I heard all of the location shooting necessary to do this show made it very expensive to produce. Add to that so-so ratings and throw in the mix a lead who might have emulated the independence of his character to the chagrin of the brass.
shareI was just a kid and loved this show. I went hitchhiking up highway 1 when I was 18 from L.A. to San Francisco. At the time, I had heard he was hard to deal with on set. He was trying to be a rebel like James Dean. But that didn't seem like enough reason to cancel the show. The economics of the locations makes more sense.
share[deleted]
Couldn't they have filmed it on set to save money? Even Gilligan's Island was actually shot in the studio.
shareYes it was Route 66 on a bike (filmed on location). Too bad because it was perfect timing for a show with that premise.
shareWhat I've read said that borderline ratings and Parks' behavior convinced them to cancel the show. If either had been better it probably would've lasted another season. Too bad, it was a unique show and Parks was great on it.
shareTelevision was always run on extremely tight schedules and shoe-strong budgets which demanded a lot of the people on both sides of the camera.
shareNo question it was a unique show, but even twenty-something stories with their premise may have been too many. The show was more about personality than story, with glacial dialogue and shallow themes. I'm not saying I don't enjoy many episodes, but I hit my limit. We're watching old tapes of it right now from an ancient TNT run of the series.
shareTo each his own, of course. But as a teenager when the show first ran, and in re-watching it in recent years, the themes don't seem shallow at all to me. I agree that it wasn't a plot-driven show, but that's precisely why so many loved it. It was an experiential show, more about mood, questions, reflective pauses. And the viewers were more than ready to meet it half way on its own terms. It was the feel of the series overall that appealed so strongly. An episode like "The Ninety-Nine Mile Circle" could easily have been expanded into an entire film of its own. But it's true that it probably wouldn't translate well to a lot of modern viewers, who are used to more plot & much faster pacing, and don't want too much quiet reflection in their entertainment.
shareI can tell you that my wife, who loved the series as a young woman in her late 20s and became a big-time Michael Parks fan because if it, is often now looking over at me at the end of an episode and going, "That's it?". It has nothing to do with "modern viewers". There are episodes where Parks barely speaks, and when he does it's in barely audible mumbles. The feel I'd like from the series is when the star speaks, I'd appreciate knowing what he said. LOL
Kurt Russel afraid of signing with the Dodgers to reach the limelight. That plot was done plenty of times before 1970. I'm not trying to convince fans they shouldn't have enjoyed the show, but it doesn't hurt in any case to understand both its strengths and its shortcomings.
Well, that's a fair & thoughtful answer.
For me, it was a show more about experiences while passing through, not so much about plot plot—slice-of-life, if you will. It invited the viewer in, perhaps even suggested that the viewer stop & really take in those little everyday experiences that we so often take for granted. I like a good strongly-plotted story as much as anyone; but I also, from time to time, like a story where "nothing happens" ... and yet, something does (or at least can) happen for the reflective viewer. Not as a steady diet, but every so often. Then Came Bronson did that for me.
Again, I'm only speaking about myself.