After "Return To Mayberry"...

Are you saying there actually was consideration of reviving the series? I've never heard that. Or are you simply saying they should have considered reviving it?

If it's the latter, my guess is simply that Griffith had no interest in revisiting the character on a regular basis. He obviously got tired of playing Andy Taylor during the original run of the series, and I would guess that hadn't changed by 1986. Just because he was ready to do a new series, it doesn't follow that he'd want to retread old ground and return to playing a character that he'd done for so many years.

I have to say I'm surprised by the negative opinions some people on this thread have about Return to Mayberry. I thought it was well-done and did an excellent job of recapturing the feel and tone of the original series. I credit this to the fact that they were wise enough to actually use writers from the original series (Harv Bullock and Everett Greenbaum), something that is not always done when a revival movie is produced.

 

I meant “proven” in that the reunion did so well, it showed there was still an audience for it...remember also the original show was at the top of the ratings when it went off the air. So while there were no guarantees, a revival had a tremendous advantage over an unknown series...

 

I vaguely recall talk of it at the time...my point is that the way the film ends seems intentionally done to give them the option to continue (especially Opie moving away)...

Everyone here seems to think I am advocating a revival series should have been done, when all I was doing was making an observation.

 

I have never heard of this as being a pilot for a new series, just a reunion of “where are they now” kind of thing. Sure it’s not up to the glory of the original but it’s far from terrible. It really helps close the final chapter on these characters. The only thing that surprised me in the whole thing is that Opie still lives there but everyone acts like they haven’t seen Andy in decades. I think that including original writers, all of the living cast (except for Frances Bavier who declined) and most of the original crew helps this to be one of the best of the reunion movies. But as everyone knows it is hard to go home again.

 

I never took what you said as advocating, I think you’re right. The movie ended as really closing the book on a lot of things, Andy and Barney are back where they belong, Barney and Thelma Lou are finally married, etc. It gives closure but ... that final scene certainly left the door open for more possibilities if/when that time would come.

I have always wondered why it was on NBC instead of CBS. I wonder if Griffith had a contract with NBC at the time because of Matlock? Regardless, I am glad to have the movie as part of the whole TAGS story.

 

According to the book "Andy & Don", the Matlock pilot had already aired previous to "Return", it got good ratings, and Andy was gung-ho to do Matlock. He never seriously considered reviving TAGS, he wanted to move on.

 

Checking newspapers.com, NBC at least wanted more Mayberry tv movies, and were hoping to get another one done in time for the upcoming holidays...

 

Right up into the 1990's I used to say give me a show with Jim Nabors and George Lindsey playing Gomer and Goober and it would still be a hit.
Add in Don Knotts as Barney Fife and I would have watched every week.

 

me too probably...ever read George's Book; Goober? fun...great guy.

 

Don't forget he did Headmaster, a ripoff of Room 222, in 1970, which failed so spectacularly that it was rebooted into The New Andy Griffith Show in Jan 1971 in the same time slot never missing a week (afair) where he played the Mayor of a small town that seemed to be just down the road from Mayberry. That failed almost as badly. Mayberry R.F.D. was still on the air.

 

I also have the Andy and Don book, and if I recall, it is correct that Andy was already committed to Matlock. The Mayberry tv movie was part of his new deal with NBC. But NBC did hope for another one (and why wouldn't they, with those ratings?) and it never came to be. Working title was Christmas in Mayberry. I personally would've enjoyed seeing it.

 

I am not a big fan of reunion movies for reasons stated by others. The shows are in a half hour or hour format originally, stretched out to two hours, actors have aged and lost their chops.

There were a couple of successes, I suppose. I would call the Perry Mason movies a success. Leave It To Beaver, I suppose. Even though that was syndicated. It's not some sure fire hit, it is actually hard to pull off.

Griffith made the right call in pursuing Matlock. The second successful show for an actor is a prize, usually it's something more boilerplate, Diagnosis Murder, Ironside was another one. In The Heat Of The Night. The actor is going to be remembered for their first show, but the second one burnishes their rep. Matlock was going to be a lot better for Griffith's legacy than going back to the Mayberry well.

