MovieChat Forums > Dragnet 1967 (1967) Discussion > Friday's BBQ dinner with the Gannon's

Friday's BBQ dinner with the Gannon's


Maybe the WORST episode of the series.

Joe invites Bill and his wife over for dinner. Joe's date never shows up, but we are inundated with his neighbors (much the same as the episode where Joe is over at Gannon's house).

One of Joe's neighbors is having a party. Apparently, acting like 6 year olds, banging on bongos and tambourines, and blowing non-specific notes into a trumpet for hours on end is considered a 'party' by the writers. And Friday's idea of a fun dinner party is everyone eating off TV trays after somehow BBQing steak inside an apartment on a hibachi grill.

The worst part is when the 'party' is moved down to Joe's apartment, without his permission - and they dedicate a 'song' to him. Oh - and lest I forget, Joe and Bill have time to foil a crime - two goons stealing change from the building's laundry room.

If this isn't the worst episode of DRAGNET, I'd like to know what is. I can't even begin to imagine how stupid the actors must have felt filming the 'party' scenes.





I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around.

reply

[deleted]

This one could have been good - if not for the 100% completely unrealistic neighbors and party. At that point it became painful.



I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around.

reply

I've got to go along with your assessment on this one. I can accept the "cops are never off duty, even when they're off duty" plotline, but the so-called "party" scenes look like they were written by someone who'd never even drunk one beer in their life. A twelve year old should have been able to come up with a more plausible depiction of drunk adults.

reply

[deleted]

Agreed. The trip to Gannon's house we much better.

reply

Yeah, this episode was pretty bad. From the irritating neighbor who was not seen, but called Joe and Gannon on the telephone...who apparently was a fan of police and felt it necessary to phone Joe nightly to ask how his day of detective work went. Sounds like the habits of a serial killer.

And then we have all of the other neighbors who acted like Joe was the property manager or something, and asked him to deal with crap the landlord should have addressed, weeks earlier.

Oh, and the inane idea that if you go knocking on your neighbor's door to tell them to keep the party noise down...they'll be more than happy to invite you in.

reply

[deleted]

Too often when the show depicted ordinary people, the characters were stupid and unrealistic. I know it was meant for comedy but it suggested the show had a dim view of common folk.

"All necessary truth is its own evidence." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

reply

[deleted]

As I remember, overdoing characters was pretty common in 1960s shows, especially comedies. Who can forget the super-overdone characters in Batman, or Dr. Bellows of I Dream of Jeannie, or Mr. Drysdale of Beverly Hillbillies, or Darren on Bewitched?

While Dragnet was not a comedy, I think that writers on that show gave into the temptation to overdo their characters as well. Also, since Webb had a lot of control over that show, I think he wanted to make the good guys look especially mature and steady, and putting in zany overdone characters would show that contrast quite vividly.

For example, the episode with Mr. Daniel Loomis, the smooth-talking bad guy, shows a man totally void of any compassion or regret, and very easy to find most repulsive. Stealing every stick of furniture from a blind elderly lady? How much lower can one get? Standing next to him, our fearless detectives are practically perfect by comparison, an effect that probably was not accidental. I, as a viewer at that time, was accustomed to seeing overdone caricatures instead of characters in most shows in the late 1960s. Not seeing some of them in Dragnet which had to compete with many of those above-named shows would have been like tasting soup with no added salt--boring and dull.

reply

Ah-hahhahah! very funny shit.

reply