No action!


The trouble with Alias Smith and Jones is that there's NO action, and what are westerns for if not for action? The guys wore guns but didn't shoot anyone, much the same as in the mid-'60s Laredo series. By the time the show debuted, in the early '70s, it was not kosher to shoot anyone, partly because of controversy over what was considered excessive violence in the long-running Gunsmoke show. AS and J had some smart dialogue, stunning locations when they left the backlot and some excellent guest stars. As for action, forget it. There was more of that in Bewitched.

reply

Alias Smith and Jones, indeed, did not fill the screen with corpses. It had acting, humor, drama, and STORIES instead. If I could find the same combination on current network TV I'd give you a comparison. Alas, there isn't any.

reply

Did you actually miss the opening where they say, "...never shot anyone...."?

reply

[deleted]

I suppose in that way it was actually a bit reminiscent of films like Paper Moon in that it often was more of a Western Con-man plot than pure action-adventure. Certainly it always struck me that the strong point of the series was the interplay and gamesmanship between the leads.

reply

**** SPOILER WARNING ****
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
There's at least one episode where they did shoot (and kill) someone. In an ironic twist before Pete Duel's death, Roger Davis guest-stars and is shot and killed by Ben Murphy at the end of the 4th episode of season 2, "Smiler With A Gun". Earlier in the episode, Davis' character had robbed Smith and Jones, causing the death of a friend in the process.

At the end of the episode, Davis provokes the gunfight in front of the local sheriff, and Smith and Jones are allowed to ride away as the sheriff determines it was self-defense in a fair fight.

reply

No there was no bodies scattered all over.
No blood and guts, no women being abused and killed.
No cussing. No arms and eyes ripped apart.
But, Alias Smith and Jones has more class than anything that is shown today.

reply

Action, bodies or not I used to LOVE this show when i was a kid!

You're an errand boy, sent by grocery clerks, to collect a bill

reply

No there was no bodies scattered all over.
No blood and guts, no women being abused and killed.
No cussing. No arms and eyes ripped apart.
But, Alias Smith and Jones has more class than anything that is shown today.


Heartily agreed !

reply

[deleted]

It's true that Alias Smith and Jones didn't have a lot of gunplay. But if you watched Laredo and never saw the Texas Rangers shoot anyone, you must not have watched very closely.

reply

If you are in westerns for "bang! you're dead!" then you are in the wrong place. Alias Smith & Jones managed to show that it was possible to make a western, even a very good one, without the standard shoot-first stuff.

I find that relieving. When I watch standard westerns, people die all over the place, and what's the result? A lot of meaningless, flat characters introduced only to get killed after a scene or two. That's not the way to tell a story.

Even a western without the strict "never killed anyone" promise gets better with fewer uninteresting kills. "The man who shot Liberty Wallance" is such a movie. The only kill we see on the screen is vital and important in multiple ways, and we know Liberty well after several encounters. That is a lot more interesting than killing dozens of boring nobodys.

Alias Smith & Jones are not 100% without action. There is fighting, there are people getting shot (by others), there are explosions (like the wonderful bank explosion in the pilot). But we know that the heroes won't solve their problems by provoking people to gunfights.

reply

These two guys were robbers (not killers) who were living under the radar of the law for a certain period of time to be granted amnesty for their crimes. Where's the reasoning in laying low by going around shooting and killing. Alias means they were hiding who they were and would have been quite dumb to leave a trail of bodies. This was also more true to what the old west was really like. If there had really been all that much killing, then we wouldn't have much of a west today. When did 'action' come to mean mindless killing?

I can't believe you made me put that in my mouth? - Merlin

reply

To the OP (If you still post that is),if you want Westerns with killing,watch any of Clint Eastwood's "spagheti-westerns" from the 1960s. Including "The Good,The Bad & The Ugly".

Second,this show was made for early 1970s network TV. Of course it doesn't havea lot of killing. GUNSMOKE had killing but the good guys killed when they had no choice and only the bad guys killed for no reason.

In this entire series,Curry only kills one man but that man had driven him to it and the kid couldn;t tolerate him anymore. Lastly,it was quite enough "action" when Louis Gossett Jr.'s "Bounty hunter" character gets shot to death by a racist white man. Which for 1972,was pretty graphic.

I just watched this entire series and far as I'm concerened,there was plenty
of action and things going on. Enough to keep my attention and entertain me.

...and I'm not even that big a fan of Westers.



MAN! One dream's come true,ready for another.
(MR.) happipuppi13 *arf,man!*!

reply

And in the "real life" Wild West, not that much killing occurred, at least not as much as Gunsmoke, the spaghetti westerns etc, would have us believe. Bat Masterson shot maybe one person, Wyatt Earp likewise, even Billy the Kid less than the 21 he has had attributed to him. So a less violent West is probably more historically accurate.

reply

in the 70s censors were concern about violence on t.v. espceialy westeren like gunsmoke..

reply