3 of 6 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Have You Got 15 Minutes (Maybe 20 Or 25) To Read Something Kind Of Meaningless (But Fun) Re. "The Dick Van Dyke Show"?, August 23, 2006
This review is from: The Dick Van Dyke Show Collection (DVD)
This 5-Disc DVD set ("The Dick Van Dyke Show Collection") includes six episodes of the Van Dyke Show, plus lots of other stuff as well. In addition to the half-a-dozen Van Dyke episodes on the first three discs, there are six episodes from a like number of other vintage "Golden Age" TV sitcoms included in this unique DVD package too.
There's one episode each from these TV series: "The Adventures Of Ozzie & Harriet", "The Andy Griffith Show", "Love That Bob", "The Lucy Show", "The Beverly Hillbillies", and "Petticoat Junction".
Plus, on Discs 4 and 5, an assortment of "Behind The Scenes" and "Hollywood Remembers" programs are presented (focusing on TDvDS co-stars Dick Van Dyke and Mary Tyler Moore).
Many fans of "The Dick Van Dyke Show", however, might be disappointed at the discovery that there are a mere six Van Dyke eps. on tap within this five-disc collection (and, given the product's title, I couldn't really blame them).
For true-blue fans of the great Dick Van Dyke Show, I'd highly recommend picking up any (or all) of the five excellent and lovingly-produced full-season DVD boxed sets that have been issued by Image Entertainment. Those sets contain uncut episodes, in virtually-pristine video quality, and also are packed with many excellent bonus features to boot.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Here now is that "Meaningless Fun Stuff" I mentioned.........
The comments below are aimed at die-hard fans of "THE DICK VAN DYKE SHOW", whom I think might get a kick out of the trivial trivialities that I'm going to go on and on about. The following hunks of long-windedness are born exclusively out of my fascination and repeated viewings of every episode in the 158-show history of "The Dick Van Dyke Show". ......
Have you ever watched certain episodes of a particular television program over and over so many times that you start nit-picking little "goofs" and oddities and things that just don't add up logically?
For me, the fabulous "Dick Van Dyke Show" (1961-1966) fits that bill. Make no mistake, this TV show is my all-time favorite for a variety of reasons (the writing, the excellent cast, the era it was made, and the show's re-watchability factor, which is unparalleled IMO) -- but I, over time, have noticed some flubs and errors that should have probably been corrected before the shows were ever telecast.
I thought it would be kind of fun to compile a casual list of "Goofs & Flubs & Writing Gaffes" for some of the Van Dyke episodes. And here's my list of such things (all in fun of course; with no offense intended to the Creator/Writer/Producer of this all-time TV classic, Mr. Carl Reiner):
>> In the episode "The Two Faces Of Rob" (From Season 2), in the scene where Rob (aka: Dr. Bonelli) agrees to meet Laura for a date at 4:30, there's an error in the script -- because Buddy and Sally repeat the time to Rob. But neither could possibly have heard Laura say she could meet Bonelli "at 4:30". This blunder could, of course, have easily been avoided if the script had called for Rob to say to Laura: "4:30 will be fine" -- instead of the line we hear: "That will be fine".
>> In "It's A Shame She Married Me" (Season 2), there's a major writing error. .... Rob has just hours earlier told Sally that he's "not gonna tell her [Laura] about it" (a party with an old flame of Laura's -- Jim Darling [Robert Vaughn]). But in the next scene, what happens? Sally, out of sheer spite it would seem from the way it's written, calls up Laura and asks her what she's going to wear to the Jim Darling party. Ultra-silly. Sally, KNOWING of Rob's not wanting Laura to know of this affair, would never have made that call. It should have been Mel, or someone other than Sally, to have spilled the beans over the telephone. Having Sally make that call only makes her look stupid and just plain mean.
>> In "The Brave And The Backache" (Season 3), Rob suffers a recurring back injury, which forces him (at one point during the episode) to stand up straight and stiff-as-a-board, unable to bend at all. Now, given this fact, can somebody please tell me HOW Rob was able to DRIVE HIMSELF HOME THAT EVENING? Are we to believe Rob stood up the whole way, while driving his vehicle in a totally-rigid position? LOL. .... That's just one of those little things that normally go unnoticed, until (perhaps) the 279th viewing. :)
>> In "The Cat Burglar" episode (Season 2), there's a multitude of errors (IMO), perhaps more lapses of logic than any other Van Dyke episode. --- Can anyone explain the logic of these burglars? They go to the trouble of breaking silently and undetected into the Petrie house on Bonnie Meadow Road, and are able to get out of the house unnoticed with the dining-room set.
