Posted by: @courtenay

@narnian78 Were they BBC productions? They were always known for sticking very faithfully to the original books and for doing a lot with a limited budget. (Which was fine for shows that didn't require much in the way of special effects, but it showed through a lot in their fantasy or sci-fi productions like, well, The Chronicles of Narnia and Doctor Who. ) These days the quality of their productions is a lot better (well, usually), but the faithfulness to the books isn't necessarily there.

I would say that most of the Dickens series were either made by the BBC or originally shown on that network. I noticed that on some of the DVD’s it does not say that the series were made with any connection with the BBC, but on most of them the logo is on the cover of the DVD.  It was true that creators of the series did not have a lot of money, and there wasn’t much technology available to them.  Sometimes it was almost like the shows were filmed plays with much of the series done on videotape.  But that may have been all that was available to them.  There is better technology now, but the acting and story were more important to them at that time. The production quality for their drama series was probably about the same as our American television newscasts.  They used videotape for that too, and it met the broadcast standards of that time.  It was what the producers could afford, and most of the time it worked for them.

I wonder if movies and miniseries made from A Tale of Two Cities are appropriate for children.  Watching people going to the guillotine during the French Revolution may a bit too disturbing. Several good TV series and movies have been from Dickens’ book.  The 1939 film starring Ronald Colman is one of the best. The TV miniseries were made at least thirty or more years ago so much of the violence is restrained, but it is still disturbing.  However, I would not discourage children of junior high age or older from reading the book or watching the film adaptations to learn about the history of that time. But the material may not be suitable for young children even though the story is excellent.

The siblings and I have been enjoying Danger Man recently. I got the first season from the library and then got a good deal on the whole series on Ebay, so we can watch it at our own pace. I love checking out "new" shows from the library, and then adding them to my collection. Plus this way I can easily bounce between films and shows. We've been enjoyed having another black and white show to watch. 

SnowAngel

@narnian78 I don't like a lot of BBC miniseries of classic books from the 80s and early 90s because the sets always look fake (probably because they were shot on video) and the acting feels stiff and boring. But there were some ones I liked. Both the Hard Times adaptations were very good. Is the 1999 David Copperfield miniseries one of the ones you're talking about? I love that one. And I love this 1989 miniseries of Great Expectations from the Wonderful World of Disney (of all things!) Great Expectations (Charles Dickens) : Victorian Vault : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

It's way better than the clunky 1988 or the bland 1999 BBC miniseries.

@col-klink the 1999 BBC David Cooper field was nice enough. I thought the boy who played young David was rather good, for all that he was a little bit chubby. 

I was pleased when I heard he was to play Harry Potter!

@col-klink 

I think the 1999 adaptation of David Copperfield was the movie with Daniel Radcliffe as David.  I like that version very much, and I own it on DVD. I haven’t seen the 1989 Great Expectations, but I own a version from 1981, which had a very good Miss Havisham. Some of the older series were really good such as the 1977 version of Hard Times. It’s true that they were made on small budget, but the acting was outstanding. I bought several of them and still enjoy watching the DVD’s. Sometimes they seem like recorded plays with the staginess of the production. Although the series from the 1980s had rather bland looking sets I still liked the acting. There was one of Oliver Twist which I thought was excellent, and I think it was made by the same people who worked on the old classic Dr. Who.  The people were forced to make the Dickens series on a small budget, and it looked like old style theatre, but that’s fine with me. I just like the old fashioned quality, which has its own charm. 🙂

I've watched re-runs of Diagnosis Murder from the 90's-early 2000's, about a medical doctor solving a murder mystery, and his son is a homicide detective.

Somebody stop me from buying more shows. Even though I have two seasons of The Fugitive, season 3 of The High Chaparral, half a season of Danger Man, and multiple seasons of Have Gun - Will Travel all to watch, I bought Mannix and Road To Avonlea. They both were on my shopping list, but I wasn't thinking I would buy them so close together. I currently only have seasons one and two Mannix (since we've already seen season 2) out on my shelf and Road To Avonlea is sitting in a box hidden from my siblings. I'm trying to wait until we finish Danger Man before getting out Avonlea. Lately we have been watching season 2 of Have Gun - Will Travel and season 3 of Danger Man.

