It’s hard to imagine now, but there was a time when TV didn't "binge." Before Netflix dropped entire seasons at midnight, and before HBO turned Sunday nights into a cultural ritual, television was mostly just episodic fluff. You had your sitcoms, your procedurals, and maybe a "movie of the week." Then came 1976. That year, ABC took a massive gamble on a gritty, sprawling adaptation of Irwin Shaw’s novel. The Rich Man Poor Man miniseries didn't just capture ratings; it completely rewired how networks thought about storytelling.
It was a massive event.
The show followed the divergent lives of the Jordache brothers, Rudy and Tom, from the mid-1940s through the late 60s. One was the "good" son climbing the political and corporate ladder; the other was the "bad" son, a street-fighting rebel with a heart of gold and a penchant for getting punched. Honestly, the premise sounds like a trope now, but back then? It was revolutionary. It proved that American audiences had the patience for long-form, serialized drama. Without the success of the Rich Man Poor Man miniseries, we probably wouldn't have gotten Roots, The Thorn Birds, or even the prestige cable dramas of today.
🔗 Read more: Why Always Look for the Helpers Mr Rogers Still Matters Today
The Jordache Rivalry: More Than Just a Soap Opera
At its core, the show worked because of the chemistry—and the friction—between Peter Strauss and Nick Nolte. Peter Strauss played Rudy Jordache. He was the "rich man" in the title, though he didn't start that way. Rudy was ambitious, polished, and eventually, quite powerful. But it was Nick Nolte as Tom Jordache who became the breakout star.
Nolte was raw.
He played Tom with this simmering, blue-collar desperation that made him an immediate icon of the 70s. While Rudy was navigating the boardroom, Tom was navigating the boxing ring and the docks. Their father, Axel Jordache (played by a terrifyingly effective Ed Asner), was a bitter German immigrant who ran a bakery and basically hated his life. That family dynamic was the engine of the whole series. It wasn't just about money; it was about the American Dream and how it can either polish you or chew you up.
Most people forget that the series was actually a "novel for television." That was the marketing hook. It meant the story didn't reset every week. If a character got hurt in episode two, they were still dealing with the scars in episode six. That seems like Screenwriting 101 today, but in the mid-70s, it was a total pivot from the status quo.
Why the Production Was a Total Gamble
ABC wasn't sure this was going to work. At the time, the "miniseries" format was largely untested in the U.S. on this scale. They scheduled it over several weeks, and the budget was significant for the era. The production values were higher than your average TV show. They wanted it to feel like a movie that just happened to be twelve hours long.
They also leaned hard into the adult themes of the book. Irwin Shaw’s novel was a bestseller for a reason—it was spicy. The TV version had to tone things down for the censors, obviously, but it still felt more mature than anything else on the dial. It dealt with class warfare, alcoholism, infidelity, and the sheer randomness of fate.
One of the most striking things about the Rich Man Poor Man miniseries was the supporting cast. You had Dorothy McGuire, Susan Blakely, and Bill Bixby. But the real scene-stealer, besides Nolte, was William Smith as the villainous Falconetti. Falconetti wasn't your standard "mustache-twirling" bad guy. He was a looming, genuine threat who haunted the Jordache brothers for years. The rivalry between Tom and Falconetti is still cited by TV historians as one of the best long-arc feuds in the medium's history.
Breaking Down the Format Shift
If you look at the 1975-1976 television season, the top shows were All in the Family, Happy Days, and Laverne & Shirley. Most of these were half-hour comedies. The dramas were mostly 60-minute blocks like The Waltons or Kojak.
When Rich Man, Poor Man aired, it broke the mold in three specific ways:
- It demanded a weekly commitment to a continuous narrative.
- It used "aging" makeup and time jumps to cover decades.
- It prioritized character growth over "case of the week" resolutions.
The ratings were astronomical. It’s estimated that nearly 40 million people tuned in. That kind of monoculture is gone now, but back then, it meant that on Tuesday morning, everyone at the water cooler was talking about what happened to Tom Jordache the night before.
