 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Apr 16, 2009 - 9:20 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Lee S
(Member)
|
The issue shows, I felt, were of varying dramatic success. The last season was mostly dreadful, and not just the message shows. The series had run its course and the Emily Hanover character was a disastrous introduction. Watching her live with an at-risk family, teaching them to control their anger was one of numerous low points.
On the other hand, take a show like Scream to the Skies. It was very specifically and clearly targeting the airline industry for its lack of life rafts, and the government for its lack of oversight. Nevertheless, it is a powerful character showcase, as Quincy is so devastated by the tragedy, he withdraws from his life and his work. The scene in which Dr. Asten comes to see him and snap him out of it is one of the most powerful in the seven years of the show. Like many of the socially conscious stories, it balanced the message with either suspense, character development, or both.
One of the things I liked about the series is that it was one of the least formulaic on TV. People parody it (and they're often very funny) for always having Quincy say "It was murder!" but the truth is, there were four or five very distinct templates for Quincy episodes, which is three or four more than most shows have. The socially conscious shows were just one such template.
In fairness, I have to add that I generally agreed with the point of view expressed by Quincy and the show, and on those one or two occasions when I didn't, it did make me less comfortable with the show having an agenda. Not knowing anyone's politics here, did agreeing or disagreeing enter into your assessment of those episodes, or was it purely an artistic judgment?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Apr 16, 2009 - 10:01 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
CindyLover
(Member)
|
On the other hand, take a show like Scream to the Skies. It was very specifically and clearly targeting the airline industry for its lack of life rafts, and the government for its lack of oversight. Nevertheless, it is a powerful character showcase, as Quincy is so devastated by the tragedy, he withdraws from his life and his work. The scene in which Dr. Asten comes to see him and snap him out of it is one of the most powerful in the seven years of the show. Like many of the socially conscious stories, it balanced the message with either suspense, character development, or both.
Plus it had a rare ending where Quincy basically lost ("Dr. Quincy, you've been gagged").
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Apr 16, 2009 - 12:09 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Eric Paddon
(Member)
|
In fairness, I have to add that I generally agreed with the point of view expressed by Quincy and the show, and on those one or two occasions when I didn't, it did make me less comfortable with the show having an agenda. Not knowing anyone's politics here, did agreeing or disagreeing enter into your assessment of those episodes, or was it purely an artistic judgment?
It'd be both. I'll be the first to admit that I find an episode like one in which Quincy goes into a rant about handgun ownership to be the worst case of in-your-face preaching, plus it pushes an agenda I have no sympathy for on a political basis. That said, even if the issue was one I might have more instinctive agreement with, the results could be hideous on an artistic level (like the last season's "Next Stop, Nowhere").
Jack Webb was freqently ridiculued for how his Sergeant Friday would so often give one of his "Jesus speeches" at a given moment in many a "Dragnet" episode, but Webb at least managed to give his with a credible sounding voice of authority, whereas if a speech came from Quincy it just came off as Jack Klugman the actor injecting a personal soapbox of his own.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The issues issue was an... issue, yes (adult illiteracy? Air safety?). But the real shark-jumping came when Quincy had to sell his boat after he got married; end of an era.  (That said, how many guys could keep their first names a secret from their wives? Even Emily called him Quincy!)
It would be pretty difficult, although Jerry Goldsmith apparently kept his middle name hidden from his wife!
The issues episodes did get boring but Quincy was a great show in its heyday.
—–-—–-—–-—–-—–-—–-—–-—–-—–-—–-—–-—–-—–-—–-
Just wonderin' ova hea . . . ¿In your opinion, why was Quincy "...a great show"?
Thanks
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Apr 17, 2009 - 6:09 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Lee S
(Member)
|
Just wonderin' ova hea . . . ¿In your opinion, why was Quincy "...a great show"?
One reason was the variety I mentioned earlier. It was a mystery, it was a procedural, it was a medical show, it was a character drama, it was a social commentary, etc. It certainly had its misses, but it was much more ambitious than any of the other shows like it. The scripts also veered very successfully from serious to suspenseful to outright funny. In very few cases would a Quincy script be adaptable for another show. It had its own voice and its own style.
The lead characterization also had a lot of depth. This was a real person with real qualities. He was, of course, generally heroic, but he had plenty of flaws and the show wasn't shy about playing them up. Sometimes he became aware of them and sometimes he had to be made aware. The supporting characters didn't have all that much development, but they were always good in that the actors brought whatever personality they could to even the most simple plot exposition. Special mention must be made of John S. Ragin (as Dr. Asten), who had by far the most complexity of the supporting characters, and always did a beautiful job.
I enjoy shows that have strict formulas, too (Columbo is, in my view, one of the top drama series of all time). I like shows that exist only in a fantasy universe (whether of the Star Trek kind or the Remington Steele kind). But it was refreshing to see a show that had variety and also related, in some ways, to the real world.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Jun 13, 2009 - 4:53 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
suburbanite
(Member)
|
In fairness, I have to add that I generally agreed with the point of view expressed by Quincy and the show, and on those one or two occasions when I didn't, it did make me less comfortable with the show having an agenda. Not knowing anyone's politics here, did agreeing or disagreeing enter into your assessment of those episodes, or was it purely an artistic judgment?
It'd be both. I'll be the first to admit that I find an episode like one in which Quincy goes into a rant about handgun ownership to be the worst case of in-your-face preaching, plus it pushes an agenda I have no sympathy for on a political basis. That said, even if the issue was one I might have more instinctive agreement with, the results could be hideous on an artistic level (like the last season's "Next Stop, Nowhere").
Jack Webb was freqently ridiculued for how his Sergeant Friday would so often give one of his "Jesus speeches" at a given moment in many a "Dragnet" episode, but Webb at least managed to give his with a credible sounding voice of authority, whereas if a speech came from Quincy it just came off as Jack Klugman the actor injecting a personal soapbox of his own.
I'd agree with Eric on this one and add that my problem with Quincy in its later years was the same one I had with MASH in its declining years--once a show, any show, starts pushing an agenda very heavily, everything else becomes secondary to that agenda, IMO. And that means the comedy isn't as funny or the drama isn't as interesting and the guest characters aren't as sharp, because they're there to serve as stand-ins for ideological viewpoints, rather than to be fully realized three-dimensional characters.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
