Could Miami Vice Have Survived?

[Robbie C.]

Something similar to this has likely been discussed before, but in light of comments about the MV finale I'm going to resurrect it here.

Could Vice have survived into the 1990s? Part of this, I think, depends on what you consider Vice. If you're a solid, dedicated fan of seasons 1 and 2 then the answer is no. Times change, trends change, and the world TV reflects changes. What seasons 1 and 2 showed really didn't exist by 1989. Fashions changed. Music taste changed. And above all else the drug scene changed. IF the idea of Vice was to continue to reflect and even set trends, it would have had to change to continue to be relevant. Otherwise it would have become Magnum PI or something similar: stuck in a setting that no longer existed and becoming almost a parody of itself.

The other stumbling block, in my view, was the decision to link the series to Don Johnson. Shifting priorities led to the loss of one cast member, and also left the show especially vulnerable to its star, who really didn't seem to be "into" the show by season 4 (if not sooner). The failure to establish a solid background for Crockett, along with a solid set of antagonists, hampered the writers (had they been interested in pushing plot arcs or some of the other things the show likely needed to continue into the 90s). Tying a show to a star can work if the temperaments are right, along with having a solid show runner and consistent background stuff (look at Magnum PI), but if you lack those things it leaves the show vulnerable to too many things.

If you're not tied to season 1 and 2, then I think the answer's a bit more complicated. Vice could have adapted, and was starting to in terms of fashion, music, and some of the episode plots, but there were still holes. Consistency was always an issue, from writing to character backgrounds and finally the guiding ideas behind the show. If Vice was more than MTV Cops, which TV scholars like Steven Sanders contend it was, then it likely would have gotten darker as it slid more into Noir. The change in drugs and the drug trade alone would have driven the show that way as well. Miami itself was also changing, and Vice would have had to reflect that change if it wanted to stay in the same city.

In short, if you think season 1 and 2 defined Vice for all eternity, then the answer is no, Vice could not have survived into the 1990s. If you like the changes that were taking place during season 4 and into 5, then the answer is yes, it could have. SHOULD it have continued? That's a different question, but I also think your season preferences play a role in the answer there as well.

[mjcmmv]

I don't think it would have survived into the 1990's. I agree that after Season 2, the show gave DJ the superstar status, and although I loved him in the role, the "Team" dynamic that was so important in making this show work, faded into the background. Please tell me what you mean by "failure to establish a solid background for Crockett". Do you mean his history, going back to his football days/Vietnam, etc.? 

So, to answer your question, for me, Season 1 and 2 defined the show, it had some solid episodes in Season 3 and 4, but definitely fell apart in Season 5-I felt Season 5's plot lines were awful, the writing was weak and the actors were struggling with the material.  It probably should have ended after Season 4. 

Edited April 21, 2019 by mjcmmv

[pahonu]

Something I'd like to add for what it's worth.  When Miami Vice debuted, and essentially for most of previous television history, the idea of story arcs established when a show began were relatively rare.  There were certainly exceptions to this, but generally a pilot was made with characters and a backstory.  The show creator was typically involved heavily in the writing of the first few episodes, but the pacing needed to make 26 or later, 22 episodes a season made that impossible to keep up.  Other writers became involved out of necessity and in the following years (if it lasted that long) those writers would consult the show "bible" to keep some level of continuity with character backstories and personalities, etc...  The term "showrunner" didn't even exist before the 80's.  From Slate magazine:

The rise of the term "showrunner" tracks with the rise of writers in television. Before TV became a “writer’s medium,” it was a studio’s medium. Throughout the ’50s and ’60s, studios controlled all facets of production, from conception onward. Writers were mostly contract workers and did not generally participate in crafting the vision of the show. Studios only allowed experienced executives to pitch new shows, and these executives typically stayed on as the chief producers. 

The 70's and 80's started to see this change but it was early in the process.  We tend to view older TV shows from the norms of today where series entire story arcs (over fewer episodes) are planned out from the start of the season, or even the start of the whole series.  That just wasn't done in the past and even in a possible season 6 of Miami Vice in 1990 that wouldn't have been done.  The most you saw was a few episode story arc, or the return of previous characters, though typically not by pre-planning, but after the fact because of popularity.  I think that's why some viewers of older shows become frustrated with inconsistent backstories or guest actors appearing in multiple roles.  It's not done like that today but was the norm in the past.  Just something to consider as we analyze the show.  The same would hold true from the point of visual effects, picture quality, and aspect ratio.  I've heard many unhappy comments about such things on the forum. They have all changed too.

