Who is the actor?

Wondering if anyone knows who the actor is in the Shoot the Rapids commerical?

I swear he looks really familiar (just take away all the grey hair & beard) & was on a TV show back in the '80's or '90's & my husband thinks I'm nuts.

I've tried googling but came up empty

I think that is Robert Pine, he played the captain on Chips (man did I just date myself) http://www.imdb.com/media/rm147816960/nm0683986

C.H.I.P.S

Ha ha.....I love that show.

Yep, you guys are right, it's Robert Pine as far as I can tell. Either that or its his twin.

His son, Chris, played Captain Kirk in the new Star Trek movie last summer.

Haven't seen the commercial yet, but dang.....I remember Chips too. Watching re-runs on late night cable every once in a while the show seemed so much cooler as a kid. Then again, so did all the other ones :)

Shows were so much better in the 80's for a few reasons.

The first reason was that there were more than 8 episodes in a season like they have today. The next reason, is because they were not all money hungry actors like they are today. Besides those reasons, we also had the A team, knight rider, Chips, wonder woman, the six million dollar man, dukes of hazzard, emergency, magnum p.i, and so many more great shows.

Today, it's more less almost all reality based television.

^At least I can rest comfortably knowing I'm not the only one around here who remembers ALL of those shows, fondly :) I have to agree with you on current television. Too much "reality". That is a term that has become rather vague the last ten years or so.

Chase:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezPz9bUeWu0

crazy horse said:
Shows were so much better in the 80's for a few reasons.

The first reason was that there were more than 8 episodes in a season like they have today.

Regarding the number of episodes, I think you're mistaken:

Old shows:
A-Team: 19.6 episodes/season
Knight Rider: 22.5
CHiPS: 23.2
Six Million Dollar Man: 20.0
Dukes of Hazzard: 20.7
Magnum P.I.: 20.1
average = 21.1

Compared to modern shows:
Heroes: 19.3
LOST: 20.2
24: 24 :)
Battlestar Galactica: 18.3
House MD: 22.3
NCIS: 23.1
average = 21.2

Seems like a random sampling of each era's most popular shows indicates there has been no significant change to frequency of episodes. But even if there were, so what? Quantity does not equal quality.

The next reason, is because they were not all money hungry actors like they are today. Besides those reasons, we also had the A team, knight rider, Chips, wonder woman, the six million dollar man, dukes of hazzard, emergency, magnum p.i, and so many more great shows.

Today, it's more less almost all reality based television.

Reality programming aside, production values of programming today are greater than they were in the 80's. Shows like LOST, 24, Friday Night Lights, Mad Men, Breaking Bad and so on cost about $2-3 million per hour to produce (the two-part LOST pilot cost over $10 million), while a show like Miami Vice - one of the more expensive shows on TV in the 80's - cost about $1.3 million per episode. What's more, Breaking Bad, for example, is on basic cable, and not network TV. I'd love to see how amazing "art" like CHiPS would fare on AMC.

And puh-lease with the acting comment. Are you seriously going to tell me that Erik Estrada is remotely on par with someone like Kiefer Sutherland (7 Emmy nominations, 1 win) or Bryan Cranston (6 Emmy nominations and 2 wins)? Is Mr. T's lack of acting recognition due to some anti-gold chain bias? The "money hungry actors" you refer to deserve that money, because they're really that good. If they weren't, people wouldn't watch their shows and the networks wouldn't hire them. It really is that simple.

I get the impression that you enjoyed those shows as a kid, so you understandably see them through rose colored glasses (in the same way that my heart thinks Duck Tales was the epitome of animated entertainment, even though my brain knows better). But to say that shows back then were "so much better" is a totally subjective statement, which is fine, until you start trying to turn that opinion into some sort of objective analysis, as you did when listing the reasons.

djDaemon said:
(in the same way that my heart thinks Duck Tales was the epitome of animated entertainment, even though my brain knows better)

That's because your brain has seen Chip and Dale's Rescue Rangers and thus knows Duck Tales wasn't #1. ;)

Gizmoduck >> Hackwrench

;)

Gee...what a suprise.

Dj is out to prove people wrong again.

We can always count on you DJ, to turn a good conversation into an argument or fact finding mission.

He is good at it. :)

Know what a good show was when I was little? Little Bear. :)

Yeah, God forbid we discuss things based on fact. That would be, like, a learning experience or something.

EDITED to add:
Crazy, you spend more time bitching about how much I argue or whatever than I spend actually arguing. That's amusing to me. :)

There is a differance between having a good conversation, but it seems that EVERY conversation, you butt in and turn it into a "I CAN PROVE YOU WRONG" conversation.

You come off being very arrogant.

Eveything turns into a flame war with you for some reason.

Hmmm, the only flames I see aren't coming from DJ.

Dj's facts are interesting and has good points...Every single time. He wouldn't have to use facts if you didn't give him stuff to correct.

crazy horse said:
There is a differance between having a good conversation, but it seems that EVERY conversation, you butt in and turn it into a "I CAN PROVE YOU WRONG" conversation.

You're right. Perhaps I should ignore things that I find to be factually incorrect, or not offer my opinion in contrast to others' opinions. Of course, that would sort of negate the entire point of a discussion forum, now wouldn't it?

Eveything turns into a flame war with you for some reason.

Wow, really? My post above constitutes flaming? Let's see how PointBuzz defines flaming:

3. Flaming
In our efforts to maintain Coasterbuzz as a family-oriented site, the art of flaming is strictly prohibited in the forums. We define flaming as the intent of the topic is to spark a flame war, objectionable retaliation, and the like. Examples of these topics would include; My park is better than your park.., or Park X sucks... etc.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure I didn't do that.

Look, if you want to express your opinions and make statements and have no one disagree with them or prove them factually incorrect, perhaps you'd be better off starting a blog. Just remember to turn off the comments. :)

Crazy Horse, be careful. Your emotion-based 80s TV nostalgia is detracting from your emotion-based White Water Landing nostalgia, which in turn is detracting from your price-of-food-at-the-park emotion-based nostalgia.

And height restriction nostalgia. :)