It's mentioned in the trivia that ABC canceled the show inspite it still being good in favor of more modern shows.
Well if that was the case how come 2-3 years later ABC debuted Alias Smith & Jones and Kung Fu?
Maybe the ratings did slip enough to warrant cancelation.
From what I have read, The Big Valley was in the bottom third of the Nielsen ratings in its final season. It never had great ratings. After the first season, it was moved to a less competitive time slot and ratings improved. The following season it had a popular new competitor (The Carol Burnett Show) but somehow managed to get renewed for a fourth season.
shareWell it must of had good ratings or it wouldn't of lasted 4 years.
It might of not been in the list of top rated shows but it the ratings were too low ABC would of pulled the plug after the first season.
I have heard that the ratings were never real great and Lee Majors said the show was cancelled after the third season and then at the last minute they threw in a fourth season no reason given as to why. The Big Valley was then put into syndication and took off and has been with us until today and now considered one of the best of all time.
shareFrom what I've read and heard, westerns were starting to lose out to other genres and types of shows.
Michael Landon reported that when Bonanza started back in 1959, there were over 30 westerns on television. By the late 60s, I don't think that there were nearly that many.
Networks, upon seeing the success of other shows, such as crime dramas, variety shows, and comedies, the western had, more or less, reached an end.
As we see through the history of television, these are trends that often take place. During the 70s-80s, we saw a lot of family sitcoms. By the 90s, there were very few left until they were nearly fazed out.
It's also important to note that westerns were the most popular genre from the 40s-late 60s. That is a long time for a genre to basically dominate television...and that doesn't even take into account the number of failed western pilots that didn't make it.
Yes you are right but I am sure glad that because of cable we still enjoy these great old westerns today and their popularity does not seem to fade
shareWesterns were about the most expensive to make, too, especially after TV went color. Think about it - lots of extra handlers of livestock and the like needed for westerns when not for others, lots of outdoor location shooting (great for the Iverson Ranch but not so much for budgets), lots of stunt work required. Westerns died out because other genres were cheaper to make.
shareThat makes sense.
shareLet's get truthful, though. The amount of Westerns on TV in the late '50's and '60s - when there were only
THREE networks, and NO cable! - was nothing short of absurd. To say there were too many doesn't even
begin to describe it. Clearly, the networks and advertisers were marketing to the WHITE, STRAIGHT,
middle-American MALE. I'm not putting down such a demographic, but, seriously, THIRTY Westerns in
'59?!
I enjoyed "Big Valley" and "The Rifleman", but never got into "Bonanza" "Gunsmoke", or "Rawhide." I also
remain mystified that "Bonanza" and "Gunsmoke" ran 13 and 20 years respectively!!
I love classic TV from all the decades, but I don't think TV, as a whole, really hit its creative stride until 1970,
or so. So many great TV shows, without Westerns or canned, one-camera comedies dominating the landscape.
The old Westerns weren't necessarily "creative" as in ground-breaking, but they can be surprisingly thoughtful when looking at them stand-alone.
I don't like Bonanza much, but it has it's moments.
The Big Valley, I love Stanwyck for her film work, and like Nick as a manly-man, while Jarrod is more cerebral.
Lee Majors could have been played by a Wooden Indian, he was that bad.
The young Linda Evans(tad) was too gorgeous to even comment on. YOW
But I've come to really appreciate Gunsmoke. It was gritty, while also giving a lesson in morality.
Bad Guys were Bad, Good Guys were Good, amidst difficult terrain to transverse.
I find the stories to be very compelling, bad guys trying to shove around good guys, and what is the law gonna do about it?
Dillon always sticks with the Law, then tries to bend it to suit his agenda.
"One more complaint, I'm gonna run you out of this country," even though he may not have enough real evidence to do so.
I like it. Let's get proper outcomes, be thoughtful and compassionate in a harsh, cold world.
Don't agree about Lee Majors. I think his "quiet man" persona is the most powerful, subtle and honest
performance among the young men. His work has aged very well on this series. And Linda Evans is
also very honest, and her work in such eps as "Night of the Comet", "Day of Terror" and "A Noose is
Waiting" (a dreadful, hokey offering, redeemed only by Miss Evans' performance) is wonderful.
Since you were so nice to give a response, I'll mention the other day I had a BV ep' on, and I really liked that Richard Long and Peter Breck maybe could pass as real brothers. They were standing near each other, and they were face shots (not full body), and I really thought they looked like they might be actual brothers.
Different people, not much alike, but the hair and facial structure seemed close enough where I could easily thin they were kin.
I get tired of random casting of people who don't look at all alike, and we're supposed to think the are bros & sis.
So true. We have so many "cookie cutter" people today (splattered throughout People Magazine, getting
their lattes, and walking their dogs, chatting on their cell phones...) who are far from genuine stars.
Richard Long was very powerful. I though this work in "Days of Wrath", "The Murdered Party", and
many other eps was excellent. So sad he had such a short life.
The appeal of Westerns has always been the action. Almost every TV show today has action, only now they're mostly cop shows or variants thereof. Variants of straight-shooting guys who get the bad guys, the classic plot of Westerns.
Westerns weren't necessarily cheaper to make, but people started to tire of the same old plot. But people are easily fooled. They moved that plot into outer space, and had the range wars changed to wars between Klingons and the Federation or Darth Vader and his crowd vs. Princess Leia and her crowd; but it was still the cattlemen vs. the sodbusters in brand new clothes. The first Star Wars even had the teenaged boy with an itch to put notches on his gun for whatever reason. If he's a good boy, it's revenge. Robots replaced the trusty dog. The elements were the same. New Westerns for a new generation.