 

Edited April 22, 2019 by pahonu

[Robbie C.]

I compare Vice to contemporary shows like "Hill Street Blues" for the most part, with Magnum and some other elements brought in. Newer shows show what Vice might have become had it pushed the envelope in terms of writing in the same way it did visuals. I think the HSB comparison is valid because Yerkovich came from there. Frankly I think it's a legitimate comparison. In terms of character background, I continue to find it odd that ONLY Crockett suffered from an erratic background. Tubbs and Castillo both had very stable and solid backgrounds, which were used to inform plots and development. I think it's valid to talk about character arcs as being different from story or episode arcs. While I agree story arcs weren't especially common in the older days of TV, character arcs and solid character development were definitely common. You should also consider that those producers were in effect show runners in the sense that we talk about them today. Writers on the more established series were not allowed to deviate from certain parameters regarding the characters. That included backstory.

I also find it interesting that when you look at writing regarding TV cop shows Vice typically only shows up when they're talking about music or visual style. Looking at critical writing regarding more recent shows that were considered groundbreaking you see reference to Hill Street Blues, Homicide, and NYPD Blue as being influences. Law and Order is normally lumped in with episodic throwbacks. Miami Vice rarely appears. Not saying that's good or bad...just observing.

And Crockett's background is erratic in just about every aspect of the character. That hampers any number of things, and would make the show's transition into the 1990s especially difficult as TV's emphasis started to shift and they had to compete with more networks and advancing plot ideas. But that's really the point. If you define Vice as being ONLY a snapshot of the mid-1980s it should have ended after season 3. If you see it as a potential Noir examination of Miami (or drawn wider American culture in general) it could have extended into the 1990s but you would have seen accelerating visual and concept changes in order to both keep that idea going and reflect changes in the culture writ large.

[vicegirl85]

You've raised several questions, each of which leads down some different pathways, I think.

1.  Could MV have continued into the 90s?

I think it could have continued, but it would have had to evolve and (in my opinion) bring out other characters besides Crockett in order to be successful.  Totally episodic programs (like Magnum, P.I.) could be successful at the time, but it felt like that style was on its way out.  A show like Magnum had an established backstory but the episodes rarely brought in past relationships and events.  Even if a guest star was supposed to have been a past buddy, girlfriend, etc. of Magnum, their story sprang from no past hints, clues, etc., but fully formed for the particular episode.  By the next episode it was gone forever.  Magnum lasted for 8 seasons (I didn't watch them all and would not consider myself an expert in the least, but I did watch the show off and on).  MV did this, too, but I think the strong hand of an executive producer that might have guided it to continuing success as a purely episodic show was missing.  The decision to focus on the Crockett character is understandable for business reasons (if nothing else) and I'm as big a fan of DJ as anyone.  But TV stardom doesn't exist in a vacuum.  DJ's desire to take advantage of his success in other mediums (not just one TV show), coupled with the short attention span he himself claimed to have, meant that anyone who was taking on this leadership role (i.e. exec producer/showrunner, whatever is the proper and appropriate term) would have had their work cut out for them.  I have to feel like some others in the cast must have felt there was little room or potential for them and their characters to shine, and did not mind too much when it ended.  

I think for MV to continue, it would have needed to become more of an ensemble show (like Hill Street Blues) and to evolve into some varying storylines.  That could have happened while still sticking with the vice theme and the pressures of undercover work; it didn't necessarily need to be tied to the cocaine trade.   All of these things could have happened, but I didn't feel that the interest or desire was there from anyone, NBC/Universal Studios, Don Johnson, Michael Mann (he was gone anyway by the time the snow ended).   EJO had other projects he was involved with and I'm sorry but PMT never had the influence to be a force in those decisions as far as I could tell.

2.  Which season(s) are your favorite(s)?

I do like S2 best (although I also feel it had some pretty weak stories/ scripts).  S1 had some great episodes, and I'm very fond of S3 (I've said before that Irish Eyes is my favorite, although there are many other episodes I love besides, and some that I feel are superior as episodes).

