ALL SCI-FI Forum Index ALL SCI-FI
The place to “find your people”.
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

It's About Time (1966)
Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    ALL SCI-FI Forum Index -> Sci-Fi on Television from 1950 to 1969
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
alltare
Quantum Engineer


Joined: 17 Jul 2015
Posts: 351

PostPosted: Mon Nov 09, 2015 11:55 pm    Post subject: It's About Time (1966) Reply with quote

I have recently found a TV series that's worse than I DREAM OF GENIE, BEWITCHED, and even worse than LOST IN SPACE.

A local over-the-air channel is playing episodes of a real stinko called IT'S ABOUT TIME (1966). It's about a couple of time-traveling astronauts who go through a time warp and wind up back in the stone age. How good could it be when 2 of the stars are Imogene Coca and Joe E. Ross? This show is even worse than Gilligans Island, which was also created and produced by Sherwood Schwartz. After watching less than 5 minutes of a single episode, I had no doubt that these 2 shows came from the same mind. Read more about it here, if you dare:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It's_About_Time_(TV_series)

In case I wasn't very clear above, let me repeat that this series was BAD.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
scotpens
Starship Captain


Joined: 19 Sep 2014
Posts: 871
Location: The Left Coast

PostPosted: Tue Nov 10, 2015 12:03 am    Post subject: Re: It's About Time Reply with quote

Halfway through It's About Time's first and only season, the premise was switched: the astronauts found a way to return to their own time and took some of the cave people with them. So it became a fish-out-of-water comedy with the Stone Age folks trying to adapt to modern times. Either way, the show was absolutely godawful.

"Worse than My Mother the Car?" do I hear you ask?

Yes.


Last edited by scotpens on Sun Dec 15, 2019 2:17 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Brent Gair
Mission Specialist


Joined: 21 Nov 2014
Posts: 465

PostPosted: Tue Nov 10, 2015 10:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I remember this show very well. I wouldn't call it bad as much as I would call it typical. There was a staggering number of these short-lived shows cranked out in the 1960's. Some captured the public imagination and some didn't. IT'S ABOUT TIME had a wonderful cast and, frankly, I'd rather watch it than watch BEWITCHED playing the same joke every episode for multiple seasons.

Catchy theme song that I never forgot:

https://youtu.be/J1G-TsdNWGg
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bud Brewster
Galactic Fleet Admiral (site admin)


Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 17018
Location: North Carolina

PostPosted: Tue Nov 10, 2015 11:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

And the opening credits of that episode on Youtube lists the director as . . . Richard Donner.

Now THAT'S funny.
Laughing
_________________
____________
Is there no man on Earth who has the wisdom and innocence of a child?
~ The Space Children (1958)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Custer
Space Sector Commander


Joined: 22 Aug 2015
Posts: 932
Location: Earth

PostPosted: Tue Nov 10, 2015 12:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

What, some people don't like Bewitched? Surprised

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Pow
Galactic Ambassador


Joined: 27 Sep 2014
Posts: 3400
Location: New York

PostPosted: Tue Nov 10, 2015 2:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The theme song always stuck with me from this goofy show.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Krel
Guest





PostPosted: Tue Nov 10, 2015 4:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

No show with Paul Lynde as Uncle Arthur, or Marion Lorne as Aunt Clara is bad!

David.
Back to top
Rocky Jones
Astral Engineer


Joined: 17 Dec 2014
Posts: 225
Location: North Texas

PostPosted: Wed Nov 11, 2015 11:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Pow wrote:
The theme song always stuck with me from this goofy show.

Memory is cruel thing, all right. I haven't seen this piece of blank series since it's short run nearly half a century ago, but that silly theme is still in my head, too.

"It's about time. It's about space. It's about two men in the strangest place..."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Pow
Galactic Ambassador


Joined: 27 Sep 2014
Posts: 3400
Location: New York

PostPosted: Thu Sep 01, 2016 9:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Trivia } Frank Aletter who played Mac on IAT was married to Lee Merriwether who played scientist Ann on The Time Tunnel.

Interesting coincidence that both spouses were doing 60s sf tv shows dealing in time travel.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bud Brewster
Galactic Fleet Admiral (site admin)


Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 17018
Location: North Carolina

PostPosted: Tue Oct 18, 2016 10:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

________________________________

Here's an interesting trivia item about It's About Time from IMDB.


Although the show only lasted one season and was not ranked high in the Nielsen ratings, it was immortalized when Isaac Asimov referred to it in an essay he wrote in February 1967 titled, "Impossible, That's All" (about how it was impossible for anything to go faster than light). The essay was later included as a chapter of Asimov's book, "Science, Numbers and I".
_________________
____________
Is there no man on Earth who has the wisdom and innocence of a child?
~ The Space Children (1958)


Last edited by Bud Brewster on Thu Mar 08, 2018 10:27 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Pow
Galactic Ambassador


Joined: 27 Sep 2014
Posts: 3400
Location: New York

PostPosted: Thu Mar 23, 2017 12:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Always enjoyed Isaac Asimov's writings regarding how atrocious the science can be on sci-fi television shows & films.

I'm pretty sure I read at least one or more in the TV Guide.

He really raised my awareness about the discrepancies between how science worked in the real world as opposed to "tv science" on sf programs.

ST:TOS would submit their scripts to the De Forest Research Company so that they could examine the particular science of each episode & point out any flaws.
They weren't always able to influence the script from a scientific accuracy aspect. However, I respect that ST attempted to get their science correct, at least some of the times.