So, what do these bonehead burglars decide to do? -- Do they take their loot and run for the batcave? No. Instead, they decide to LEAVE THE PILFERED MERCHANDISE BEHIND (when they obviously could have just taken it off the premises at the time of the middle-of-the-night theft). They leave the dining set in the toolshed on the Petrie property so they can run the further risk of getting caught by coming back LATER to pick it up. Why not just steal it and take it with them? Makes no sense to me.
Another odd thing about these very "neat" and orderly thieves (besides their placing protective packing papers all around the table & chairs in the cartons they hide in the toolshed) is the fact they neatly place the dining table's tablecloth and china and silver in perfect arrangement after their crime. Can you imagine a thief taking the time to physically arrange every spoon & knife & cup/saucer perfectly on the tablecloth ON THE FLOOR after swiping a dining table?
Also: The burglars are said in the episode to be "specialists", who only steal silver and TV sets. But, for some reason, they've changed their pattern at the Petrie house, taking only the dining set, and leaving behind the silver and TV (which both were, btw, readily available to the crooks for the snatching). We're surely not to assume there are two sets of cat burglars who just happened to strike the neighborhood in the same 5-day period, are we? Mr. Mason, your witness.
A very, very silly-looking goof in the "Cat Burglar" ep. is when Jerry comes through the glassless window, poking his head and rifle into the Petrie bedroom. There's NO glass in the window! Seems rather odd, doesn't it?
Now are you gonna sit there and try to tell me that Robert Simpson Petrie, who wants to protect his family and is already concerned about a potential burglar in the area, is going to sit still this night for going to sleep in a bedroom where a burglar could slip in easily through a window with NO GLASS in it, that's protected only by a CURTAIN?!! Come now. The O.J. jury wouldn't even buy that logic! LOL!
NEXT WEEK ON "UNSOLVED MYSTERIES": "Why is there no glass in that Petrie window?" (LOL!)
Then there's the somewhat odd statement made by the police detective at the end of the episode, when he says to Rob: "The next time you lock a crook in your bedroom, make sure all the windows are locked".
I scratch my head when hearing this and say "Huh?". WHY would Rob's locking the bedroom window have prevented the crook from simply flipping the window lock and still opening the window to escape? Since when do windows lock ON THE OUTSIDE (or with KEYED locks)?
Plus: Also remember this is the episode which has NO GLASS at all in that very same bedroom window which the crooks need to use as an escape route. Therefore, in this instance, there is literally no window TO lock in the bedroom. LOL!
How about this one, Van Dyke fans (still talking about the "Cat Burglar" episode here, which has a mountain of oddities and logic gaps within it) --- We've got Rob & Laura being awakened by sounds from the living room, which Rob admits sound like "somebody trying to get out".
So, we can naturally assume that the burglars had already been in the house before Rob got up to look. But when Rob investigates, rifle in tow, we can see that the dining set is STILL THERE! Therefore, the crooks had to RE-ENTER the house to steal the goods.
Now tell me how likely it would be that neither Rob nor Laura would hear the crooks' activity in the next room, especially given the couple's already highly-anxious state of mind after Rob nearly shoots Laura's lovely head off during his midnight romp with the .22? Highly unlikely the crooks' second attempt would go unnoticed under these stressful circumstances. Mr. Burger, your witness. :-)
Plus -- How realistic is the scene the next morning when NEITHER Rob nor Laura notices the dining table missing? They walk right past the large empty space in the room multiple times and don't even notice. Highly unlikely.
And yet, my friends, during the epilogue to this Van Dyke episodic adventure, Rob immediately notices a missing piece of furniture (the 9-foot curved sofa that wife Laura Meeker-Meehan-Petrie has sent out to be cleaned on Rob's day off). Granted, the absence of a nine-foot couch MIGHT stick out a tad more like a sore thumb vs. the absence of the dining set. But the difference is negligible, IMHO.
Therefore, ladies and gentlemen of the jury -- I submit to you that this episode's writing cries out for justice! And begs to be revised in the "reality" department by Writer/Producer Carl Reiner! For, ladies and germs, isn't it Reiner himself who has said to his subsequent writing partners on numerous occasions when penning the various Van Dyke episodes: "If it couldn't happen to you (or Rob Petrie), then don't put it in the script!"??
Thusly, Mr...
Read more ›
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