3.  Characters--focused on a single star vs development of more of the cast?

Like I said above, I'd like to have seen more development of other team members as an ensemble cast, although DJ had undeniable star power in the role of Crockett and he is my favorite character.  I wouldn't have wanted that character to be de-emphasized, so... where would that leave the show?  That's kind of a hard one.  My feeling is that Crockett was given more to do based on viewer/fan response and once on that path it was almost impossible to go back.  While I'd have liked to see them give Tubbs, Castillo, Gina, Trudy, Stan and Larry more to do, would the show have been more or less successful, or lasted a longer or shorter time? 

4.  Character backstory consistency?  Who had it and was it necessary to the show's success?

Robbie C, you've discussed the inconsistencies in Crockett's background quite a bit.  I never noticed the majority of your points before (mostly related to football and to his Vietnam service but also to his time as a police officer and a member of the OCB).  After reading your posts, you're absolutely correct, but I'm wondering how many viewers were willing to just accept a version of a kind of alternate reality where all of it could make sense :).  The whole Vietnam angle does tie the show to a certain time period but Crockett's backstory doesn't fit neatly into time frames that would have made sense.  I'd have liked to learn more about his family (mysterious older brother Jake mentioned once in S5, anyone?) and to have seen signs that he kept up some level of communication with Caroline and Billy (it was definitely my impression that he hadn't seen Billy for a couple of years before Child's Play, and although he said he was going to take Billy for a month at a time during the summer, nothing in the show ever led me to think he followed through).

However, at least Crockett was given a backstory.  What did we really ever learn about Tubbs, besides that he was from NYC, his brother was also a police officer, who was killed by Calderone, and that he had an ex-girlfriend, Valerie, who never really loved him?  Those pieces were consistent but I never felt the character was fleshed out further.  If there was more to be known about Tubbs, I never saw it developed in the show.

Castillo also had a rather murky and vague history.  What I got from the show:  He and his family immigrated from Cuba, possibly before the revolution but at least within a few years of Castro's takeover.  He was involved in some kind of aspect of the civil rights movement with his priest friend (possibly in college and presumably before his work with the DEA/CIA/whatever it was in Southeast Asia).  While he was with the agency, he was best friends with Jack Gretzky and he also married May Ying.  Castillo was betrayed and ambushed by people on his own team and left for dead, and his wife was told that he was dead.  Seemingly, this was all because the feds were protecting Lao Li for some other purpose.  When he was "put back together" by the medical team, he was basically demoted to heading up the vice squad in Miami.  OK, this was a better and more detailed backstory but I don't necessarily think it's more solid than Crockett's.  

Apparently the inconsistencies didn't prevent the show's initial success at all.  Perhaps the inconsistent backstories hindered long-term character development and thus contributed to decreasing interest by the actors, and lack of overall direction to evolve the show.  Ultimately when one views the overall arc of the show, it's interesting to see that the early glimpses of what undercover life can do to a man (as well as the conflict between differing goals of law enforcement agencies) are fulfilled by the end of the series.  I think it was Red Dragon who pointed this out in another thread. 

1 hour ago, pahonu said:

Something I'd like to add for what it's worth.  When Miami Vice debuted, and essentially for most of previous television history, the idea of story arcs established when a show began were relatively rare.  There were certainly exceptions to this, but generally a pilot was made with characters and a backstory.  The show creator was typically involved heavily in the writing of the first few episodes, but the pacing needed to make 26 or later, 22 episodes a season made that impossible to keep up.  Other writers became involved out of necessity and in the following years (if it lasted that long) those writers would consult the show "bible" to keep some level of continuity with character backstories and personalities, etc... 

Yes, I've noticed that as well (the change over the past 30 years or so, that is).  I don't know enough to describe it like you did.    

[Robbie C.]

Just to go back to the backstories: the reason I focus on them is both Tubbs and Castillo had theirs influence the episodic plots in the same way. In other words, Tubbs never suddenly came from Chicago where his sister was killed, or Castillo didn't shift from having a spook-ish background to being a longtime Homicide detective who happened to move to Vice. They didn't develop some of those aspects as much as I personally would have liked, but they also didn't change. Crockett's did, and that creates issues even from an episodic standpoint.

You're quite right that Magnum was an episodic plot series, but the characters grew in an arc style. In other words, Magnum himself shifts a bit over time. But his background remains solid. This kind of thing is pretty normal going all the way back to shows like Gunsmoke. The episode plots might not arc, but characters almost always did (at least the main characters). If you've read the pilot script I think Yerkovich was aiming more for an ensemble show (with more focus on Crockett perhaps but still a rounded cast), and possibly Mann shifted the focus initially to Crockett and it took on a life of its own from there. Ensemble shows tend to have better "legs" than star vehicles, but they have to be developed that way early. Vice wasn't, and from time to time it tried to veer that way.

