Aubrey Hackett
While it is a pity that the story wasn't told with more visual finesse, this is trivial compared to our real-world problems. It takes a good movie to put that into perspective.
Hattie
I didn’t really have many expectations going into the movie (good or bad), but I actually really enjoyed it. I really liked the characters and the banter between them.
Jenni Devyn
Worth seeing just to witness how winsome it is.
Travis Maxson
Although we are talking about aliens/scifi and the naivety of the culturistic past, Starman was 'good TV'. If you are honest with yourself, TV today is about CGI, forced action, demons, witches, werewolves and a plethora of crime based spoofs. This is what has captivated the TV viewers of today... I realize that I am from a different era, however I have the option to watch all that stuff too. I choose not to. Not always because of the questionable content that the TV shows have, but the commercial content that goes along with it. Don't you realize that crime TV is laced with commercials that encourage questionable activities, like just do it, drinking alcohol and commercials that totally disregard your health? I do not remember the commercials of yesteryear for Starman the TV series, but I do know that the commercials of today are far from being those of 1986. Starman should be an example to us that we should be conscience of our actions, we should be eager to help others that are in need and willing to do that right thing; even if that means to accept the consequences. A good TV company could resurrect the STARMAN series simply by pointing out the needs of society that are destroying us today.
russedav
Starman (the TV series, NOT the far inferior movie) is a wonderful rarity among shows of having a dad and his son loving and concerned with one another, sadly taboo in today's vile media cesspool obsessed with destroying the true family via pro-ven mental illness counterfeits(those its not "politically correct" to mention without censorship by hypocrites who demand First Amendment protection only for themselves), indeed and any intimate relationships outside of true marriage, civilization's bedrock, under vicious attack by so many. Dads are always depicted as fools or worse, and when dads and sons love each other, sick lying media often try to twist it into something as twisted and perverted as they are. Sadly this is why Starman had to be destroyed. It was moved among bad time slots to pretend ratings were the cause of its demise, the media being ultimately focused on lust, for power and depravity the deluded deceive themselves into thinking is being "open-minded," not ultimately money, or they'd focus on G movie moneymakers, not PG and above losers, usually badly done. I hope one day today's fools will wake up to how crucial Dads are, and the Moms standing by them, especially but not just for sons, instead of sticking narcissist heads in the sand, denying reality, reason and civilization. I had to put a dash in "pro-ven" because the blasted spellchecker kept mistakenly "correcting" it to the erroneous "proved." Computer programs are so stupid.
parsifalssister
Although the series did not get re-upped for a second season, I found it so many years later to be both inspiring, sensitive and tender.Starman, played by Mr. Hayes, came to life and captivated me into believing an alien can take on human form and excel in all the ways we hope humanity can behave. His expressions of tenderness, not only for his son, Scott, admirably played by Barnes, but all of those he encountered was an inspiration to be more open to all human frailty.The drama was low pitched but the messages in each episode finely drawn and memorable.It is a pity that the simple messages in a series like this are not more appreciated and valued.
MovieBuffMarine
When I heard that Starman the TV series was coming out, I was skeptical. Why? Because so many TV series based on hit movies don't make the grade. I thought this was going to be one of those trying to cash in on the movie's success.When it premiered in September 1986, I was surprised. While the writing wasn't super, it was decent enough to garner my interest. I found myself actually looking forward to the next episode.My only big criticism of the series was that it wasn't consistent with the movie. This was supposed to be a sequel. The story of the movie took place in 1977. When I began watching the series, I thought hey, it's 1991 (seeing that the events in the series took place fourteen years after the movie). Then in the final episodes, they make it clear that Starman the series was taking place in contemporary (1986-87) times. A general says, "14 years ago I was flying jets in Vietnam." (The Vietnam War ended in 1975, two years before the movie's events took place) and George Fox, the NSA agent says his interview with Jenny Hayden took place in 1972. What did the writers think of viewers? As stupid? That we didn't care? Sorry, (from some of the other comments), not too many viewers were fooled and caught the inconsistencies.Too bad Karen Allen, the one who played the original Jenny Hayden didn't come on board to reprise the role towards the end of the series. I'm an Erin Gray fan, but she just wasn't Jenny Hayden.Anyway, the series was written well enough to garner an audience and last through the whole 1986-87 season. (Most series based on movies die before mid-season.) I just wish that either 1) they could've continued it or 2) have a better ending than the one they had (the last eps were supposed to tie up loose ends). But unfortunately, and to quote the SciFi mag, Starlog (on the fate of Starman the series), "Not even all the fan mail in world can save it."So may this decent series rest in peace in re-runs.
