Richard Dean Anderson stars as western dime novelist Ernest Pratt (not dime-store novelist as one storyline writer has it, showing off more than he knows) who has created a larger-than-life literary character called Nicodemus Legend. Legend is the typical pure-hearted fighter for right. Pratt is a hard-drinking, whoring, cowardly anti-hero. Yet everyone believed the author Pratt and the Legend character are one. Funny: it's ignorant people who do it in the series but academics and grad students working on dissertations who make the same mistake today. Anyhow, Pratt is more interested in his royalties than in right.
He's befriended by a scientist working in isolation in Colorado (working strongly with electricity, sort of like Tesla). The scientist (played by John de Lancie) helps Pratt live up to his reputation as Legend. Though Pratt would rather be left out of any rough stuff.
The good: Anderson has a flair for comedy though he mugs too much. His MacGyver was always kind and courteous but his Pratt dien little to make himself likeable, though he is. Bob Balaban pops in from time to time as a representative from Pratt's publisher who is a burr under Pratt's saddle. And I like the sense of rollicking fun pervading the series.
Unfortunately, the show's shortcomings are legion.
First, the history is little better than F-Troop. The writers of the later Deadwood admitted that while there was lots of cussin' in the old west the words they scripted weren't accurate and they used them to shock. I wonder if the "Legend" writers ever so much as cracked open a book on the west.
I know, it's not a documentary series, but little things mount up. In the year he died, in the series, Wild Bill Hickok claims he never saw an ocean. Hickok actually traveled the east with Buffalo Bill and did plays in places like New York where he could easily have seen an ocean. In an episode where Custer shows up he's referred to as General and he's wearing stars. During the Civil War he was breveted to general but after the war reverted to a lesser rank. It's possible some people might've continued giving him the courtesy rank of general but he certainly would not have worn stars, especially at the time he was going up against . . .Not the War Department, as the series has it, but the Bureau of Indian Affairs, which was incredibly corrupt. In another episode they suggest hiring Kit Carson as a tracker, though Carson died eight years earlier.
I could continue the list but I'll stop with John de Lancie's character, based loosely on Tesla, who despises Edison. In fact, the year this series was set Edison was setting up his invention factory in New Jersey. The inventor says Edison's working on moving pictures, though Edison wouldn't start work on that for more than a decade. If he hated Edison that's much it's probably because Edison had two hard-and-fast rules about his inventions: first, find the market; second, find the financing. It flies in the face of what we deluded modern people think inventors should be (though why should inventors be less interested in royalties than writers?) De Lancie's character is probably envious that Edison is not only a genius, he understands how to turn a buck.
De Lancie's Hungarian accent (Tesla was Serbian) is annoying. And he's always critical of his American hosts. It's one thing for "more sophisticated" Americans to criticize things, but how'd the Hungarians like a show with an American going over there and constantly pointing out how ignorant they all are? In all things, remember the Golden Rule. Treat others as if you were the others. I've like de Lancie since catching him on "Days of Our Lives" but here he's annoying. It was one thing for Ray Walston to point out shortcomings in "My Favorite Martian" but it rubs a people's fur the wrong way to be told week after week what numbskulls they are.
It's funny how the writers do a good job digging out archaic words and phrases but do such rotten history. But the historical inaccuracies didn't sink this ship. US citizens are particularly uninterested in their history. Which is why p.c. Charlatans so easily pull the wool over their eyes with lies and half-truths.
I have no axe to grind against revisionist or subversive westerns. Two of my favorite movies are James Garner's "Support" flicks. Both are hilarious, and definitely untraditional.
Nor am I against redress for failures of the past. But the way to redress a barn burning on one end isn't setting fire to the other end. It's everyone working together to douse the flames before the whole shebang burns down.
BTW, I also have no qualms about the steampunk elements, of inventions appearing before they were possible. I think that's grand. It's what encouraged me to try the series in 2023, twenty-five years later (it took me so long because I frankly never heard of the thing before happening up on it accidentally).
Also, unlike the shows I grew up with in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s, it's dark and unwelcome. That probably is a problem of my age. Young people starting in the 1990s seem to prefer the dark and gloomy and I don't. Perhaps they kept the color to a minimum to contrast against Anderson when he dons his Legend suits. But on a personal note, I don't like it.
It's a darn good premise: dime novelist concerned only with the bottom line but who is often mistaken for his caring character is befriended by steampunk inventor and together they right wrongs in the west. Works for me.
But westerns have been tricky since the 1960s and some good ideas, like "Nichols" and "Best of the West" bit the dust all too soon due to faulty carry-through. And by the 1990s it was nearly impossible.
The censors of the day killed "The Wild Wild West" as too violent. Too bad. It was wonderful. Comic westerns are problematic because if you present comic situations involving Indians or Mexicans the p.c. Inquisitors label it racist as if merely involving people in comic situations is making fun of them. That's because p.c.-erstwhile are self-righteous dimwits with no sense of humor. Humorless censors, especially ignorant ones like p.c. Censors, are always the people to fear.
