When I saw the original run of the show, back in the 50's, I, like everyone else, liked James Garner's Maverick the best. Now that I see the show some fifty years later, I feel I like Jack Kelly best. James Garner's character was played strictly for laughs. Kelly's Maverick was both funny and serious. And much more believable. I stll like Garner's character. I just prefer Kelly's portrayal better.
shareI couldn't disagree more. In the first couple of years of the series, Maverick had more serious stories until the comic elements began to take over. The last two years of the series--long after Garner left--were not only more comedic, but were often really silly. You had Kelly falling for a two-headed coin, having his poker hand read by a dance hall girl standing behind him at the poker table. Then there was the episode involving a "leprechan." Dumb, dumb, dumb.
shareI first went for James Garner,but my vote now goes for:-
Roger Moore (His episodes were more enjoyable as Beau Maverick).
I met Roger Moore at a book-signing a few months back. Asked him about The Alaskans TV series, which he hasn't seen since the show was first aired.
shareSo, what did he say?
The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits. -- A. Einstein
Moore replied that he hadn't seen The Alaskans since it was originally aired. I detected a slight wistful look, and then his eyes moved to his youngish wife who was seated at his side. She didn't look angry but I sensed she wasn't pleased. After reading his autobio which he had just signed, I may have discovered the reason. During the making of The Alaskans, Roger and costar Dorothy Provine saw more of each other off camera than on. (Since his wife wasn't even alive at the time, her reaction was a bit odd).
shareYeah, I don't know what's in his autobio, but I know that he was in his younger days a real womanizer, also frequenting prostitutes--sometimes with his friend Edd Byrnes.
The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits. -- A. Einstein
I don't remember any whore-ible talk in the book, not surprisingly. But unlike many men, I doubt if Roger had to pay for it very often.
shareThe more I watch of the series Kelly definitely had the majority of the serious scripts in the early seasons. This was because Garner had first choice of scripts and he choose the comic ones over the more dramatic ones. It seems in the early seasons the comedy ones were the most popular. Although I think the mixture of comedy and drama and the contrast between Garner and Kelly is what made the show so great, not to mention their wonderful chemistry (I still think the show should have had more episodes with both brothers). I also think Garner had it right that he was best for the comic scripts and Kelly was best for the more dramatic and adventurous scripts. Of course Garner got some good dramatic scripts and Kelly got some good comedy scripts, but I am saying overall.
A lot of people will say Garner was the best and completely disregard Kelly's contribution to the show, but I think if Kelly left the show the show also would have been hurt because either way you lose that contrast.
But Kelly stayed on and as good as he was he couldn't handle the show all by himself. I mean I think he did a good job considering but even before Garner left the show the scripts were going downhill after Huggin's departure. I mean some of Garner's 3rd season scripts were just as silly (and not in a good way) as Kelly's 5th season scripts. Moore was a good try in the 4th season but in my opinion he didn't have the same chemistry with Kelly that Garner did (my favorite Moore ep is when he didn't play Beau at all but in the Rivals, that role seemed to fit Moore better). Although Moore also didn't get the best scripts. A lot of people do seem to unfairly blame the actor for the scripts they were given.
As for the 5th season my favorite episode is Poker Face. It doesn't have the highest rating on IMDB and while it is basically "Stage Coach" it's a solid dramatic story (a breath of fresh air from all the silliness) and I think Kelly is very good in it. It also has the most intense poker game of the series.
Kriscokid, you have a point that some of the latter Maverick episodes were just plain silly (absolutely the leprechaun episode. OMG, I can barely watch that one!). But, I have to agree with Se55jo, I like Jack Kelly's Maverick better.
Watching James Garner play Bret Maverick, I sometimes felt almost like he was "breaking the 4th wall"; as if he knew there was an audience watching and he was playing up to it. Whereas Jack Kelly played the character Bart like he were an actual person unobserved by an audience. Kelly could pull off the more serious episodes more realistically and you could believe Bart could be in real trouble. Garner, on the other hand, always played Bret with a bit of a wink so you just knew he'd get away without a scratch, which didn't lend a lot of tension to a situation that was supposed to be serious. That's not to say I didn't like Garner as Bret, just that I prefer Kelly as Bart more. I admit Garner's Bret had deft touch for comedy with a sharp tongue for one-liners, but Kelly's comedic reactions to some of the situations Bart found himself in were very humorous, too.
