Can people explain to me the appeal of MAVERICK as a western over say The Rifleman or Cheyenne. Personally I LOVE MAVERICK. But I am having a hard time with WHY I LOVE MAVERICK SO MUCH. Can other people explain there appeal to MAVERICK as well.
shareMaverick isn't a simple action Western, although it has a lot of that. The poker playing element is very appealing especially today with the popularity of online poker. Also, the plots often involve conning the villain which is a welcome departure from shooting them or beating their brains in.
shareIt's because James Garner is so damned appealing! He has a sense of humor, and he smiles and has a good time and wears that ridiculous tie and still looks good!!!
shareJack Kelly appeared in more episdoes than Garner, so the appeal goes beyond James.
sharePlease by all means do explain. I am curios what your thoughts are.
shareExactly. This was NOT The James Garner Show. The strength of the show was always in the writing. It remained good in the Kelly episodes and even after Garner left. I feel very sorry for people who, like many at the time, didn't watch any episode that Garner wasn't in. That is their loss.
share[deleted]
The problem was volume, coming up with 26 or 39 shows a year was too much. Any episode with Indians, forts, stagecoaches, cattle drives was invariably weaker than those in saloons or on riverboats.
shareThe writing is first class. The plots often take the form of a sting op like the Mission Impossible TV series. Last week I watched the Mona Lisa episode--unbelievable.
"Now are we sure. that this. is what. we want?
It's because Bret and Bart were charming rogues with just enough larceny in them to be hilarious but not too much to be likable. And their humor was often quite self deprecating.
Also, they were frequently joined by other charming rogues, such as Roger Moore, Efrem Zimbalist Jr., Peter Breck, Richard Long, John Dehner, Gerald Mohr, plus the luscious Diane Brewster, etc., etc.
I remember that, as a child, I liked Jack Kelly slightly more than James Garner in the show.
But now that I have the privilege of TIVOing 2 episodes every day, I can categorically state that I think Jack Kelly wass FAR superior to Jim Garner and was the one who made the show so memorable and so unique more than anyone else.
Not to diminish James Garner in any way. But it is VERY true that at the time Maverick started Jack Kelly was as you said FAR superior in acting experience to James Garner. At the time Maverick debuted in 1957 Jack Kelly had 30 YEARS of acting experience under his belt to James Garners 4 YEARS. And Jack Kelly was ONLY 30 years old at the time when Maverick debuted in 1957.
share"At the time Maverick debuted in 1957 Jack Kelly had 30 YEARS of acting experience under his belt to James Garners 4 YEARS. And Jack Kelly was ONLY 30 years old at the time when Maverick debuted in 1957."
Huh ?!? Was Kelly acting in the womb ???
What kind of a stupid statement is that?? Kelly's been acting since 1927 ???
I don't think so !!!!
Jack Kelly started acting in 1955 on a TV series called KING'S ROW. But he did a lot more work in 2 years then Garner did in 4.
"Every Troll Matters When Message Board
Domination Is Your Goal."
Anybody can answer these questions YES or NO. Was Jack Kelly a CHILD ACTOR on STAGE and RADIO in the 30'S and 40'S. Was Jack Kelly born into an acting family.Did Jack Kelly have a more successful sibling. Bonus Question- if so what was there name. Can Anyone name a particular movie Jack Kelly was in when he was a child. and lastly did Jack Kelly do an Ivory soap PRINT AD in 1927 and if so HOW OLD was he at the time.
shareI stand corrected !!
Although would LOVE to see the print ad from 1927...
"Every Troll Matters When Message Board
Domination Is Your Goal."
Jack Kelly's sister was Nancy Kelly,he has an uncredited role as one of the children in the Humphrey Bogart movie "Swing Your Lady", he was 12 at the time.He also had the role of young Matt Clay in "Young Mister Lincoln".If he did do an Ivory Soap ad in 1927 he must have been a baby,he was born on Sept.16,1927.
shareSathill, the reason I like Maverick is I think it was far more creative than most westerns and certainly more humorous. It was more of a battle of wits than a battle of guns.
I liked the Rifleman, but you knew in the first two minutes who the bad guys were and you knew Lucas would be gunning them down in the final minute. You could pretty much fast-forward through everything in-between. Maverick usually has some twists.
I think Maverick had a pretty good batting average of hits. For instance, I think Bonanza had some good episodes, but there'd also be a lot of episodes that I found preachy and boring. Most of the Mavericks are at least pretty good, and quite a few of them are home runs.
