When I heard that Starman the TV series was coming out, I was skeptical. Why? Because so many TV series based on hit movies don't make the grade. I thought this was going to be one of those trying to cash in on the movie's success.
When it premiered in September 1986, I was surprised. While the writing wasn't super, it was decent enough to garner my interest. I found myself actually looking forward to the next episode.
My only big criticism of the series was that it wasn't consistent with the movie. This was supposed to be a sequel. The story of the movie took place in 1977. When I began watching the series, I thought hey, it's 1991 (seeing that the events in the series took place fourteen years after the movie). Then in the final episodes, they make it clear that Starman the series was taking place in contemporary (1986-87) times. A general says, "14 years ago I was flying jets in Vietnam." (The Vietnam War ended in 1975, two years before the movie's events took place) and George Fox, the NSA agent says his interview with Jenny Hayden took place in 1972. What did the writers think of viewers? As stupid? That we didn't care? Sorry, (from some of the other comments), not too many viewers were fooled and caught the inconsistencies.
Too bad Karen Allen, the one who played the original Jenny Hayden didn't come on board to reprise the role towards the end of the series. I'm an Erin Gray fan, but she just wasn't Jenny Hayden.
Anyway, the series was written well enough to garner an audience and last through the whole 1986-87 season. (Most series based on movies die before mid-season.) I just wish that either 1) they could've continued it or 2) have a better ending than the one they had (the last eps were supposed to tie up loose ends). But unfortunately, and to quote the SciFi mag, Starlog (on the fate of Starman the series), "Not even all the fan mail in world can save it."
So may this decent series rest in peace in re-runs.
When it premiered in September 1986, I was surprised. While the writing wasn't super, it was decent enough to garner my interest. I found myself actually looking forward to the next episode.
My only big criticism of the series was that it wasn't consistent with the movie. This was supposed to be a sequel. The story of the movie took place in 1977. When I began watching the series, I thought hey, it's 1991 (seeing that the events in the series took place fourteen years after the movie). Then in the final episodes, they make it clear that Starman the series was taking place in contemporary (1986-87) times. A general says, "14 years ago I was flying jets in Vietnam." (The Vietnam War ended in 1975, two years before the movie's events took place) and George Fox, the NSA agent says his interview with Jenny Hayden took place in 1972. What did the writers think of viewers? As stupid? That we didn't care? Sorry, (from some of the other comments), not too many viewers were fooled and caught the inconsistencies.
Too bad Karen Allen, the one who played the original Jenny Hayden didn't come on board to reprise the role towards the end of the series. I'm an Erin Gray fan, but she just wasn't Jenny Hayden.
Anyway, the series was written well enough to garner an audience and last through the whole 1986-87 season. (Most series based on movies die before mid-season.) I just wish that either 1) they could've continued it or 2) have a better ending than the one they had (the last eps were supposed to tie up loose ends). But unfortunately, and to quote the SciFi mag, Starlog (on the fate of Starman the series), "Not even all the fan mail in world can save it."
So may this decent series rest in peace in re-runs.