What makes this show appealing?

I wonder the same thing, especialy to invoke a remake back in 93 (the good ol days when studios waited 30yrs to butcher IP's).

The short answer is the shows were well-written, well-acted, well-produced, and engaging.


I don't think it was a show about a doctor being chased by police.

My thought is TF was an anthology show. The stories each week were about the guest stars than Kimball and Gerad. K & G were the connectors for the stories. Route 66 was a similar format: two guys driving around the country getting involved in people's lives. Gunsmoke evolved into an anthology series. Sometimes credited cast members weren't in episodes.

A number of early TV shows were anthologies: Twilight Zone, Alfred Hitchcock, etc. Somewhere along the line anthology shows went out of fashion. There was an attempt to bring them back in the mid-80's, but they didn't have success on broadcast TV. Syndication and cable had better luck with them.

What makes this show appealing?
posted 4 hours ago by PersistentViewer (2636)
2 replies | jump to latest
I'm asking this, because the Harrison Ford film was so brilliant, and completed the story in just over two hours.

This show has an extremely impressive rating of 8.1/10, however is it really sustainable to watch 120 episodes of a doctor being chased by police ?

I'm not criticizing the premise. I'm just curious as to what keeps this show going?"

Because back in that Era, this show ran 30 minutes an episode and with commercials, it was around 24 Minutes I would imagine and the same goes for shows like Peter Gunn and NIGHT GALLERY

David Janssen. Harrison Ford did a good job in the film but he doesn’t match David Janssen‘s performance.

David Janssen was a likeable everyman. He was pretty great in everything he did.