Then we had to pile on blood and gore. Sam Peckenpah did his best to ruin Westerns as good clean fun. John Wayne pointed out that he knew all the Hollywood tricks to make things as gory as possible, but it ruined the plots. There was enough gore in "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance" to get the point across, but I've honestly seen people on the old IMDb eagerly asking, "Are there any head shots?" meaning do you get to see people's brains blown across the set. If not, it's not worth seeing in their estimation. Plots have now become second to gore and sick plot twists in the cop shows that have the action crowds demand, but that lack the basic decency that the old Westerns had.
I'm divided on BV. It just misses being great. When I watch it now (occasionally on Youtube), I'm
reminded of how gorgeously scored, written and cast the show was. The first two seasons, in
particular, are so well-mounted. (One astute reviewer of the first season DVD said it looks like it
was shot for the big screen, not TV. I agree, and don't think the same could be said for Bonanza,
which utilized far more artificial studio shots).
That said, the BV starts to get a bit corny in the third and fourth year. The third season opener,
which features Jarrod temporarily blinded, is very stiff, and an obvious knock-off of the
recently released feature "Wait Until Dark." It was also getting stale. How many times were the
guys - Or Audra - going to fall for the wrong mate, or how many times would Victoria be kidnapped,
tortured, or both? ("The Emperor of Rice" is notably campy).
Four years is a brief run, but I think BV had run its course.
How many times would they fall for the wrong person? Every time, just like the Cartwrights. There was a belief back then that the main characters had to remain single if they started out that way. The idea was they'd lose popularity if they were married off. I don't think it was until they started doing episodic shows like Dallas and Dynasty that the main characters got married. Of course they often married multiple times. I don't think divorce was that common in the old west.
But it is something that gets stale after a while. Jarrod Barkley experienced the same bad luck with marriage as Joe Cartwright. At least Joe's bride Alice managed to live a few months. But she was murdered while expecting a baby. Jarrod's wife barely lasted a week. She had the misfortune of coming to Stockton with her new husband just when someone from Jarrod's past with an ax to grind came to town. Poor Beth intercepted the bullet meant for her new husband.
I think BV had more stories to tell. At least one of the Barkley "kids" could have gotten married. Or Victoria herself could have remarried and stopped getting kidnapped and tortured so often. lol
There was a joke at the time that there was nothing so doomed as a girl engaged to a Cartwright.
shareOh yes! I belong to a Bonanza fan site and there is a running joke about the "curse of the blue dress". The wardrobe department had several blue dresses that the guest actresses wore. Seems that when a Cartwright love interest was in one of those blue dresses, she was doomed. Sort of like the "red shirts" in Star Trek.
shareHilarious! I hadn’t thought of it in Star Trek, but anyone in a red shirt was expendable, wasn’t he?
shareI don't think divorce was that common in the old west.
Everyone seems to be missing a point: Adding a "bride" or "groom" to a stable cast is risky. As
is, they already dropped the character of "Eugene" on BV after the first year because there were
enough characters to flesh out stories. Also, ratings can go down swiftly if an "outsider"
character comes on board.
In the case of "Dallas" and "Dynasty", they were SOAPS. It is normal for characters to marry
and divorce several times.
I am perfectly fine with the Barkleys not marrying/remarrying. I liked them single. They just
ran out of story ideas.
I do agree that adding a character "to a stable cast is risky." Eugene got dropped because the actor who played him was drafted. However, the show didn't bother to recast him. So it was obvious that they could get along without him.
The one type of character that seems to be the kiss of death or a "jump the shark" moment is the baby or little kid. I recall that The Brady Bunch added a little boy, Cousin Oliver, and that went over like a lead balloon with the audience.
True about Dallas and Dynasty (Linda Evans next starring role), also Knott's Landing, Falcon's Crest, etc. But other non-soap series added cast members and remained popular. The Waltons, for example, married off Mary Ellen and later Ben. Both Curtis Willard and Cindy became regular characters although Curt was supposed to have later perished at Pearl Harbor. The show also added Aunt Rose when Michael Learned left the cast for several seasons.
On MASH, Corporal Klinger got married and so did Margaret Houlihan. But we never saw Klinger's wife Laverne and Donald Penobscot was only in a few episodes before Margaret divorced his cheating a@@!
A few sitcoms married off characters without adding anyone new. For example, Mary Tyler Moore. Ted and Georgette were a couple for several seasons and they finally got married. I think it added some realism tot he show. People do get married after dating for several years.
Another show that successfully added characters was My Three Sons. The first character was the adopted son Ernie. That was a no-brainer though. With three sons in the title and the oldest son Mike leaving, they had to add a son or change the title to "My Two Sons." Later, son Robbie married Katie and they had three sons (triplets). Then longtime widower Steve finally remarried. His wife Barbara was a widow with a young daughter. Son Chip also got married near the end of the series.
So adding characters has been done successfully in some shows.
The Big Valley only teased the audience with Jarrod's five day marriage. Of course the "marriage" was just a jumping off point to showcase Richard Long's considerable acting talents. He portrayed the usually calm, rational and logical Jarrod as going totally off the rails with grief and thoughts of vengeance at his wife's murder.
I never meant to suggest that BV NEEDED to marry off any of the principal characters. But it would have been a shot of realism. I think wanton87 is on target with "rural purge". I've read about that. A number of shows with country settings got the ax even if they had good ratings.
I forget who said it, maybe one of the actors from a cancelled show. "That was the year they cancelled everything with a tree in it." lol