Cannon (1971-76)

[Little Garwood]

Hi Little Garwood,

"I am more interested in characters and the "time capsule" quality shows and films are with all the things the shows communicate, sometimes unintentionally"

You put into words exactly how I feel about late 1950's/early 1960's series, such as Route 66, Naked City, Hawaiian Eye and 77 Sunset Strip.
I guess because I lived in the 1970's the series from then aren't quite as impactful in the sense you are writing about, for me. I see a average car like a 1972 Impala
on Cannon, I shrug, but when I see a 1962 Impala on Route 66 I think "cool, look at that".
Route 66 is literally a time capsule of a now vanished America, every episode filmed on the road(though not necessarily on Rt. 66). Locals were used in
minor parts, and whatever the nature of the local culture, landscape, industry, it was worked into the script.

I have compartmentalized obsessions with several eras, so I watch The Twilight Zone every Friday for mid-century anxiety coupled with skinny ties and ultra-short haircuts, the Kennedy Administration, the space program, and the fear of could-happen-at-any moment nuclear armageddon, all of which are entirely different tropes than those found in the early-to-mid-1970s fixation of mine.

The Mrs. and I are currently in S1 (again). Season 1 and season 4 are my favorites, I prefer the "tone poem" episodes like "The Big Tall Wish" over the more famous "stinger at the end" episodes, like "Time Enough at Last", but just about every episode has what I seek in that hallowed 1959-64 era.

Too bad William "Cannon" Conrad didn't do a Twilight Zone...

[Pahonu]

I scanned over your post, Dobie, but since I am averse to spoilers, I didn't read all of it. I won't be getting to season 5 for years. I liked tour Cannon joke, though!

I'm a big Pernell Roberts fan, and I look forward to his appearance, for better or worse.

Stories not making sense or just plain bad stories mean very little to me though I completely understand being annoyed with bad writing. There's an episode of The Big Valley called "The Odyssey of Jubal Tanner" that will induce an incandescent rage in any conscious viewer of that episode.

I am more interested in characters and the "time capsule" quality shows and films are with all the things the shows communicate, sometimes unintentionally. I'm having a blast watching the washed-out, smoggy California as seen on Cannon. The 1971-75 era in particular fascinates me, and that is the very period in which Cannon was made.

So the bottom line is: whether good, bad, or ugly, I get more out of watching an early-to-mid-70s series (or any other era) than the average viewer.

Route 66 is literally a time capsule of a now vanished America, every episode filmed on the road(though not necessarily on Rt. 66). Locals were used in
minor parts, and whatever the nature of the local culture, landscape, industry, it was worked into the script.

I haven’t seen many, but I just watched an episode of Route 66 that was filmed in and around Malibu. It was cool to see the area back then. It also had a young Jack Lord as a jazz trumpeter at a club. There aren’t many jazz clubs left and none in Malibu that I know of.

The 70’s are the time capsule for me personally because for the early part of the decade I was very young and have only fleeting memories, if any, so it fills in many of the details. By the late 70’s I have lots of memories and the nostalgia kicks in. Plus I grew up in LA so I recognize so many places that they filmed.

Then there’s The Streets of San Francisco. We had close family friends who lived in the Bay Area, and I mean right in the city, in the Russian Hill neighborhood in a cool old Victorian house. We used to go stay with them every summer for a week when I was a kid and explore all the neighborhoods. Whenever I watch the show, I recognize so many places and have fond memories of being there around the same time period. They still would have been filming it when I visited as a young boy. My wife and I go there a lot even now, though our friends no longer live right in the city.

Pahonu,
I always enjoy your recollections, especially the benefits of living in California for a TV/Movie aficionado. I am sooo envious.
Now you Golden Bear State locals may roll your eyes at touristas like me that go on the Universal back lot tour but it was one of the most fun things I have ever done.
Rolling past the Leave It To Beaver house, then the downtown used in so many Universal shows/movies - Back To The Future - then on to the set for the
town in Murder She Wrote that they claimed was once the setting for McHales Navy(I corrected them, it was only used in a few episodes of McHales Navy
as New Caledonia).
The European Town area was just the same then - 1988 - as it was for Run For Your Life, some Rockfords, etc.
In fact I was struck by struck by how much of ADAM-12 and Dragnet was actually filmed on these streets, they especially used one of the 3 identical "Munster Mansion"
houses over and over.
I think it was on Magnum Mania, there was a lively back and forth on weather the spooky mansion used in The Ghost & Mr. Chicken was the same as The Munsters home,
the one on Psycho and as Jimmy Stewart's house in Harvey. Turns out it was such an effective design/look they built three, one was razed, the remaining 2 still
causing confusion as to which is which.
Anyway Pahonu, I hope in the future you will share more of your Hollywood experiences, if you are a mind to.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How to impress a first date with your wine knowledge courtesy of James Thurber -
"It's a naive domestic blend without any breeding, but I think you'll be amused by it's presumption."