Plus Dukes Of Hazzard had already updated the Southern motif.

 

"The New Maverick" TV movie and "Bret Maverick" series revival in the 80s failed to capture the success of the original Maverick series and probably didn't help James Garner's career. Not long after the "Bret Maverick" series ended, I recall when Garner made an appearance at an event alongside my friend's country band. Despite his fame, Garner was very humble and down to Earth and his gentle yet friendly personality only made him more respectable.

Although Andy Griffith fans seem divided when it comes to his "Matlock" series, I do think part of his success with that role was being able to distance himself from Mayberry. Perhaps a little more light-hearted when compared to other southern-based shows such as "In The Heat Of The Night," the characters and stories on Matlock were edgy and took a new approach by offering something modern for those times. Of course, the Matlock character didn't entirely abandon the traditions and values of Mayberry's Andy, which reminded many viewers of why they appreciated him in the first place.

 

Definitely. I do think that James Garner's "Rockford Files" TV movies maintained a high level of quality comparable to the Perry Mason TV movies.

 

I think the Maverick, Perry Mason and Leave it to Beaver revivals were all cases where they didn't manage to successfully recapture the tones of the original series. In those cases, they did not use writers from the original series. As I noted above, Return to Mayberry was a rare case where a reunion movie did use original series writers, and that's what made it exceptional in that genre.

 

If any of these were ever going to be revived as regular series, you have to have however many episodes, 22, 24, and scripts and stuff.

Remember the plots of the original Andy Griffith Show. No Opie, do you want Andy to be a single dad again, 20 years older? I never watched the reunion, but remember on the original show the Barney Fife character, his ambitions and such. Going to walk through those again? What would be the source for the plots with all of the characters older and likely more settled?

I have termed these second shows for stars like Matlock boilerplate, and they can be, but episodes still have to be created to entertain folks.

 

As another poster pointed out, NBC wanted a “Christmas in Mayberry” movie. Didn’t happen. And honestly, even if Andy had wanted to do a series revival, my guess is the NBC programming chief Brandon Tartikoff - a pretty savvy guy - wouldn’t have ordered it. He knew that there was more interest in an occasional special than seeing the Mayberry crew every week (as did Andy).

 

Barney Miller on ABC also took a little while to find its footing (it started at the top of 1975), but once it did, it was well and truly something (lasting to 1982). Also, like Cheers, Hill Street Blues on NBC took some time to get going, and then became a long-runner for the Peacock network (that one going to 1987; last go of it [1986-87] being the first year [IIRC] of the NBC Peacock we know today [the 6-feathered one]).

 

This has always puzzled me too, and it's not unique to THE ANDY GRIFFITH SHOW and its revival. Consider shows like MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE, a stalwart owned by CBS, yet its revival in 1988 was on ABC. DARK SHADOWS was an ABC serial, but its revival in the 90s showed up on NBC. THE INVADERS aired two seasons on ABC, yet its late 90s attempt at a revival was on FOX. MACGYVER ran on ABC, but has been revived by CBS. S.W.A.T. was an ABC series, now running on CBS.

And surely the most famous example is STAR TREK, three years originally on NBC, now a CBS property.

 

So glad they just let it go. A return would have been silly

 

As are many other shows of that family, many originally airing elsewhere than CBS (like the original Dynasty, which was on ABC from 1981-89, but owing to CBS' purchase of Aaron Spelling's shows, is now a CBS property, or even Cheers [originally on NBC from 1982-93, but is CBS-owned, owing to CBS' purchase of the properties of the original Paramount Television]).

 

I thought STB was the best reunion movie ever made and by far the most faithful to the show and its characters. Unfortunately, where I lived in New York City, we didn't get cable until late 1990, so I never got to see the series.

 

Shows are owned by the production companies, Universal, 20th century Fox, MGM, Warner, etc., not by the networks which air them. Years ago, there were series that ran on 2 or even 3 of the networks during their first runs.

 

Yes it was!!! Eddie Haskel was as great as ever.....having Touey swap the knobs on the bathroom faucet because he built the sink wrong!!