Maverick had a lot of creative people, led by Roy Huggins, that made it special. And I've also noticed that some of the episodes were adapted from short stories or magazine articles, so they apparently bolstered their writing staff by finding clever themes in other places.
Things like the card trick in "According to Hoyle" that were apparently based on fact were cool, too.
I first saw Maverick in the 1970s as a re-run. The episode was "The Saga of Waco Williams," and I loved how Bret kept telling Waco that his super-righteous way of life was wrong, but in the end everyone loved Waco and ignored Bret as he rode out of town. I laughed the whole episode, and I was hooked.
I enjoy Maverick and I have added an extra point on the scale because of Roger Moore's contribution to the show.
However,I enjoy CHEYENNE as my number 1 Western TV Show because of two main reasons:-
1 )Clint Walker
2)I prefer my adult tv westerns to be dramatic,rather than a comedy.
What was it that made Maverick unique? Well, to begin with Bret and Bart were the anti-heroes of the West. Western heroes had been crafted from the dime novel, they beat the bad guys, shot faster, rode harder and always won the virtuous school marm in town. They settled down and ended up being the big archer or Sheriff.
Not the Mavericks, they are gamblers, hang out in saloons, like the dance hall girls and some their best friends are men and women who are card sharps, con men and anti-establishment before anti-establishment was an everyday term. Brett was at heart, at least numerous times he said he was, a coward. Yet, we see he is brave, remember Brett's declared love and gunfight defense for Mrs. Ross, but lots of times he passes on being a hero.
Worse it seems is that every time one of the Maverick brothers turn around a smarter and more clever woman has them bested. Samantha Crawford is a bright light in the western of the 1950's. The Maverick women are gorgeous, animated and intelligent creatures who most often fully understand the male ego. Sam Crawford who is the pattern for Jodie Foster's character in the 90's movie, by the way ....not a real Maverick movie without the theme song , although a good movie, Sam is loyal at moments but is motivated by cash and can't resist the opportunity to steal from either Brett or Bart. She shares the zest for life that Brett emits yet appears to be seamlessly amoral. The Maverick women often broke the 1950 rules of sexual engagement of the day.
Most often the Marshall and/Sheriff ask them to leave town and if not they oppose the saloon owner or the mine owner and they are willing to use subterfuge to accomplish their goals. Bret will work hard to defeat the crooked owner of a gambling hall only to have his profits sent to former partners he owes money. Unscrupulous with a streak of character and honor. This is a series with a sense of humor! Funny even at the Mavericks expense. I loved it!
MW
I watched the show when I was a kid---nine and older. It came on at nine o'clock I think. I thought of it as a "grown-up," sophisticated show. ( I haven't seen it since--guess I should order it from Netflix.) So I can't comment on the writing or acting. But I know it was FUNNY--the back and forth between the characters was so sharp and exciting. Other westerns were so boring in comparison.
shareI started to watch this and Wanted Dead or Alive because I had recently just rewatched Great Escape (one of my favorite movies) and had a urge to watch more stuff with the actors from the movie so I turned to Westerns.
Wanted Dear or Alive it was cool to see McQueen in a pre-movie star role and that show had a pretty strong guest cast but I found the scripts kind of boring.
However with Maverick I ended up getting what I expected, a great role for Garner but also something more as I felt the scripts were very clever and charming and still hold up today and I also found myself becoming attached to Kelly just as much as Garner's character.
My only regret about Maverick is the show wasn't pitched as a show about brothers to begin with. I think it would have been even stronger if it always had two leads and was thought of that way.
I am not exactly a Western fan (but I am more open to them than I used to be) but this has what I am looking for in any good show, strong scripts, great characters (both Maverick Brothers), and strong chemistry between the brothers (I only wish there was more episodes that highlighted that last point).
About 1957 TV came if age. Within a couple of years we got a handful of shows that were unafraid to be intelligent and unapologetic about doing it. Perry Mason and Maverick led off, with Naked City and the Twilight Zone close behind. The sexual content was forbidden but otherwise they were free. No major product placement, no demands to preach propaganda, and a new art form where no man had gone before. Just sell that soap every week and it's all good.
Fortunately, Roy Huggins came up with the idea of a cowboy that doesn't take himself so darned seriously and finds other ways to relate to people besides shooting them. And he found not one, but two actors who could pull that off. And the result was a show the kids could be enthralled by and the adults could chuckle at, a decade before Batman and four decades before Pixar.
Those four shows and Dick van Dyke almost put us in the miserable situation of being able to say, intelligent television has been done. There it is. Improve on this, I dare you. And all by 1963.
As if that's not enough, you get to argue over which brother's better, too! Who could ask for anything more?