Talk:The Rockford Files

Too gushing

This is so gushing. Can someone do NPOV on this? Mike H 04:12, Oct 2, 2004 (UTC)

I was going to, but I thought, that is such an accurate description of my experience watching that show for the first time yesterday. Rad Racer 06:27, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Conviction

Was it ever established what he was convicted of? Trekphiler 21:39, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Armed Robbery

It's only mentioned in the pilot movie that Rockford was convicted of armed robbery. Jim, who has no reason to lie about it, also tells Angel it was a 'bad rap', however no other details were ever offered. 172.164.216.247 18:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Somehow, I've always managed to miss the pilot in syndication... Trekphiler 07:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Pardoned?

I've never seen the pilot episode, I must have started watching shortly afterwards. I knew that Jim had been in prison, and I guess I never picked up that he was wrongly accused and pardoned. From my foggy memory, I could have sworn that several times he was threatened by the Lt.s who disliked him as violating parole? Does anyone else remember that? How could he be violating parole if he was pardoned?

The police in the show (apart from Dennis) disliked Jim, and regularly used intimidation tactics against him (which generally did not work, as Rockford knew his rights as well as them), so I suppose it could be explained that way. I think a more probable explanation is that the show's writers simply did not expect the audience to remember such small details. But in the pilot episode he did say that he had been pardoned. Arundhati lejeune 23:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the writers seemed to play a little fast and loose with Jim's situation with regards to parole. Jim actually made a long speech in the pilot movie that stated he'd been pardoned for his robbery conviction, but in later episodes we meet Marcus Hayes, Jim's parole officer from "four years ago". Either Jim didn't get pardoned, or perhaps he committed another offense for which he was out on parole.

Other episodes established that Jim was a small-time black marketeer/quasi-con-man throughout the 1950s -- perhaps one of these exploits caught up with him? 172.146.121.105 20:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

We could also posit, considering the shenanigans he got up to in the course of the show, he was on parole at times, no? On a related issue, I added the fact tag, because it seems to me, the cases probably hotted up because he was investigating. (I haven't seen an episode in quite awhile...) Trekphiler 10:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Becker's made a point of Jim's pardon to more than one boss. It's also mentioned several other times during the series' run. 75.91.239.237 (talk) 22:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)Will

Third season DVD

Does anyone know if the third season is going to be released on DVD?

not sure, but check this site for that kind of info. Count Ringworm 14:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Thrid Season is now out on DVD. 172.164.216.247 18:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Location of Mobile Home

As I recall, and from watching the DVD's, there is no other mobile home anywhere near Rockford's - wouldn't it be more correct to describe his mobile home as being in a parking lot, rather than in a mobile home park?

It depends on the episode. On some episodes, there are other trailers shown near him, and in one episode the residents had tried to get him removed from the community because of the ruckus his job caused. He was allowed to stay if he patrolled the trailer park at night as a security guard, if I recall correctly. Arundhati lejeune 23:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Working through the DVDs and still have seen no other trailers in the restaurants parking lot Voideater 15:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Still no other trailer parks anywhere near him - his trailer is generally in a restaurant parking lot, though has been moved on occasion (see season four episode The House on Willis Street). Voideater (talk) 00:02, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Tourist interest

Does the location of Jim's trailer feature on any tourist trip? I was surprised, when in San Francisco, that no mention was made to the actual streets where the infamous 'Bullit' vehicle chases was made and had to ask.88.105.210.68 11:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)John T (UK)

No tourist map, but the restaurant's parking lot that his trailer was parked at is now the Paradise Cove Beach Cafe - see http://www.paradisecovemalibu.com/beachcafe/ Voideater 02:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Cancelled?

The Rockford Files was canceled? I thought Garner left due to his injuries and the show just folded. -Vladimir Lenin 03:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is what happened. I think the article states that. Where does it say it was canceled? Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 03:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The section labeled "Analysis"...

...is thoroughly subjective, lacking in citations, and goes against Wikpedia's "no original research" guidelines. (I also find it laughably pretentious in spots, but that's not the main point I'm trying to make here.)

Can anyone come up with a reason for this section to stay? If not, I'm targeting it for deletion... 172.149.183.11 21:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Instead of deletion, let's revise it and add references. --Jcbutler 19:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

It's been a month, and there have been no references added -- I suspect because there are no references to add. I'll give it a few more days, then I'm gonna start pruning.... 172.164.216.247 18:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Mtstroud, whoever you may be. Two can play at the reversion game. If you don't like the "Citation needed" and "weasel words" tags in the Analysis section, then add citations (if any exist) and rewrite the article so it's less weaselly. But simply reverting the tags away won't make the article any more credible.... 172.162.32.196 16:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the Analysis section. This seems to be a clear case of original research. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 16:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Fine by me! 172.162.32.196 17:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Area 311

I don't recall that, but I may have a hint why it was used, because IIRC, another TV series used the 311 area (311-555-3305), recalled by Burgess Meredith's character (V.C.R. "Cam" Cameron, the "Search" function says) after being kidnapped. Big Uncle 14:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Inaccuracies

Noah Beery, Jr., did not play Rocky in the pilot. The role was played that one time by actor Robert Donley.