I think that the best episodes, though, are the ones where Maverick is playing off of a "sidekick" type character. Whether it was Bret and Bart together or, in later episodes, Bart and Doc Holiday (played by Peter Breck), Maverick seemed to work best and have the most fun when there was someone he could banter with.
I like Jack Kelly as Bart and loved when he teamed up with brother Bret. But Garner was much the better actor, comedy or drama. After leaving Maverick, Garner went straight to starring dramatic roles on the big screen like The Americanization of Emily and The Great Escape. He continued his film and TV career for another 40 years. Jack Kelly's major credits after Maverick, sadly so, were the short-term host of the gameshow Sale of the Century and as a police captain on a TV series called Get Christie Love.
shareIt has always been nearly impossible for actors to transition from TV to movies. I read an article way back when mentioning how unusual Garner and McQueen were. Even Michael Landon couldn't do it. He had opportunities but it didn't happen. Clint Eastwood had to leave the country and wait a long time. The studios had a strangle hold on everyone. Some suits decided Jack Kelly wouldn't get a shot. I could see him as a leading man in movies today, if he were still the 30 something of Maverick. We could all name a bunch of actors working today that don't hold a candle to him.
"Now are we sure. that this. is what. we want?"
That's simply not true. Nobody prevented Jack Kelly from having a career post-Maverick. We could argue that being associated with the character as long as he was may have hurt his chances in a way that it didn't hurt Garner who was only around about half as long, but the idea that Kelly was held back by studio bosses from having success in films is laughable.
If anyone would've had a problem, it would've been Garner given how he literally rebelled against the studio. Doing stuff like that gets you black-balled. Garner later said he lost out on a few roles (one he mentioned was the supporting role in The Commancheros) because of leaving Maverick the way he did. That he even had a career is extraordinary given that. Kelly was loyal to the show even when it didn't deserve it - nobody would have had a motive to hinder his career when Maverick ended. That's absurd logic.
Kelly was just one of many tall, dark, and handsome types who didn't make it big in Hollywood. He had more success than a lot of them (he had more talent than most, too), but not as much as Garner, because Garner was legitimately great at what he did. Kelly was good, but just didn't get the breaks.
Not laughable, let me rephrase.
Unlike today where actors go wherever they want, the studios had actors under lock and key, or they released them and they wandered in the neverland. Warner Bros. brought a lot of their TV series actors to the big screen, most with zero success. Let's just say overlooking Kelly was a pretty bad oversight.
We've all watched a zillion old movies. I love William Holden, the Roberts Montgomery, Donat and Mitchum. Kelly had such confidence, a great presence and charisma to burn. He was right there with those I mentioned.
Someone is always complaining about an actor they love not doing as well as they hoped. I plead guilty.
They run 4 episodes of Maverick on Sat nights where I live, just stumbled on the channel a few months ago. I'm happy for that and seriously amazed at how good he is.
Anyhow, thanks for saying tall, dark and handsome and needless to say I'm female. 
I can't help laughing at myself here but there you have it.
Actually Garner leaving Maverick was the absolute best thing for his career and a very smart decision on his part. He may have lost some roles but he gained much more because he was no longer tied to a studio and could pick and choose his roles. He pretty much got roles right away, the first being Children's Hour. directed by William Wyler.
He was certainly not blackballed. Not saying it wasn't a huge risk, he put a lot of money into that lawsuit (apparently most of the money had when doing Maverick) but the studios did not have the power and influence in the late 50's and 60's that they did in the 30's and 40's.
Hindsight is of course 20/20 but I think Jack Kelly made the wrong choice to stay with WB But he had a job and was on a hit series and was promised a lot of stuff and obviously didn't know at the time that Garner was going to win his lawsuit. Don't get me wrong I am glad we have those 2 more seasons with Kelly (even if I think the writing in the last 3 seasons is not always up to par) but for his career I don't think it was a smart move.
The studios were pretty much dead in the 1960's. Jack Kelly tied himself to WB and they basically chose what he did and didn't do. Of course we will never know if he would of had a better career if he left the show and studio with Garner (he may of had even less of a career). I am currently reading his biography and he signed a 7-yr contract with WB. Since I am not done reading not sure if that contract stayed for 7 years but 7 years is certainly a long time to be tied to a studio.