Vice was also very topical. I comment in another thread that many of the episodes that are criticized now were in fact very pointed when they were aired. If they wanted to stay that way they would have had to shift away from cocaine and focus on crack and perhaps the rise of meth. Neither are as "glamorous" as the cocaine was viewed in the 80s, so the feel and look of the show would have had to change.

And honestly Castillo's background is very solid aside from the DEA reference (which is understandable as it's easily related to narcotics work). It wasn't the feds writ large who were protecting Lao Li: it was the CIA. Lao Li I think was a proxy for the leader of the Hmong people the CIA supported in Laos during the Vietnam war. Their leader, Vang Pao, was often accused of drug smuggling and the CIA has been accused of being involved in the heroin trade in Southeast Asia. So his background, and his relationship with Menton and Lao Li, makes perfect sense.

Edited April 21, 2019 by Robbie C.

[mjcmmv]

2 hours ago, pahonu said:

Something I'd like to add for what it's worth.  When Miami Vice debuted, and essentially for most of previous television history, the idea of story arcs established when a show began were relatively rare.  There were certainly exceptions to this, but generally a pilot was made with characters and a backstory.  The show creator was typically involved heavily in the writing of the first few episodes, but the pacing needed to make 26 or later, 22 episodes a season made that impossible to keep up.  Other writers became involved out of necessity and in the following years (if it lasted that long) those writers would consult the show "bible" to keep some level of continuity with character backstories and personalities, etc...  The term "showrunner" didn't even exist before the 80's.  From Slate magazine:

The rise of the term "showrunner" tracks with the rise of writers in television. Before TV became a “writer’s medium,” it was a studio’s medium. Throughout the ’50s and ’60s, studios controlled all facets of production, from conception onward. Writers were mostly contract workers and did not generally participate in crafting the vision of the show. Studios only allowed experienced executives to pitch new shows, and these executives typically stayed on as the chief producers. 

The 70's and 80's started to see this change but it was early in the process.  We tend to view older TV shows from the norms of today where series entire story arcs (over fewer episodes) are planned out from the start of the season, or even the start of the whole series.  That just wasn't done in the past and even in a possible season 6 of Miami Vice in 1990 that wouldn't have been done.  The most you saw was a few episode story arc, or the return of previous characters, though typically not by pre-planning, but after the fact because of popularity.  I think that's why some viewers of older shows become frustrated with inconsistent backstories or guest actors appearing in multiple roles.  It'snot done like that today but was the norm in the past.  Just something to consider as we analyze the show.  The same would hold true from the point of visual effects, picture quality, and aspect ratio.  I've heard many unhappy comments about such things on the forum. They have all changed too.

 

Great background! Thanks!

[vicegirl85]

2 minutes ago, Robbie C. said:

Just to go back to the backstories: the reason I focus on them is both Tubbs and Castillo had theirs influence the episodic plots in the same way. In other words, Tubbs never suddenly came from Chicago where his sister was killed, or Castillo didn't shift from having a spook-ish background to being a longtime Homicide detective who happened to move to Vice. They didn't develop some of those aspects as much as I personally would have liked, but they also didn't change. Crockett's did, and that creates issues even from an episodic standpoint.

You're quite right that Magnum was an episodic plot series, but the characters grew in an arc style. In other words, Magnum himself shifts a bit over time. But his background remains solid. This kind of thing is pretty normal going all the way back to shows like Gunsmoke. The episode plots might not arc, but characters almost always did (at least the main characters).

True that the backstories of Castillo and Tubbs didn't change (i.e. morph into something completely different).  I misunderstood as I thought you meant they were better fleshed-out.  While Crockett's timeline didn't make a lot of sense, at the time it didn't feel inconsistent to me.  But you're correct that it doesn't really fit together as seamlessly as would have been desirable.

Quite interesting about Magnum's character evolution.  I don't think I watched it regularly enough to notice this.  Thanks for pointing it out. 