Irwin Allen's 4 sci-fi tv series never did anything like that I'm aware of. Consequently his shows are much more difficult to have a willing suspension of disbelief. And that in turn takes me out of my being able to be drawn into an episode.

I have friends who point out that one must not take the poor science for a movie of tv series seriously. After all, it's only a movie,tv show.

My take on it is why not at least try to set the bar high & get the science of it right? Why must it be dumbed down to the audience?

I think sci-fi asks us to believe in their wild premises. Okay. Then how about you show me that you care about the interior logic of your premise by making the science as logical as you can without hurting the concept?

Scientific consultants can assist with the productions. Some corrections will be simple, others more challenging & at times for the sake of the script the science might just have to go out the window.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bud Brewster
Galactic Fleet Admiral (site admin)


Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 17018
Location: North Carolina

PostPosted: Thu Mar 23, 2017 2:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

________________________________

Pow, I read your post twice see if I could find anything to disagree with.

Heck, I couldn't find a damn thing. Sad

So, I'll just have agree and extend the discussion by stating what we all know — that the fun part of writing a science fiction story is using real science to suggest your basic premise, and then providing plausible explanations of "future discoveries" that cover the laws of science you have to break.

A good example would be this lovely machine.






Spaceships can't travel faster than light (that's the science). . . until technology finds a way to make it happened (that's the fiction).

The difference between a series like Star Trek and movies like Flight to Mars is the inclusion of "artificial gravity" and "warp drive". The Enterprise crew strolled around the ship normally and traveled light years in a matter of days.

In Flight to Mars they just ignored the lack of gravity, and they zipped right over to Mars in nothin' flat.

I mean, dang it, would it have been so hard for the makers to propose that the ship's revolutionary new propulsion system was able to thrust at one G halfway to Mars and then decelerate at one G for the other half?

See? I solved the problem in one sentence! And they could have written a little dialog to explain it in the movie! Shocked

According to John D. Cook's article on the subject, the trip to Mars would take three days under those conditions.

My obvious point, of course, is that just ignoring the problems a story premise presents — instead of having the fun of dealing with them — is like a kid going to a playground . . . and ignoring the slides, swing sets, and monkey bars! Shocked

_________________
____________
Is there no man on Earth who has the wisdom and innocence of a child?
~ The Space Children (1958)


Last edited by Bud Brewster on Sat Mar 31, 2018 1:24 pm; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Pow
Galactic Ambassador


Joined: 27 Sep 2014
Posts: 3400
Location: New York

PostPosted: Fri Mar 24, 2017 11:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

So true,Bud.

No one is suggesting that the science in sci-fi films or television must be 100% accurate. Hey, it's called science fiction for a reason.

We are extrapolating on what "might be" in the near or distant future.

At times the storytellers will encounter scenarios that must be solved with that willing suspension of disbelief that we need to have.

Your example of a star ship going faster than the speed of light is one such example.

Reality: It cannot be done. However, for the sake of promoting the premise of a movie or tv series it is absolutely essential to the story.

So we accept that perhaps one day we will have space ships that can travel beyond the speed of light.

Every day on the science sights we read about astonishing breakthroughs in medicine,space,computers,you name it.

And it turns out the experts get surprises to the scientific ideas they were taught & hold.

Plus, there's just an enormous amount of things we still don't know.

All we're asking is that the writer's attempt to get their story right regarding the science whenever they can & not blow it off.

I have friends that tell me things like, hey, its just a movie or tv show. One friend says its the kind of movie where you park your brain in the lobby.

To them I say, yeah, I get your reasoning. So here's mine, why can't they get it right WHEN they are able?

Why not strive for accuracy?

Consult the science experts. They may tell you something is totally wrong about the science, but be able to give you a solution.
That solution just might even make for an even better story?

If science-fiction is going to take us on a fantastic journey,respect our intelligence. It helps me enjoy the journey even more.


Last edited by Pow on Mon Jan 10, 2022 7:41 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Gord Green
Galactic Ambassador


Joined: 06 Oct 2014
Posts: 2940
Location: Buffalo, NY

PostPosted: Fri Mar 24, 2017 4:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well, first you have to understand Arthur C Clarke's adage that "Signifantly advanced science technology would appear to be magic."

I'm constantly reminded that every age thinks that it has a "handle" on how they perceive reality.

Imagine if a reasonably educated ancient Egyptian suddenly found himself in the world of today. Used to every object he is aware of made of bone, stone, wood or copper/bronze/gold or silver, being presented with plastics in all it's assorted uses and finding it utilized in all it's myriad ways.

Radio and television would be a magic manifestation of the gods! Wide screen-flat screen TV's and movie theatres would blow his mind! Even plate glass windows would be a concept his mind would have difficulty understanding.

Autos as self propelled chariots would move by magic to his perception.

These concept would be incomprehensible even to someone from a couple hundred years ago.

A few hundred years from now we will have science and technologies FAR beyond what we could imagine. Therefore, at least to my mind, there is no such thing as "impossible", only "improbable".

The future is not only as amazing as we imagine....It is more amazing than we could ever imagine.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
alltare
Quantum Engineer


Joined: 17 Jul 2015
Posts: 351

PostPosted: Fri Mar 24, 2017 4:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I started this thread because I thought I had found the dumbest show on TV. It amazes me, therefore, to see that the subject of absolute stupidity has generated such wise discussion. You intellectuals have ruined this thread!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    ALL SCI-FI Forum Index -> Sci-Fi on Television from 1950 to 1969 All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group