Talk:Maverick (TV series)

Maverick Roller Coaster

Just wanted to add the new roller coaster at Cedar Point is named after the Maverick tv show with 6 of the characters names appearing on the trains.

Wow! Which six names? Upsmiler (talk) 02:17, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Cleanup

I have endeavored to bring this article up to standards of NPOV and to make it more encyclopedic, though I do not yet have citations for the originally tagged statements. I hope this has helped- if others agree, have done enough to remove the flags at the top? ChrisStansfield 00:31, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Flags

Yes, I think the flags at this juncture are largely undeserved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skymasterson (talk • contribs) 05:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Flag Removal

I think someone should remove the flags; does anyone disagree with this at this point? Wastetimer (talk) 23:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Flags not ready for removal:

The writing is not up to par. I can't speak to the neutrality issue.

The current writing style is vague, amateurish, and excessively laden with adverbs. The following excerpt is an example of all of these issues:

The Mavericks would typically fall prey to precarious scenarios, weighing a financial windfall against a moral dilemma. More often than not, their consciences trumped their wallets. Bret Maverick was realistically (and vocally) reluctant to risk his life, though he typically ended up forcing himself to be courageous, usually in spite of himself. He frequently flimflammed adversaries, but only criminals who actually deserved it. Otherwise he was scrupulously honest almost to a fault, in at least one case insisting on repaying a large debt that he only arguably owed to begin with (in "According to Hoyle").

While I could copy edit the writing to clean it up, as could a lot of people, it probably should be done by someone with a better grasp of the factual details. --Joseph N (talk) 14:39, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

The paragraph you cited seems extremely clear and perfectly descriptive of the the show's nuances. Doesn't seem the least bit vague about anything and the adverbs get a lot of appropriate information across in a limited amount of space. Seems professionally written in that no words are clumsily repeated in the course of the description. It's admittedly not ideal for readers for whom English is a second language, perhaps, but one hopes that dumbing it down isn't viewed as a necessity. Upsmiler (talk) 21:28, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

The article is full of clumsy, childish, and occasionally absurd grammatical oddities. Dangling modifiers, errors of antecedence, tense shifting, et sophomoric cetera. Also some weasel-words (e.g. "arguably", almost always weasely). Original research, opinion, contradictions, unsupported assumptions, and bad fan-mag writing. This is supposed to be encyclopedic?

Not sure I agree

playing their slippery young cousin Ben Maverick (son of Beau). Wouldn't that make him their brother?--Filll (talk | wpc) 03:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

No, this refers to Bret and Bart's first cousin Beau Maverick, played by Roger Moore, not their father Beau Maverick, played by James Garner in the episode "Pappy." That would make Ben Maverick their second cousin.Wastetimer (talk) 03:16, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Jack Kelly .jpg

The image Image:Jack Kelly .jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --06:20, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I shot the Maverick

The page says they couldn't get an hour program shot in 6 days. Had they not heard of a shooting schedule? How could they not get it in the can on time? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 11:38, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Basically, writer/producer Roy Huggins took such care in polishing the episodes that it was taking 7 days to keep the level of quality that made the series such a hit initially, while Huggins was with the show during the 1st 2 seasons. Huggins realized that they were going to come up short, which was when the idea of a clone-type brother came up. To speed up production would've meant a sacrifice of the series' stratospheric quality, which has yet to be equaled, I think. Huggins goes into a lot of detail about this in his Archive of American Television interview, the best single source for "Maverick" information, unsurprisingly enough. It would've been interesting had they cast Stuart Whitman, who looked like Garner in '57 and tested for the Bart Maverick part. Upsmiler (talk) 02:13, 12 August 2011 (UTC) Upsmiler (talk) 16:17, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

And the studio was furious that Huggins was taking so long with the show but they certainly couldn't argue with the results: even they could read the ratings.

Upsmiler (talk) 02:15, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Thx. I continue to be confused how an experienced executive producer couldn't keep things under control. It's not like getting behind schedule doesn't occasionally happen, but all the time? It strikes me the line producer (if that's the term; essentially Gene Coon's job on "STTOS") had to be screwing up. Ah, well. Not a forum... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 06:43, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Nobody was screwing up at all, it was just a matter of the episodes taking 7 days to maintain the quality, largely due to Huggins' meticulous post-production polishing, which made Maverick hang together so perfectly in the first two seasons (after Huggins left at the conclusion of the second season, that quality plummeted and plummeted, then fell off the table, along with the ratings by the end of its run, aside from a few exceptional episodes). The decision was whether to add another production crew simultaneously shooting episodes with a different leading man, cut the quality, or fold down the most comprehensively successful series the studio or the network had. The answer was obvious. At first Warners wanted to use a sidekick but Huggins realized that would kill the ratings for the sidekick's shows and insisted on a clone/brother. Unfortunately, Jack Kelly (movie star Nancy Kelly's brother) couldn't handle comedy at all; as Huggins said, he would drop a funny line "like a load of coal," something no one realized when they cast him. His work with Garner remains blazingly fine, though, and it's impossible to imagine a better onscreen team. It's a shame they didn't bring on Roger Moore much earlier so they could use Garner and Kelly together more often. Upsmiler (talk) 16:30, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

"Nobody was screwing up at all" Fair enough. One other thing crosses my mind (& your mention of a 2d unit plays into it, actually). It's an approach Joss Whedon took on Buffy: use a 2d unit to keep things on schedule. Was Garner in all the shots? Or were there enough without him a 2d unit could've sped things up? Before they added a 2d guy... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 06:51, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

No, Garner was in enough shots to make speeding things up with a second unit impossible as far as cutting out a full day's shooting. Unlike many current shows, Maverick was not at all an ensemble series and the lead character generally remained more or less the focus, exactly like Garner's later series The Rockford Files. Upsmiler (talk) 15:30, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Mystery

Some say the inspiration of Maverick came from the famous gunfighter Doc Holliday.--74.34.91.138 (talk) 23:57, 13 February 2012 (UTC)