 

[mjcmmv]

2 hours ago, Robbie C. said:

I compare Vice to contemporary shows like "Hill Street Blues" for the most part, with Magnum and some other elements brought in. Newer shows show what Vice might have become had it pushed the envelope in terms of writing in the same way it did visuals. I think the HSB comparison is valid because Yerkovich came from there. Frankly I think it's a legitimate comparison. In terms of character background, I continue to find it odd that ONLY Crockett suffered from an erratic background. Tubbs and Castillo both had very stable and solid backgrounds, which were used to inform plots and development. I think it's valid to talk about character arcs as being different from story or episode arcs. While I agree story arcs weren't especially common in the older days of TV, character arcs and solid character development were definitely common. You should also consider that those producers were in effect show runners in the sense that we talk about them today. Writers on the more established series were not allowed to deviate from certain parameters regarding the characters. That included backstory.

I also find it interesting that when you look at writing regarding TV cop shows Vice typically only shows up when they're talking about music or visual style. Looking at critical writing regarding more recent shows that were considered groundbreaking you see reference to Hill Street Blues, Homicide, and NYPD Blue as being influences. Law and Order is normally lumped in with episodic throwbacks. Miami Vice rarely appears. Not saying that's good or bad...just observing.

And Crockett's background is erratic in just about every aspect of the character. That hampers any number of things, and would make the show's transition into the 1990s especially difficult as TV's emphasis started to shift and they had to compete with more networks and advancing plot ideas. But that's really the point. If you define Vice as being ONLY a snapshot of the mid-1980s it should have ended after season 3. If you see it as a potential Noir examination of Miami (or drawn wider American culture in general) it could have extended into the 1990s but you would have seen accelerating visual and concept changes in order to both keep that idea going and reflect changes in the culture writ large.

You have done a good job pointing out the conflicts the writers and producers were up against!  Plus, financing this show was more expensive than most out at that time. Once the ratings began to fall, the Network's direction was obvious. They weren't going to invest in a complete change over to help the show fit in with the times. 

[Robbie C.]

1 hour ago, mjcmmv said:

You have done a good job pointing out the conflicts the writers and producers were up against!  Plus, financing this show was more expensive than most out at that time. Once the ratings began to fall, the Network's direction was obvious. They weren't going to invest in a complete change over to help the show fit in with the times. 

I agree. It's something they would have had to started doing at some point during season 2, season 3 at the latest. That they didn't (to me) speaks volumes about the network's real dedication to the show.

Part of the reason I started this thread is because Vice was so heavily based on U.S. popular culture. For it to continue they would have had to keep updating the look, feel, and subject matter.

[MarsAutomatic]

It think it would have been interesting to see a season 6

Style and music wise just think of crime movies from 1990-1991 

[pahonu]

6 hours ago, Robbie C. said:

I compare Vice to contemporary shows like "Hill Street Blues" for the most part, with Magnum and some other elements brought in. Newer shows show what Vice might have become had it pushed the envelope in terms of writing in the same way it did visuals. I think the HSB comparison is valid because Yerkovich came from there. Frankly I think it's a legitimate comparison. In terms of character background, I continue to find it odd that ONLY Crockett suffered from an erratic background. Tubbs and Castillo both had very stable and solid backgrounds, which were used to inform plots and development. I think it's valid to talk about character arcs as being different from story or episode arcs. While I agree story arcs weren't especially common in the older days of TV, character arcs and solid character development were definitely common. You should also consider that those producers were in effect show runners in the sense that we talk about them today. Writers on the more established series were not allowed to deviate from certain parameters regarding the characters. That included backstory.

I also find it interesting that when you look at writing regarding TV cop shows Vice typically only shows up when they're talking about music or visual style. Looking at critical writing regarding more recent shows that were considered groundbreaking you see reference to Hill Street Blues, Homicide, and NYPD Blue as being influences. Law and Order is normally lumped in with episodic throwbacks. Miami Vice rarely appears. Not saying that's good or bad...just observing.

And Crockett's background is erratic in just about every aspect of the character. That hampers any number of things, and would make the show's transition into the 1990s especially difficult as TV's emphasis started to shift and they had to compete with more networks and advancing plot ideas. But that's really the point. If you define Vice as being ONLY a snapshot of the mid-1980s it should have ended after season 3. If you see it as a potential Noir examination of Miami (or drawn wider American culture in general) it could have extended into the 1990s but you would have seen accelerating visual and concept changes in order to both keep that idea going and reflect changes in the culture writ large.

