MovieChat Forums > The Untouchables (1959) Discussion > Poor Production Quality

Poor Production Quality

posted 12 years ago by aa56
15 replies | jump to latest

I loved the show when it was broadcast on television decades ago, but having watched the DVD of Season 1, Volume 1, I was reminded of the poor production quality.
Sure, all shows back then used the same actors in different roles. Too cheap to hire new ones, I guess, and no one cared what the audience might think. In "The Scarface Mob," an unknown actor played Jake the bookkeeper, but for "The Empty Chair," the studio decided to hire the heavy hitter Persoff, who, laughably, obviously had no lenses in his glasses!
In the last season, the studio seemed not to care at all. In an episode filmed near San Francisco, some actors were talking in a field, and in the background modern cars were speeding on the freeway (280, I think)!

[–] manage-932-700755 12 years ago

You must be looking for flaws. I watched the series when it originally aired, and it was outstanding. I'd rate it the best show of the 1960s next to "The Fugitive." And the public loved it. I've been watching the reruns recently on YouTube, and I fine the shows to be just as enjoyable as they were 50 years ago.

Why should a very popular series wiht outstanding guest stars use different ones when the ones they use were excellent? In fact, I just wish stars like Vic Morrow, Barbara Luna, Steve Cochran, Cliff Robertson, Charles Bronson and Lee Marvin appeared more often than they did.

I didn't notice Persoff's glasses, but then I wasn't focused on them or looking for things that were wrong. As Paul Picerni described in his autobiography, the quality of the shows in the last season declined, due in part to an arrogrant, incompetent producer. I don't recall that episode you're referring to. But who cares? How amny people would focus on that?

I woulds say that the production quality was just as good as any show from that era. Overall, the quality of the show was superior to most TV shows of today, and in terms of enjoyment the sereis was far superior to the 1987 movie.

[–] aa56 12 years ago

I wasn't looking for flaws; they just were obvious this time. When I watched the show when it was first broadcast, I didn't notice Persoff's lensless glasses, but they were like a klieg light this viewing.

It must be a matter of personal taste. I find it disconcerting when an actor is a villain in one season and a cop the next. Like in Star Trek: the actor who played a security chief in the mining-creature episode was an admiral in the M-5 computer episode!

I agree that the script for the 1987 movie sucked.

[–] manage-932-700755 12 years ago

I do see your point. I guess it is a matter of personal taste. To my knowledge, guest stars were almostr always gangsters- just different gangsters- when they appeared multiple times.

Actually, two of the untouchables- Paul Picerni (who played Lee Hobson) and Nick G. (who played Rico Rossi) were gangsters in the original 2-hour movie which led to the series.

I didn't think the 1987 film was that bad; it just was not as good as the TV series. Perhaps they were trying to achieve more reality. But I thought Stack was better than Costner (much better), and even Neville Brand was better than DeNiro as Capone. And Bruce Gordon was better as Nitti (or Nitto) than the actor in the 1987 film, although I did enjoy it when Ness threw him off the roof.

[–] pc-privconfounder 12 years ago

Prop eyeglasses without lenses were the order of the day in Fifties television; production schedules were too rushed to allow careful lighting and camera set-ups that would eliminate glare and image reflection. Take a look at an episode of THE ADVENTURES OF SUPERMAN, and you'll see that Clark Kent's glasses had no lenses!

[–] manage-932-700755 12 years ago

Very interesting. I never noticed.

[–] wrfarley 12 years ago

Except in the final season when George Reeves (Clark Kent) really had lenses in his glasses. This caused quite a headache for the director of photography, Joe Biroc.

[–] george-695-323782 10 years ago

Sometimes the eyeglasses had what looked like window glass. For example, if I'm not mistaken, Nehemiah Persoff in "The Stryker Brothers" episode.

[–] lrcdmnhd72 9 years ago

Robert Stack is the only Eliot Ness.

[–] telegonus 12 years ago

I agree, Jozef. The Untouchables was filmed on the Desilu (formerly RKO) lot and they had a lot to work with. In terms of production quality the series was first rate and, I agree, one of the best if not the best looking series of its era. The show that sort of succeeded it in terms of quality production: The Fugitive.

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] telegonus 12 years ago

I dunno. Just dropped in, was following a couple of other threads, landed here. Can I stay?

[–] dalbrech 12 years ago

The OP deserves some kind of award for being picky.
Yeah, they had a flew flubs, like the modern cars speeding by in the background in "The Big Train" episode,but you see the same kind of flub in TV shows produced today. Fact is that budgets are more limited and tighter in series Television then in movies;always has been, always will be.
But overall the production value is very good,particularly the costumes.I have seen big budget movies where period costuming is a lot less well done then it was for the Untouchables.

I'll Teach You To Laugh At Something's That's Funny
Homer Simpson

[–] telegonus 12 years ago

All true, of course. The Untouchables was close to state of the art for its time; and its noirish photography added a lot to its ambiance. The costumes were good and they kept the scripts under tight supervision, too, so as to make the dialogue sound like it was from thirty years earlier. For a TV series it had a high budget but not so high as for a feature film.

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]