This is in there:

In the "Episodes" section:

"The series pilot aired on NBC March 27, 1974 as a 90-minute made-for-television movie. In the pilot, Robert Donley played Rockford's father; Lindsay Wagner also starred and later made a return appearance. The pilot was titled Backlash of the Hunter for syndication."

Also, the first trivia item is complete supposition. Even if the Trivia section were allowed to stay, unless source citations can be provided for this one item it is no less than original research or opinion. 12.22.250.4 18:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, most likely that first section needs to be yanked. WikiDon 18:35, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Done. If somebody can substantiate it, & wants to source the origin of the character, look to "Maverick"; I've heard interviews ("Biography"?) saying Rockford was just an update... Trekphiler 18:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, on A&E's Biography program of Garner, Huggins wanted to do Maverick over again, but in a "present day" setting. Huggins felt there was some "magic" there with Garner playing a good guy, but with a bit of a roguish quality-self serving quality. WikiDon 18:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Not really an inaccuracy, but the following sentence in the article doesn't make sense: "the chemistry of both Garner and Santos was like having a cop getting into trouble" Huh? jmdeur 21:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Richard Brockleman is introduced in the season four episode The House on Willis Street. The character meets Rockford in this episode for the first time and is not introduced as any relation to Rockford. He is not Rockford's nephew as stated in the article. See Universal DVD. Voideater (talk) 23:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Hyperlinks in the DVD releases section

I would like to have the date-related hyperlinks in the DVD releases section removed. There is no reason why anyone interested in (for example) season three of the Rockford Files would also be interested in what other events happened on "February 27" or indeed "2007". 140.168.69.130 02:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Done. ~ WikiDon 02:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Full dates are not linked for clicking they are linked so that they will be formatted according to user preferences. By Wikipedia standards, full dates are to be linked, and partial dates (which do not follow a standard) are generally not to be linked. (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)) —MJBurrage • TALK • 16:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Hang on a second - this is not such a clear-cut issue. Please read http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4582 and the addition I made this morning to Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Date_linking_wording (citing this article) as to why date-linking is often inappropriate. Certainly in the case of the DVD release dates, there is no problem or confusion with using a location-neutral date format such as "2008-1-15".140.168.69.130 02:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Megan Dougherty

The article states

After Corbett was dropped from the show after the fourth season (allegedly due to contract disputes), a new legal adviser and a new romantic interest for Rockford was introduced: Dr. Megan Dougherty (Kathryn Harrold), a blind, yet very independent and gorgeous psychiatrist, who made three appearances in the fifth and sixth seasons.

Was a psychiatrist really his legal adviser, or were these two separate roles? Rojomoke (talk) 12:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Season 6 is available online

Wikidon, I'm not sure why you and other people are being judgmental and accusing others of vandalism and advertising when they state facts.
The Rockford files season six is only available now for Netflix subscribers online. That is not an intended as an advertisement, but a statement of fact for fans who *MAY* be interested.
Maybe there is a better way to word this to inform people, so please consider a revision, and not being self-righteous and deleting it all together. Doug Sacks (talk · contribs) - 04:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

1) Part of the problem was the way you formatted it. Please read: Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles and Wikipedia:Manual of Style

Don't make a sentence a header. You can't make it header like you did, put it inline with the other seasons, add it to the table, look at other articles for examples. Don't zig when everybody is zagging. Poor formating has the appearance of vandalism. This edit 1) Is unacceptable and 2) looks like vandalism. If you learn how to drive a car before you get on the freeway, you are less likely to get pulled over by a policeman and cited with a ticket.

2) REFERENCE it! Have a verifiable source. This is especially in poor taste when you are adding one retailer over all the others and are not contributing to Wikipedia in any other ways. See: Wikipedia:Spam

3) If you go to Netflix.com it will say: "Unavailable". It says the same thing at Amazon.com, Blockbuster.com, Target.com, Wal-mart.com, Bestbuy.com, CircuitCity.com, etc. You can put it on your "Watch list" at all of those sites, "pre-order" or whatever you want to call it. Big deal. If Netflix has a special deal with the distributors, then there is a press release available online somewhere.