I agree that character background and story arcs are different things.  In older shows that character continuity was supplied by the show "bible" as I mentioned, but I don't think it was as accurate as today when far fewer writers create the stories and characters.  There typically weren't any glaring errors such as you mentioned, but they just weren't as detailed and accurate as today's shows.  As others mentioned, only Crockett and to a lesser extent Castillo got much character background development at all.   

For comparison, I count 85 writing credits on imdb in five seasons of Miami Vice totaling 111 episodes.   Half of those for just one episode and about three quarters for 3 or less.  Compare that to Game of Thrones (which I picked because my wife just watched it) with 9 writers in 8 seasons of just 73 episodes.  Magnum, p.i. had more than double that many episodes, 158 in the same 8 seasons.  It's a very different type of storytelling.  Sometimes I'm surprised the older shows got the character continuity as accurate as they did.

https://www.shorescripts.com/what-is-a-tv-series-bible/

 

 

Edited April 22, 2019 by pahonu

[miajacob098]

I ma just waiting for season 6, because 

[BunMVO]

No.

[S.FL84]

MV was simply the right show at the right time.  

[summer84]

Miami Vice was a product of the 80s. It reflected the 80s pop culture and ended in the right decade for me.

I think, the network/NBC if they wanted to, despite of how it would have been received, could have renewed the show for a 6th and last season. Like they did with Season 5 apparently to reach 100 episodes being able to go into syndication. Maybe also why DJ agreed to one more, as he was ready to move on and focus on his movie career. Although they didn't see the point. The shows attempt to stay current/keeping up with the times and being trendy already in S3 wasen't received well by the fans. The fact, that ratings were low, I believe by the end of S3 and kept going downwards, fans being dissatisfied with the new look, DJ wanting to move on, stories were exhausted, creators possibly didn't have a vision or interest anymore, how the show would devolp further and new shows like Beverly Hills 90210, that aired in Oct. 1990 had captured the audience/younger viewers it all points to no. 

I think, if there had been a 6th season it should focus more on their personal lives, as there were a lot of drama shows in the 90s. Character devolpment and the supporting characters background would have created interesting stories to continue with. We would've gotten to know of Trudy and Stan's backstory. Possibly a career advancement. Sonny and Gina could have ended up getting married. Tubbs would have found out, he has a son. 

Edited May 30, 2019 by summer84

[RedDragon86]

On 4/21/2019 at 6:34 PM, Robbie C. said:

Something similar to this has likely been discussed before, but in light of comments about the MV finale I'm going to resurrect it here.

Could Vice have survived into the 1990s? Part of this, I think, depends on what you consider Vice. If you're a solid, dedicated fan of seasons 1 and 2 then the answer is no. Times change, trends change, and the world TV reflects changes. What seasons 1 and 2 showed really didn't exist by 1989. Fashions changed. Music taste changed. And above all else the drug scene changed. IF the idea of Vice was to continue to reflect and even set trends, it would have had to change to continue to be relevant. Otherwise it would have become Magnum PI or something similar: stuck in a setting that no longer existed and becoming almost a parody of itself.

The other stumbling block, in my view, was the decision to link the series to Don Johnson. Shifting priorities led to the loss of one cast member, and also left the show especially vulnerable to its star, who really didn't seem to be "into" the show by season 4 (if not sooner). The failure to establish a solid background for Crockett, along with a solid set of antagonists, hampered the writers (had they been interested in pushing plot arcs or some of the other things the show likely needed to continue into the 90s). Tying a show to a star can work if the temperaments are right, along with having a solid show runner and consistent background stuff (look at Magnum PI), but if you lack those things it leaves the show vulnerable to too many things.

If you're not tied to season 1 and 2, then I think the answer's a bit more complicated. Vice could have adapted, and was starting to in terms of fashion, music, and some of the episode plots, but there were still holes. Consistency was always an issue, from writing to character backgrounds and finally the guiding ideas behind the show. If Vice was more than MTV Cops, which TV scholars like Steven Sanders contend it was, then it likely would have gotten darker as it slid more into Noir. The change in drugs and the drug trade alone would have driven the show that way as well. Miami itself was also changing, and Vice would have had to reflect that change if it wanted to stay in the same city.

In short, if you think season 1 and 2 defined Vice for all eternity, then the answer is no, Vice could not have survived into the 1990s. If you like the changes that were taking place during season 4 and into 5, then the answer is yes, it could have. SHOULD it have continued? That's a different question, but I also think your season preferences play a role in the answer there as well.