Overall, while I loved the pilot, the series never lived up to its promise. And it had an inexplicable mean streak. And, in the long run, steampunk is really a subset of a subset. I admire it in the abstract but it's rarely done well. And it has a very minority appeal, and I don't mean minority in a good way. I mean unless it's done wonderfully and surpasses expectation it's audience will be small. And Legend was not that wonderfully done and didn't surpass my expectations.
He's befriended by a scientist working in isolation in Colorado (working strongly with electricity, sort of like Tesla). The scientist (played by John de Lancie) helps Pratt live up to his reputation as Legend. Though Pratt would rather be left out of any rough stuff.
The good: Anderson has a flair for comedy though he mugs too much. His MacGyver was always kind and courteous but his Pratt dien little to make himself likeable, though he is. Bob Balaban pops in from time to time as a representative from Pratt's publisher who is a burr under Pratt's saddle. And I like the sense of rollicking fun pervading the series.
Unfortunately, the show's shortcomings are legion.
First, the history is little better than F-Troop. The writers of the later Deadwood admitted that while there was lots of cussin' in the old west the words they scripted weren't accurate and they used them to shock. I wonder if the "Legend" writers ever so much as cracked open a book on the west.
I know, it's not a documentary series, but little things mount up. In the year he died, in the series, Wild Bill Hickok claims he never saw an ocean. Hickok actually traveled the east with Buffalo Bill and did plays in places like New York where he could easily have seen an ocean. In an episode where Custer shows up he's referred to as General and he's wearing stars. During the Civil War he was breveted to general but after the war reverted to a lesser rank. It's possible some people might've continued giving him the courtesy rank of general but he certainly would not have worn stars, especially at the time he was going up against . . .Not the War Department, as the series has it, but the Bureau of Indian Affairs, which was incredibly corrupt. In another episode they suggest hiring Kit Carson as a tracker, though Carson died eight years earlier.
I could continue the list but I'll stop with John de Lancie's character, based loosely on Tesla, who despises Edison. In fact, the year this series was set Edison was setting up his invention factory in New Jersey. The inventor says Edison's working on moving pictures, though Edison wouldn't start work on that for more than a decade. If he hated Edison that's much it's probably because Edison had two hard-and-fast rules about his inventions: first, find the market; second, find the financing. It flies in the face of what we deluded modern people think inventors should be (though why should inventors be less interested in royalties than writers?) De Lancie's character is probably envious that Edison is not only a genius, he understands how to turn a buck.
De Lancie's Hungarian accent (Tesla was Serbian) is annoying. And he's always critical of his American hosts. It's one thing for "more sophisticated" Americans to criticize things, but how'd the Hungarians like a show with an American going over there and constantly pointing out how ignorant they all are? In all things, remember the Golden Rule. Treat others as if you were the others. I've like de Lancie since catching him on "Days of Our Lives" but here he's annoying. It was one thing for Ray Walston to point out shortcomings in "My Favorite Martian" but it rubs a people's fur the wrong way to be told week after week what numbskulls they are.
It's funny how the writers do a good job digging out archaic words and phrases but do such rotten history. But the historical inaccuracies didn't sink this ship. US citizens are particularly uninterested in their history. Which is why p.c. Charlatans so easily pull the wool over their eyes with lies and half-truths.
I have no axe to grind against revisionist or subversive westerns. Two of my favorite movies are James Garner's "Support" flicks. Both are hilarious, and definitely untraditional.
Nor am I against redress for failures of the past. But the way to redress a barn burning on one end isn't setting fire to the other end. It's everyone working together to douse the flames before the whole shebang burns down.
BTW, I also have no qualms about the steampunk elements, of inventions appearing before they were possible. I think that's grand. It's what encouraged me to try the series in 2023, twenty-five years later (it took me so long because I frankly never heard of the thing before happening up on it accidentally).
Also, unlike the shows I grew up with in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s, it's dark and unwelcome. That probably is a problem of my age. Young people starting in the 1990s seem to prefer the dark and gloomy and I don't. Perhaps they kept the color to a minimum to contrast against Anderson when he dons his Legend suits. But on a personal note, I don't like it.
It's a darn good premise: dime novelist concerned only with the bottom line but who is often mistaken for his caring character is befriended by steampunk inventor and together they right wrongs in the west. Works for me.
But westerns have been tricky since the 1960s and some good ideas, like "Nichols" and "Best of the West" bit the dust all too soon due to faulty carry-through. And by the 1990s it was nearly impossible.
The censors of the day killed "The Wild Wild West" as too violent. Too bad. It was wonderful. Comic westerns are problematic because if you present comic situations involving Indians or Mexicans the p.c. Inquisitors label it racist as if merely involving people in comic situations is making fun of them. That's because p.c.-erstwhile are self-righteous dimwits with no sense of humor. Humorless censors, especially ignorant ones like p.c. Censors, are always the people to fear.
Overall, while I loved the pilot, the series never lived up to its promise. And it had an inexplicable mean streak. And, in the long run, steampunk is really a subset of a subset. I admire it in the abstract but it's rarely done well. And it has a very minority appeal, and I don't mean minority in a good way. I mean unless it's done wonderfully and surpasses expectation it's audience will be small. And Legend was not that wonderfully done and didn't surpass my expectations.