• PS 1) use the "Show preview" feature so it doesn't take you five saves to add one paragraph; 2) SIGN your talk post: Wikipedia:Sign ~ WikiDon (talk) 12:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

File:Proof Rockford Netflix.JPG

Don, when I go to Netflix it *does* say it is available as "instant" under "Available Formats". I have watched season 6 episodes online from Netflix. I think you may need to be a subscriber to see it though. I know you don't believe me, so here is a screen shot:

I left season 1 on the screen shot so one could see the difference (6 is instant only). It looks like you need to have an account or it will show up as unavailable. I wish they would show instant titles and not DVD's only to non-subscribers. Again, to subscribers the season 6 episodes are available. Doug Sacks (talk) 18:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, that is what I figured. So, you have to be a Netflix subscriber to get it on download only. I can't find a press release anywhere. You would think that Netflix would want to brag about exclusives to entice people to join up. Marketing 101.

I want you to remember that this is first an Encyclopedia. So, think of it as going to you bookshelf or library and picking up Encyclopedia Britanica, or Encyclopedia Americana, or World Book. Would you expect to find this in an encyclopedia? Of course Wikipedia can be better than an encyclopedia and have more information than that. But, from a thinking starting point, I want you to back up and start from there. I would like to ask you to read: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not

I know, I know, your eyes are rolling, but I am telling you if we build a better foundation we'll have a stronger offering. We must be better than your blog sites. Now, I would like you to find something that says when the general DVD release will be, if you have to email Universal Studios and ask them if they have a press release on it, so be in. There is already a code for it, ASIN: B00188KUU8. I am thinking July, maybe August, maybe this month. We need something verifiable. ~ WikiDon (talk) 07:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Looking this over I would conclude that the availability at Netflix should be mentioned in the article, with a CITE tag. The information is valid and on topic, it's just not well sourced yet. That does not mean that we cannot include it, just that we want to add a better source than one user's screenshot. —MJBurrage^(T•C) 13:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The source is Netflix's Instant Viewing catalog. It's verifiable by anyone with an account. Just because Joe Nonsubscriber cannot follow a link to it does not mean that it's not a valid source. --99.163.50.12 (talk) 03:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Doin' a Rockford

Three things:

1. If you can source the open collar thing, do restore it. (Not sure the rhyming slang rises to notable, tho.)
2. If somebody can find a source, can you add the ref to a chase scene as "doing a Rockford"?
3. What's up with the default sort warning I'm seeing? "Warning: Default sort key "Rockford Files, The" overrides earlier default sort key "Huggins, Roy""?

TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 16:00, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Anyone can claim anything, but to stay on WP, it needs to be verifiable with reliable sources. I concur with evertything Trek removed,a nd in fact have remove the entire Trivia section. It has been tagged with a "Trivia" template since June 2007, which is certianly long enough for items to have been sourced, and moved to relevant sections. Perhaps sopme of hte items could be kept uder a "Cultural effects"-type section, but they need proper sources that show they have had the claimed effect, not just a vague reference some announcer of football games making allusions or calling something a something. Also, this is an encyclopedia article, not a fan site or a book devoted to the show: addresses and phone numbers are very minor, usless there is some citeable reason that makes them esecially notable. - BillCJ (talk) 22:10, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Bill, I would argue for keeping some of the in-show stuff, 'cause it is about the show; the phone # & plate # even long-time fans may not know about, & the 29 Cove Rd address contradiction I've wondered about. I personally liked Garner's comment, in the vein of James Marsters "vampires aren't real, Clark" from "Smallville". The rest, take it out. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 00:24, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Tag

This article was tagged in 2007 as lacking references etc. This may have been so then, but I find the article to be thorough, extensive, and as well referenced as any good Wikipedia article. How can this tag be removed? Ineuw (talk) 17:58, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

A slight mistake

In the episode Beamer's Last Case, Jim is in San Juan for ten days and comes back to find someone has been impersonating him and taking cases, pretending to be him. To hire Jim, people would use the Yellow Pages which has a photo of him. The impersonator looked nothing like him. (193.250.53.25 (talk) 15:49, 7 August 2009 (UTC))

Also starring everybody in Hollywood

The "guest stars" bit is getting out of hand. On a long-running series, it's next to inevitable a lot of people who later go on to be stars will make brief appearances. (My personal fave is Gerald McRaney.) I don't think there's a huge need to mention them all. I can see Lauren Bacall, James Woods, Rita Moreno, Robert Loggia, Blair Brown, Isaac Hayes, Rob Reiner, & Tom Selleck (for the irony), but honestly, Jack Colvin? Some trimming is in order, & a bit of judgment in including new names definitely is. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 17:25, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

where is Jim Rockford's trailer now who has it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.159.26.209 (talk) 07:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC)