the how of it, but in my "anti-religious, never heard the word philosophy or ethics (heard 'right' and 'wrong' plenty but not with an explanation)" home, shows like "The Big Valley" had a major impact on my own beliefs, then, and to this day.

As noted, the show didn't use the word Christianity or quote the Bible a lot, but those ideas were there in almost every story. That philosophy is, IMHO, too far out of step with the philosophy now aggressively asserted on the major TV networks for "The Big Valley" to get made today with its themes and morality.

Particular religious affiliation aside, I believe that the majority of people had a basic framework of "right and wrong" or a functioning moral compass that they followed. Whether you agree or disagree with how that framework was built and enforced, it was fairly effective. It was also very harsh and judgemental on those who publicly strayed outside the arbitrary boundaries in any way. I may agree with the harsh stand on criminal behavior, but people's lives were destroyed over such things as unwed pregnancy. I am not an advocate of such things as teen pregnancy, but the hypocrisy of the reaction to it was unconscionable.

 

[LizzieMaine]

I also enjoyed "Big Valley" a lot as a kid, particularly for character of Audra, who was very much full of p. and v. The wording of the promos still sticks in my mind -- "Linda Evans as Audra -- a girl too impetuous to play it safe!"

The creative background of the show is interesting. It was created by a writer by the name of Albert Bezzerides, whose sympathies in the 1940s were a bit mauve. He avoided being blacklisted in the 1950s, but he did end up on what was called the "greylist." Those so listed were writers whose sympathies were "suspect" by those who had appointed themselves to make such a determination -- Bezzerides had written at least one movie during the war which portrayed the Soviets in a heroic light -- but had not been singled out for any specific affiliations. They could be hired -- but their output was to be very carefull watched for signs of unorthodoxy. The writers in such circumstances themselves were made aware that they were being monitored, and if they wanted to continue working, had to keep their own work very much in tune with the desired viewpoint.

Westerns in general don't really have much success these days -- I imagine it's a combination of our understanding of the period moving away from the "Hollywood West" image and toward something perhaps a bit more accurate, and a generation of filmmakers coming up who really don't have a lot of exposure to the genre. Those westerns that are made tend to be quite good, but the day of westerns being churned out regularly as a mass genre is over, and it's doubtful it'll ever come back.

 

[Fading Fast]

Particular religious affiliation aside, I believe that the majority of people had a basic framework of "right and wrong" or a functioning moral compass that they followed. Whether you agree or disagree with how that framework was built and enforced, it was fairly effective. It was also very harsh and judgemental on those who publicly strayed outside the arbitrary boundaries in any way. I may agree with the harsh stand on criminal behavior, but people's lives were destroyed over such things as unwed pregnancy. I am not an advocate of such things as teen pregnancy, but the hypocrisy of the reaction to it was unconscionable.

I agree with all of this. As a libertarian leaning individual, I believe in free market capitalism for the economy (with corruption aggressively pursued and punished) and an equal amount of personal freedom in the private spear - marry whomever you like, do your own thing.

Okay, cool, but as a society, having some guardrails and boundaries seems historically to have proven helpful, but if enforced too harshly or drawn too narrowly we end up back where you note with one "mistake" ruining a life. And of course, what should those boundaries be? My only answer is somewhere between what we had in the pre '60s and what we have today.

I also enjoyed "Big Valley" a lot as a kid, particularly for character of Audra, who was very much full of p. and v. The wording of the promos still sticks in my mind -- "Linda Evans as Audra -- a girl too impetuous to play it safe!"

The creative background of the show is interesting. It was created by a writer by the name of Albert Bezzerides, whose sympathies in the 1940s were a bit mauve. He avoided being blacklisted in the 1950s, but he did end up on what was called the "greylist." Those so listed were writers whose sympathies were "suspect" by those who had appointed themselves to make such a determination -- Bezzerides had written at least one movie during the war which portrayed the Soviets in a heroic light -- but had not been singled out for any specific affiliations. They could be hired -- but their output was to be very carefull watched for signs of unorthodoxy. The writers in such circumstances themselves were made aware that they were being monitored, and if they wanted to continue working, had to keep their own work very much in tune with the desired viewpoint.

Westerns in general don't really have much success these days -- I imagine it's a combination of our understanding of the period moving away from the "Hollywood West" image and toward something perhaps a bit more accurate, and a generation of filmmakers coming up who really don't have a lot of exposure to the genre. Those westerns that are made tend to be quite good, but the day of westerns being churned out regularly as a mass genre is over, and it's doubtful it'll ever come back.

The funny thing is, there is a schism in the entire "Barkley" philosophy where some of their community charity looks awfully like voluntary communism - but whatever - that's not the point here. Overall, the writers of TBV behaved as if they knew they were being watched.

Audrey was, IMHO, very inconsistent (not Linda Evan's fault, it was the writing) as one week she'd be a strong smart character who could more than hold her own with any man, then, the next week, she'd be a "save-me-big-strong-man" girl. The consistently strong woman was Barbara Stanwyck. She ruled that family and could physically and intellectually do whatever was needed - she was awesome.

 

[LizzieMaine]

I think there's a lot of Scarlett O'Hara in Victoria Barkley -- it would have been interesting to see what Victoria had been like as a young woman.

 

[Fading Fast]

I think there's a lot of Scarlett O'Hara in Victoria Barkley -- it would have been interesting to see what Victoria had been like as a young woman.

There's a reasonably robust backstory exposed over the years on TBV. Victoria and Tom came West with nothing and built their ranch, but along the way, there were allusions to corrupt partners, gov't deals, taking the law into your own hands, etc. And of course, you had the big scandal sitting at the center of it all - Tom Barkley had an affair (while married to Victoria) up in the mining town of Strawberry with Heath being the result . My point, there could be an entire new series, "The Big Valley: The Early Years."

At least from what we know of them, Scarlett was a smart women but also a word that starts with a B and rhymes with itch. Victoria was a tough SOB, but never an itch.

 

[Fading Fast]

I think one of the finest half hours of television I ever saw was the AITF where Archie and Mike get trapped in the cellar of the bar, get drunk on the stock, and Archie rambles out his brutal life story. It's like something out of Clifford Odets. "Shoe-Bootie."
(Warning -- there is very strong language, even by 1978 standards.)

Holy Cow - that is a powerful episode. Carol O'Connor is an outstanding actor (knew that before, but this reminds you).

 

[LizzieMaine]

It was a tremendous privilege to be able to watch that show every week when it was new. It was serious Broadway-stage caliber acting, on a cheap videotape sitcom budget. There has never been anything like it since, and I doubt there ever will be again.

 

[green papaya]

movies like "FLIGHT of THE PHOENIX" starring James Stewart

actors these days arent even half the man James Stewart was

they can try to remake old movies but todays actors just dont have what it takes, they seem to come and go and I dont even know who the new actors were/ almost like nobodys.

or like the classic movie "SERGEANT YORK" starring Gary Cooper, they could never find a modern actor to replace a man like him.