Thank you for the kind words.

The Universal tour is always fun and they change as shows come and go. Most of the backlots in Hollywood are entirely gone now, or nearly so. Paramount has a fraction of what it once did, Sony in Culver City (old MGM) even less. The largest remaining besides Universal is Warner Ranch, I think.

[Little Garwood]

I'm nearing the end of Cannon S1. There seems to be some average episodes stacked in at the end of the first season but it's nothing like The Odyssey of Jubal Tanner. William Conrad is absolutely superb as Frank Cannon. He doesn't need a supporting cast; that's how good he is in the title role.

[ZelenskyTheValiant (Ivan)]

I'm nearing the end of Cannon S1. There seems to be some average episodes stacked in at the end of the first season but it's nothing like The Odyssey of Jubal Tanner. William Conrad is absolutely superb as Frank Cannon. He doesn't need a supporting cast; that's how good he is in the title role.

So you think Conrad deserved those Emmy nominations for CANNON? As opposed to, say, Jack Lord who never got a single nom? How does Conrad compare with Mike Connors who also got a few nominations?

[Little Garwood]

I'm nearing the end of Cannon S1. There seems to be some average episodes stacked in at the end of the first season but it's nothing like The Odyssey of Jubal Tanner. William Conrad is absolutely superb as Frank Cannon. He doesn't need a supporting cast; that's how good he is in the title role.

So you think Conrad deserved those Emmy nomination for CANNON? As opposed to, say, Jack Lord who never got a single nom? How does Conrad compare with Mike Connors who also got a few nominations?

I'm not an awards show proponent. However, imo Five-O and Bonanza never got the recognition they deserved despite their ratings success. I routinely roll my eyes at what won and what was omitted in any given year's awards. At the same time, I recognize that the 1970s had a multitude of great shows and performances. Cannon and Mannix were fine shows and were worthy of every accolade they received.

[ZelenskyTheValiant (Ivan)]

I'm nearing the end of Cannon S1. There seems to be some average episodes stacked in at the end of the first season but it's nothing like The Odyssey of Jubal Tanner. William Conrad is absolutely superb as Frank Cannon. He doesn't need a supporting cast; that's how good he is in the title role.

So you think Conrad deserved those Emmy nomination for CANNON? As opposed to, say, Jack Lord who never got a single nom? How does Conrad compare with Mike Connors who also got a few nominations?

I'm not an awards show proponent. However, imo Five-O and Bonanza never got the recognition they deserved despite their ratings success. I routinely roll my eyes at what won and what was omitted in any given year's awards. At the same time, I recognize that the 1970s had a multitude of great shows and performances. Cannon and Mannix were fine shows and were worthy of every accolade they received.

Boy, you nailed it with BONANZA! Honestly, next to Don Knotts as Barney Fife (who was nominated and won multiple times for that role) Dan Blocker was probably the second great comedy actor of the 60s! Even if he starred in a show that wasn't a comedy but rather a drama/western. Still, he could make you bust a gut laughing at some of his antics, playing Hoss. Same with Michael Landon as Little Joe. Some of the best comedic moments actually involved those two! How neither of them never got a nomination is simply beyond me. They could both do comedy as equally great as they could the dramatic moments. That's real talent right there! Yet they never got recognized for it. I'd throw in Lorne Greene and Pernell Roberts in there as well. All 4 were fine actors and played their parts extremely well. Yet you had planks of wood like Raymond Burr get a bunch of nominations. Where's the logic in that????

[Pahonu]

I'm nearing the end of Cannon S1. There seems to be some average episodes stacked in at the end of the first season but it's nothing like The Odyssey of Jubal Tanner. William Conrad is absolutely superb as Frank Cannon. He doesn't need a supporting cast; that's how good he is in the title role.

So you think Conrad deserved those Emmy nomination for CANNON? As opposed to, say, Jack Lord who never got a single nom? How does Conrad compare with Mike Connors who also got a few nominations?

I'm not an awards show proponent. However, imo Five-O and Bonanza never got the recognition they deserved despite their ratings success. I routinely roll my eyes at what won and what was omitted in any given year's awards. At the same time, I recognize that the 1970s had a multitude of great shows and performances. Cannon and Mannix were fine shows and were worthy of every accolade they received.

Boy, you nailed it with BONANZA! Honestly, next to Don Knotts as Barney Fife (who was nominated and won multiple times for that role) Dan Blocker was probably the second great comedy actor of the 60s! Even if he starred in a show that wasn't a comedy but rather a drama/western. Still, he could make you bust a gut laughing at some of his antics, playing Hoss. Same with Michael Landon as Little Joe. Some of the best comedic moments actually involved those two! How neither of them never got a nomination is simply beyond me. They could both do comedy as equally great as they could the dramatic moments. That's real talent right there! Yet they never got recognized for it. I'd throw in Lorne Greene and Pernell Roberts in there as well. All 4 were fine actors and played their parts extremely well. Yet you had planks of wood like Raymond Burr get a bunch of nominations. Where's the logic in that????

Logic doesn’t really apply to such a subjective topic. One might not agree but it’s not for lack of logic. It’s just a difference of opinion.

I believe shows are only eligible in a single category as a drama or comedy or miniseries, etc... So if Bonanza was categorized in drama and had writing or directing nominations, for example, the actors wouldn’t be eligible for comedy awards, only drama, no matter how comedic their performances.

There have been a few shows over the years that don’t neatly fit into one category. I’m trying to remember examples, but I do recall comments that a show may have been miscategorized .

[ZelenskyTheValiant (Ivan)]

I'm nearing the end of Cannon S1. There seems to be some average episodes stacked in at the end of the first season but it's nothing like The Odyssey of Jubal Tanner. William Conrad is absolutely superb as Frank Cannon. He doesn't need a supporting cast; that's how good he is in the title role.

So you think Conrad deserved those Emmy nomination for CANNON? As opposed to, say, Jack Lord who never got a single nom? How does Conrad compare with Mike Connors who also got a few nominations?

I'm not an awards show proponent. However, imo Five-O and Bonanza never got the recognition they deserved despite their ratings success. I routinely roll my eyes at what won and what was omitted in any given year's awards. At the same time, I recognize that the 1970s had a multitude of great shows and performances. Cannon and Mannix were fine shows and were worthy of every accolade they received.

Boy, you nailed it with BONANZA! Honestly, next to Don Knotts as Barney Fife (who was nominated and won multiple times for that role) Dan Blocker was probably the second great comedy actor of the 60s! Even if he starred in a show that wasn't a comedy but rather a drama/western. Still, he could make you bust a gut laughing at some of his antics, playing Hoss. Same with Michael Landon as Little Joe. Some of the best comedic moments actually involved those two! How neither of them never got a nomination is simply beyond me. They could both do comedy as equally great as they could the dramatic moments. That's real talent right there! Yet they never got recognized for it. I'd throw in Lorne Greene and Pernell Roberts in there as well. All 4 were fine actors and played their parts extremely well. Yet you had planks of wood like Raymond Burr get a bunch of nominations. Where's the logic in that????

Logic doesn’t really apply to such a subjective topic. One might not agree but it’s not for lack of logic. It’s just a difference of opinion.

I believe shows are only eligible in a single category as a drama or comedy or miniseries, etc... So if Bonanza was categorized in drama and had writing or directing nominations, for example, the actors wouldn’t be eligible for comedy awards, only drama, no matter how comedic their performances.

There have been a few shows over the years that don’t neatly fit into one category. I’m trying to remember examples, but I do recall comments that a show may have been miscategorized .

So is 1960s BATMAN a comedy or a drama? It's 30 minutes long but it has no laugh track. Hmmm... Would Adam West get the Emmy for Best Actor in a Drama or Best Actor in a Comedy? Or Best Actor in the POW,ZAP,WHAM category?

[Pahonu]

So you think Conrad deserved those Emmy nomination for CANNON? As opposed to, say, Jack Lord who never got a single nom? How does Conrad compare with Mike Connors who also got a few nominations?

I'm not an awards show proponent. However, imo Five-O and Bonanza never got the recognition they deserved despite their ratings success. I routinely roll my eyes at what won and what was omitted in any given year's awards. At the same time, I recognize that the 1970s had a multitude of great shows and performances. Cannon and Mannix were fine shows and were worthy of every accolade they received.

Boy, you nailed it with BONANZA! Honestly, next to Don Knotts as Barney Fife (who was nominated and won multiple times for that role) Dan Blocker was probably the second great comedy actor of the 60s! Even if he starred in a show that wasn't a comedy but rather a drama/western. Still, he could make you bust a gut laughing at some of his antics, playing Hoss. Same with Michael Landon as Little Joe. Some of the best comedic moments actually involved those two! How neither of them never got a nomination is simply beyond me. They could both do comedy as equally great as they could the dramatic moments. That's real talent right there! Yet they never got recognized for it. I'd throw in Lorne Greene and Pernell Roberts in there as well. All 4 were fine actors and played their parts extremely well. Yet you had planks of wood like Raymond Burr get a bunch of nominations. Where's the logic in that????

Logic doesn’t really apply to such a subjective topic. One might not agree but it’s not for lack of logic. It’s just a difference of opinion.

I believe shows are only eligible in a single category as a drama or comedy or miniseries, etc... So if Bonanza was categorized in drama and had writing or directing nominations, for example, the actors wouldn’t be eligible for comedy awards, only drama, no matter how comedic their performances.

There have been a few shows over the years that don’t neatly fit into one category. I’m trying to remember examples, but I do recall comments that a show may have been miscategorized .

So is 1960s BATMAN a comedy or a drama? It's 30 minutes long but it has no laugh track. Hmmm... Would Adam West get the Emmy for Best Actor in a Drama or Best Actor in a Comedy? Or Best Actor in the POW,ZAP,WHAM category?

That’s a pretty good example! The producer William Dozier actually described it that way: a situation comedy without a laugh track. Adam West was cast because he was so adept at delivering his lines straight-faced and without a hint of humor in the midst of all the silliness.

[ZelenskyTheValiant (Ivan)]

I'm not an awards show proponent. However, imo Five-O and Bonanza never got the recognition they deserved despite their ratings success. I routinely roll my eyes at what won and what was omitted in any given year's awards. At the same time, I recognize that the 1970s had a multitude of great shows and performances. Cannon and Mannix were fine shows and were worthy of every accolade they received.

Boy, you nailed it with BONANZA! Honestly, next to Don Knotts as Barney Fife (who was nominated and won multiple times for that role) Dan Blocker was probably the second great comedy actor of the 60s! Even if he starred in a show that wasn't a comedy but rather a drama/western. Still, he could make you bust a gut laughing at some of his antics, playing Hoss. Same with Michael Landon as Little Joe. Some of the best comedic moments actually involved those two! How neither of them never got a nomination is simply beyond me. They could both do comedy as equally great as they could the dramatic moments. That's real talent right there! Yet they never got recognized for it. I'd throw in Lorne Greene and Pernell Roberts in there as well. All 4 were fine actors and played their parts extremely well. Yet you had planks of wood like Raymond Burr get a bunch of nominations. Where's the logic in that????

Logic doesn’t really apply to such a subjective topic. One might not agree but it’s not for lack of logic. It’s just a difference of opinion.

I believe shows are only eligible in a single category as a drama or comedy or miniseries, etc... So if Bonanza was categorized in drama and had writing or directing nominations, for example, the actors wouldn’t be eligible for comedy awards, only drama, no matter how comedic their performances.

There have been a few shows over the years that don’t neatly fit into one category. I’m trying to remember examples, but I do recall comments that a show may have been miscategorized .

So is 1960s BATMAN a comedy or a drama? It's 30 minutes long but it has no laugh track. Hmmm... Would Adam West get the Emmy for Best Actor in a Drama or Best Actor in a Comedy? Or Best Actor in the POW,ZAP,WHAM category?

That’s a pretty good example! The producer William Dozier actually described it that way: a situation comedy without a laugh track. Adam West was cast because he was so adept at delivering his lines straight-faced and without a hint of humor in the midst of all the silliness.

I just have a hard time thinking of Batman as intentional full-on comedy. I suppose it's because all the incarnations that I grew up with were all pretty serious. Nowadays we think of him as the most grim of all the superheroes. I grew up with BATMAN: THE ANIMATED SERIES in the 90s and even though it was animated it was hardly kids stuff. It seemed more geared for adults even though we kids watched it. That's why it holds up so well now when you see it as an adult.

[Pahonu]

Boy, you nailed it with BONANZA! Honestly, next to Don Knotts as Barney Fife (who was nominated and won multiple times for that role) Dan Blocker was probably the second great comedy actor of the 60s! Even if he starred in a show that wasn't a comedy but rather a drama/western. Still, he could make you bust a gut laughing at some of his antics, playing Hoss. Same with Michael Landon as Little Joe. Some of the best comedic moments actually involved those two! How neither of them never got a nomination is simply beyond me. They could both do comedy as equally great as they could the dramatic moments. That's real talent right there! Yet they never got recognized for it. I'd throw in Lorne Greene and Pernell Roberts in there as well. All 4 were fine actors and played their parts extremely well. Yet you had planks of wood like Raymond Burr get a bunch of nominations. Where's the logic in that????

Logic doesn’t really apply to such a subjective topic. One might not agree but it’s not for lack of logic. It’s just a difference of opinion.

I believe shows are only eligible in a single category as a drama or comedy or miniseries, etc... So if Bonanza was categorized in drama and had writing or directing nominations, for example, the actors wouldn’t be eligible for comedy awards, only drama, no matter how comedic their performances.

There have been a few shows over the years that don’t neatly fit into one category. I’m trying to remember examples, but I do recall comments that a show may have been miscategorized .

So is 1960s BATMAN a comedy or a drama? It's 30 minutes long but it has no laugh track. Hmmm... Would Adam West get the Emmy for Best Actor in a Drama or Best Actor in a Comedy? Or Best Actor in the POW,ZAP,WHAM category?

That’s a pretty good example! The producer William Dozier actually described it that way: a situation comedy without a laugh track. Adam West was cast because he was so adept at delivering his lines straight-faced and without a hint of humor in the midst of all the silliness.

I just have a hard time thinking of Batman as intentional full-on comedy. I suppose it's because all the incarnations that I grew up with were all pretty serious. Nowadays we think of him as the most grim of all the superheroes. I grew up with BATMAN: THE ANIMATED SERIES in the 90s and even though it was animated it was hardly kids stuff. It seemed more geared for adults even though we kids watched it. That's why it holds up so well now when you see it as an adult.

Perhaps you know, but I believe I read that the animated series won an Emmy or similar award. I’ve never seen it though.

[ZelenskyTheValiant (Ivan)]

Logic doesn’t really apply to such a subjective topic. One might not agree but it’s not for lack of logic. It’s just a difference of opinion.

I believe shows are only eligible in a single category as a drama or comedy or miniseries, etc... So if Bonanza was categorized in drama and had writing or directing nominations, for example, the actors wouldn’t be eligible for comedy awards, only drama, no matter how comedic their performances.

There have been a few shows over the years that don’t neatly fit into one category. I’m trying to remember examples, but I do recall comments that a show may have been miscategorized .

So is 1960s BATMAN a comedy or a drama? It's 30 minutes long but it has no laugh track. Hmmm... Would Adam West get the Emmy for Best Actor in a Drama or Best Actor in a Comedy? Or Best Actor in the POW,ZAP,WHAM category?

That’s a pretty good example! The producer William Dozier actually described it that way: a situation comedy without a laugh track. Adam West was cast because he was so adept at delivering his lines straight-faced and without a hint of humor in the midst of all the silliness.

I just have a hard time thinking of Batman as intentional full-on comedy. I suppose it's because all the incarnations that I grew up with were all pretty serious. Nowadays we think of him as the most grim of all the superheroes. I grew up with BATMAN: THE ANIMATED SERIES in the 90s and even though it was animated it was hardly kids stuff. It seemed more geared for adults even though we kids watched it. That's why it holds up so well now when you see it as an adult.

Perhaps you know, but I believe I read that the animated series won an Emmy or similar award. I’ve never seen it though.

Yep, I believe it did.

[Little Garwood]

Does Cannon "evolve" from what was presented in season one? If so, in what ways?

[Pahonu]

Does Cannon "evolve" from what was presented in season one? If so, in what ways?

I would say not really. There is a big moment in season five that explains his reason for becoming a detective. I won’t ruin it with any more details, but I felt it odd that it wasn’t explained at the beginning of the series.

[Little Garwood]

Does Cannon "evolve" from what was presented in season one? If so, in what ways?

I would say not really. There is a big moment in season five that explains his reason for becoming a detective. I won’t ruin it with any more details, but I felt it odd that it wasn’t explained at the beginning of the series.

November 1, 1980.

Maybe it's due to my age, but the four years between 1976--when Cannon--ended its run---to The Return of Frank Cannon in 1980 feels like an eternity! If the mere 30 days between issues of, say, Spider-Man seemed like a crazy amount of time, the four years from the end of a series up to its reunion TV movie was even longer. Nowadays, the passing of 20 years is like the blinking of an eye.

This post brought to you by growing older...it happens to us all (if we're lucky).