I think the character developments were maybe the problem of Dick Wolf taking over and Mann and Nicolella departing. When season 3 is introduced it was like they were all brand new characters, I mean for example what happened to Tubbs son? I doubt he would have been forgotten about if the previous producers stayed because they created him. Another thing that bothered me in "Stones War" was Crockett attitude towards the government like he trusted them "nobody is going to touch you here, ever heard of the second amendment and all that do- dar" really Sonny? did he not learn anything from "The Golden Triangle part 2" "Back In The World" or even "No Exit" character developing is one thing but starting out with a fresh attitude is another. The new producers didn't have any time for what was created in season 1&2, all we got was "Duty and Honor"  which was not enough, that particular episode just felt like oh lets chuck in a Castillo episode for the sake of it and heavily use "The Golden Triangle"  Hammer scores. In 3,4 and 5 they had an opportunity to have built on and remember their lives.  Caroline reappears pointlessly in 5, really? why not season 3.

Edited May 30, 2019 by RedDragon86

[Robbie C.]

14 minutes ago, RedDragon86 said:

I think the character developments were maybe the problem of Dick Wolf taking over and Mann and Nicolella department. When season 3 is introduced it was like they were all brand new characters, I mean for example what happened to Tubbs son? I doubt he would have been forgotten about if the previous producers stayed because they created him. Another thing that bothered me in "Stones War" was Crockett attitude towards the government like he trusted them "nobody is going to touch you here, ever heard of the second amendment and all that do- dar" really Sonny? did he not learn anything from "The Golden Triangle part 2" "Back In The World" or even "No Exit" character developing is one thing but starting out with a fresh attitude is another. The new producers didn't have any time for what was created in season 1&2, all we got was "Duty and Honor"  which was not enough, that particular episode just felt like oh lets chuck in a Castillo episode for the sake of it and heavily use "The Golden Triangle"  Hammer scores. In 3,4 and 5 they had an opportunity to have built on and remember their lives.  Caroline reappears pointlessly in 5, really? why not season 3.

Dick Wolf in my view has never been good at character development, and I honestly think Mann's erratic with it (though better than Wolf). The decision to link the series so tightly to DJ also pretty much guaranteed it would die as soon as he lost interest.

[pahonu]

On ‎5‎/‎30‎/‎2019 at 8:54 AM, Robbie C. said:

Dick Wolf in my view has never been good at character development...

Totally agree.

[mjcmmv]

On 5/30/2019 at 11:54 AM, Robbie C. said:

Dick Wolf in my view has never been good at character development, and I honestly think Mann's erratic with it (though better than Wolf). The decision to link the series so tightly to DJ also pretty much guaranteed it would die as soon as he lost interest.

How I wish that had never happened. It should have been a team ensemble, but Crockett and Castillo were always seen as the glue. When the writers let DJ over-shadow EJO, it was over.

Unfortunately, it was all about ratings and not ability. 

Edited June 9, 2019 by mjcmmv

[Daytona74]

I think Miami Vice was just too much a show "of its time" to have had a chance to survive into the 90s.

It epitomized Reagan-era exuberance, a decade of great prosperity, both ill gotten and legally acquired by a lucky few who were living the dream between $1,000 designer suits, European sports cars and million dollar yachts and condos.

The U.S. and the rest of the world were hit by a notable recession from circa 1990-91 onwards, and a lot of people just ended up not having that kind of money to throw around anymore for years to come. Add to that the fact that the street price of cocaine took a nose dive around the same time and that crack cocaine became an even cheaper alternative that no drug dealer could believably have made a million dollar fortune from, and it only would have added to the credibility problems of a show like Miami Vice around 1991 or 1992.

So even if "Vice" hadn't suffered from a horrible brain drain among its staff which really began when Michael Mann left,  the whole premise of the show was just outdated and past its sell by date. Not to mention the fact that somewhere after a few more seasons, it would have stretched everybody's suspension of disbelief just a little too much that two undercover vice cops could have worked the job in the same town for eight or nine years without ending up with concrete shoes in the Miami River. I think real-life undercover vice cops never work the same town for more than two or three years for that exact reason, i.e. too many people eventually knowing they are cops and their safety then being at risk.