SnowAngel

We started watching a corny old superhero show called The Greatest American Hero last year. Most of my family thought it was really stupid, but I love it, outdated special effects and all. I think it's theme song is better known than the actual show at this point. "Believe it or not, I'm walking on air, never thought I could feel so free-he-he!"

@shmatterson 

Some old television was high quality like Star Trek and Twilight Zone, but there were also campy shows like Lost in Space and Highway Patrol.  I know of some people who hate them because the acting was terrible or they were not made with today’s better technology.  The standards were not always so high in some series that were made decades ago. However, I can still see a certain charm in the campiness of the old shows even though at times they can be ridiculously dated.  It’s the fun of looking back at old fashioned things of another era. 🙂

The old Mission: Impossible series of the 1960’s was so good that it made the newer movies look poor. Peter Graves was a much better actor than Tom Cruise.  The actors in the older shows often had more personality and cared more about their audience in mastering their craft. So it works both ways with both old and new, and you can’t judge everything in a TV show or movie by its age.  The classics will endure the test of time and people will still be watching the classic shows many years in the future.

Posted by: @narnian78

@shmatterson 

 

I know of some people who hate them because the acting was terrible or they were not made with today’s better technology.  

I remember watching an old episode of Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea in reruns with my parents. They got excited because they hadn't seen it since it was in it's first run.  We'd watched about half the episode, and my father suddenly said, "The acting is so bad on this show.  I can't believe we liked it back when it was originally on.'

The old Mission: Impossible series of the 1960’s was so good that it made the newer movies look poor. Peter Graves was a much better actor than Tom Cruise.  The actors in the older shows often had more personality and cared more about their audience in mastering their craft. So it works both ways with both old and new, and you can’t judge everything in a TV show or movie by its age.  The classics will endure the test of time and people will still be watching the classic shows many years in the future.

I watched one of the Mission Impossible movies and couldn't watch anymore.  I didn't like it nearly as much as the original TV series.  

@cyberlucy 

Although I don’t hate Irwin Allen’s shows like Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea and Lost in Space, I think they are awfully campy and poor in comparison to the original Star Trek.  The people behind Star Trek and Twilight Zone knew how to make good science fiction with excellent writing and acting. They didn’t have a huge budget, but they made very good use of the resources they had.  Still, there doesn’t seem much point in hating a campy TV show, although one wonders if it’s worth the time watching it. I have to admit that I have even enjoyed poorly made television, although I haven’t watched a lot of it.

I have known of some people who consider Gerry Anderson’s shows of the 1960’s and ‘70’s as campy science fiction. Although it is true that the premises of shows like Space: 1999 are almost unbelievable (e.g., the moon leaving its orbit and traveling through space) the artwork and models used in that series were quite good. The Thunderbirds Supermarionation series had some excellent models, and the puppets were works of art.  Marionette puppets have been created and used in Britain and Europe for centuries. They were a unique form of children’s entertainment. When people call the shows “cheesy” I am not always sure of what they mean.  To me the puppets and models are really beautiful and quite advanced for children’s television of that time.  I think they are in good taste and show what was possible back in the 1960’s when little technology was available. I always have enjoyed them very much.  🙂

I've also watched Touched By An Angel, where angels are assigned by God to take on human form to help those who need help, whether it's someone who is sick or if there's a couple having a problem with their marriage or other issues.

We've watched all of Danger Man except for the final two episodes. I keep planning to watch them on the weekend, but one thing or another keeps getting in the way of that plan. Maybe this weekend we will finally watch them.  

I've been working on my way through Mannix with a couple of my sisters, I just got season 4 out last night. I'm loving having the seasons in individual cases and just pulling the next season out of hiding as we finish a season. It's not a secret that I have the whole series, but it's still fun not to have them all out at once.  

SnowAngel