As Garner said WB did not have his best interest at heart and despite their promises I doubt they had Kelly's best interest either.
edit: looks like the contract didn't last the full 7-yrs
Well, Se55jo, I did not see the original run. But I saw it as a syndicated re-run as a teenager and young adult in the 1970's. Like you, I liked Bret episodes the best.
Forty years later, I have just started catching some episodes on Encore Westerns. Right now they are in Season 3 (Copyright MCMLIX) and I am finding I enjoy the Bart episodes more. This in spite of the fact that there are more laughs in the Bret episodes.
I also notice the incidental music more than I remembered. It is such signature Warner Brothers music that could have fit in a Warner brothers cartoon such as Bugs Bunny or other Looney Tunes.
Copyright 1959.
Roman numerals are easy. Large numbers may take up a lot of digits, but numbers like 1000 are as basic as you can get. M
Nope. I'm not a Geek. I just didn't sleep through that particular class!!!
[deleted]
[deleted]
I'm completely new to the series too. I've known about it for years, but never watched it until the past couple of months. I like Bart better, hands-down. The Bret episodes are mostly too silly, while Bart's episodes are dramatic and angsty, which is what draws the viewers in. I think Kelly was a better actor and more handsome than Garner.
shareAs a child I always liked Garner far more than Kelly, probably because he was the first and I didn't like the change. Now as an Adult I watch Maverick and I really enjoy them. Most episodes are great, there are a few too ridiculous but generally I love them. I love Garner, he was great, however now I really love Kelly, Garner has great presence but Kelly is easily the better actor and more versatile. I am now watching the fourth season and thus far there have been some superb episodes, Moore is fine but Kelly is superb. I just watched the fourth season episode "The Maverick Line", this was the last aired Garner episode. When I watch both Garner and Kelly in it I am amazed how Kelly steals every scene from Garner.
shareI'm kind of shocked how many people think Kelly was a better actor than Garner. Kelly has grown on me over the years I've watched the show, and I've come to really enjoy him a lot, but there is zero question as to who was a better actor. This isn't a matter of taste, it's a matter of quality. Kelly was only ever really successful as Bart Maverick. His career aside from that was moving around like so many of the other TV actors of his day in guest starring roles and such.
Garner was one of the most respected actors of his generation. Now it is true that much of Garner's appeal was, like many of the old-time stars, his likability. He was like John Wayne and Bob Hope and Humphrey Bogart - these actors resonated with the audience without having to change up their acting style much as long as they didn't stray too far from the norm (John Wayne as Genghis Khan, anyone?).
But even ignoring that, there's no question that Garner was better. Curiously, Garner's biggest strength compared to almost any other actor he appeared with came when he was not speaking. His reactions and ability to express what his character was thinking without speaking was second to no one in his era - and that's not merely my opinion, many others of his peers and critics have agreed on that.
That's not to knock Jack Kelly. Honestly, looking back on the series, I sometimes wonder if he didn't get the better episodes when all is said and done. He did an excellent job on the show, and he and Garner played extremely well off each other (I think Jack actually had better chemistry with their semi-regular recurring characters like Dandy Jim than Garner did). It's a shame things didn't work out better for him post-Maverick. But looking at his bio, he seems to have gotten more involved in non-acting related stuff (politics for one thing) and may have become disinterested in continuing his acting career.
Have to say that huge success does not mean that they are better actors, there are many actors that become big that are in my opinion, poor. Just as there are many that are superb that don't make it. I like most of what you say but I am afraid it all comes down to opinion and it is only in your mind that "there is no question that Garner was better" because in mine just as firmly I would state the reverse. I like Garner, followed his career and always enjoyed his films. I still think Kelly was the better actor and he didn't get the breaks, Garner left the series at the right time for him. Kelly, as you say became far more interested in politics and only used acting as a sideline. I read his biography and it is a very interesting book ), he was also plagued by bad health.
shareThank you.
I loved him when I was a little girl and I still do today.
This just means Garner was the more successful actor not necessarily the better one.
That being said I like them both equally. I started watching the series because I was already a fan of Garner but Kelly impressed me as well very quickly.
I know Kelly always said he was Maverick's Brother but I think he was wrong. Both Kelly & Garner were Maverick and in my opinion irreplaceable. The show wasn't the same without Garner but I don't think it would have been the same if Kelly had left too.