Nowadays, who knows. Drugs obviously still exist and drug dealers who make a good chunk of money off them - again. And there are shows again that celebrate the flashy display of wealth and the lifestyles of the rich. A new "Vice" could actually have a shot at becoming successful. But obviously not the popcorn cinema "guns 'n 'splosions" reboot that Vin Diesel is working on.

[mjcmmv]

8 minutes ago, Daytona74 said:

I think Miami Vice was just too much a show "of its time" to have had a chance to survive into the 90s.

It epitomized Reagan-era exuberance, a decade of great prosperity, both ill gotten and legally acquired by a lucky few who were living the dream between $1,000 designer suits, European sports cars and million dollar yachts and condos.

The U.S. and the rest of the world were hit by a notable recession from circa 1990-91 onwards, and a lot of people just ended up not having that kind of money to throw around anymore for years to come. Add to that the fact that the street price of cocaine took a nose dive around the same time and that crack cocaine became an even cheaper alternative that no drug dealer could believably have made a million dollar fortune from, and it only would have added to the credibility problems of a show like Miami Vice around 1991 or 1992.

So even if "Vice" hadn't suffered from a horrible brain drain among its staff which really began when Michael Mann left,  the whole premise of the show was just outdated and past its sell by date. Not to mention the fact that somewhere after a few more seasons, it would have stretched everybody's suspension of disbelief just a little too much that two undercover vice cops could have worked the job in the same town for eight or nine years without ending up with concrete shoes in the Miami River. I think real-life undercover vice cops never work the same town for more than two or three years for that exact reason, i.e. too many people eventually knowing they are cops and their safety then being at risk.

Nowadays, who knows. Drugs obviously still exist and drug dealers who make a good chunk of money off them - again. And there are shows again that celebrate the flashy display of wealth and the lifestyles of the rich. A new "Vice" could actually have a shot at becoming successful. But obviously not the popcorn cinema "guns 'n 'splosions" reboot that Vin Diesel is working on.

This is a great analysis. I lived through those times and didn't see the obvious.

Of course the show lost all credibility in the 90's when the recession cut back people's ability to indulge,  and the drug trade lost it's power 

As far as Sonny's undercover ID, I believe it worked at first, but as time went on, I questioned why Crockett wasn't recognized and eventually tripped up by that ridiculous story:  "I'm a beach bum living on a yacht and supporting myself by running drugs in my super expensive Scarab"!

Yeah, right...

If the drug lords didn't see through this crazy cover story after five years of being conned, then they were pretty stupid!

 

[Robbie C.]

15 minutes ago, mjcmmv said:

This is a great analysis. I lived through those times and didn't see the obvious.

Of course the show lost all credibility in the 90's when the recession cut back people's ability to indulge,  and the drug trade lost it's power 

As far as Sonny's undercover ID, I believe it worked at first, but as time went on, I questioned why Crockett wasn't recognized and eventually tripped up by that ridiculous story:  "I'm a beach bum living on a yacht and supporting myself by running drugs in my super expensive Scarab"!

Yeah, right...

If the drug lords didn't see through this crazy cover story after five years of being conned, then they were pretty stupid!

 

The rise of crack alone would have killed the MV premise. Just look at New Jack City. Then came meth, the resurgence of heroin, and illicit prescription opioids. None of the (supposed) cocaine glamour in any of those...just grinding bulk trade. The recession didn't necessarily reduce the drug trade's power...it shifted it.

Also, the hyper-violent cartels don't lend themselves to the MV format.

[Bren10]

Well Crockett and Tubbs are also walking around crime scenes in broad daylight with their badges out and hoards of people around. But I think we're supposed to ignore that as it is the show's creative license. The same goes for their undercover personas.

[S.FL84]

Again, I think MV was just the right show at the right time primarily because coke was the right drug at the right time.  To use a tired phrase...the perfect storm.  Music was the catalyst of it all as it pertains to MV.  The drab 70's were over and the Reagan 80's was such a hopeful, fun spring-like era.  A person could hear a great song for free on the radio and/or watch the artists on American Bandstand on television and get dressed up and go to a club and dance to that same music.  It all was linked together, people were sociable unlike now.  The internet eliminated ALL ^ this.  In the fabulous 80's everyone wanted to be glamorous and good looking.  Now no one gives a sh#@.  Its like getting into Studio 54 and once inside you see all the glamorous people are just as unhappy as you.  There was hope in 1980's, now there's not so much hope.  MV was about the fascination w/ the glamour and good life.