The Curse of the Sequel: Rich Man, Poor Man Book II
Success always breeds sequels, and this is where things got a bit messy. Because the first miniseries was such a monster hit, ABC wanted more. The problem? They had already used up the source material. Irwin Shaw hadn't written a sequel yet (though he eventually did, largely because of the show).
The network moved forward with Rich Man, Poor Man Book II as a weekly series. It ran for 21 episodes in the 1976-1977 season. Peter Strauss returned, but the magic was... different. It felt more like a standard soap opera than the "prestige event" of the original. Without the tight structure of the initial miniseries, the tension started to sag. It’s a classic example of "lightning in a bottle." You can't always stretch a finite story into an infinite series just because the ratings are good.
Honestly, the sequel is mostly remembered for how it tried to keep the momentum going without the same literary weight. It still had its fans, but it didn't have the same cultural impact. It's kinda like how some modern shows have a perfect first season and then struggle to figure out what to do next. Some stories are just meant to have an ending.
The Lasting Legacy of the 1976 Event
We see the DNA of the Rich Man Poor Man miniseries everywhere now. Whenever you watch a limited series on Netflix or a prestige drama on FX, you're seeing the evolution of the trail blazed by the Jordache brothers.
🔗 Read more: Stash House 2012 Movie: Why This Home Invasion Thriller Is Grittier Than You Remember
It proved that "big" books could be adapted faithfully for the small screen. It also launched the career of Nick Nolte, who went from a TV actor to a legitimate movie star almost overnight. That didn't happen much back then. TV was usually where movie careers went to die, not where they started. Nolte broke that barrier.
Interestingly, the show also had a massive impact internationally. In some countries, it was even more popular than in the U.S. It touched on universal themes of sibling rivalry and the struggle to escape one's upbringing. It didn't matter if you were in New York or Paris; everyone understood the pain of a brother who could never quite get his life together and the brother who succeeded but lost his soul in the process.
How to Watch It Today and What to Look For
If you’re going to dive into the Rich Man Poor Man miniseries today, you have to adjust your eyes a bit. It was shot in the 70s. The pacing is slower than modern "TikTok-brain" editing. But if you give it a chance, the acting still holds up incredibly well.
Watch the scenes between Axel and his sons. Ed Asner is a masterclass in suppressed rage. Notice how the show uses the historical backdrop—the post-war boom, the McCarthy era—to frame the personal struggles of the characters. It’s a time capsule of both the mid-century American experience and the 1970s television landscape.
The best way to experience it is to find the original 12-hour cut. Don't bother with the truncated versions or the "highlight" reels. The power of the story is in the slow burn. You need to see the years pile up on these characters to understand why the ending hits as hard as it does.
Actionable Steps for Classic TV Fans
If you're interested in exploring this era of television or the themes of the show, here is how to get the most out of it:
1. Contextualize the Era
Before watching, read a brief summary of the 1940s and 50s social climate in America. Understanding the pressure to conform during those decades makes Rudy's choices—and Tom's rebellion—much more meaningful.
2. Compare the Novel to the Screen
Pick up a copy of Irwin Shaw’s Rich Man, Poor Man. It’s a beefy book, but it offers a lot of internal monologue that the TV show simply couldn't capture. It’s a great exercise in seeing what stays and what goes during an adaptation.
3. Watch for the Transitions
Pay attention to the "aging" techniques used by the makeup department. For 1976, they were doing some pretty sophisticated work to make actors in their 30s look like they were in their 50s.
4. Track the Archetypes
See if you can spot the "Rudy" and "Tom" archetypes in modern shows like Succession or Yellowstone. The "responsible one" vs. the "loose cannon" is a trope that this miniseries perfected for the television format.
The Rich Man Poor Man miniseries remains a landmark for a reason. It wasn't just a show; it was a shift in the tectonic plates of entertainment. It proved that TV could be art, that it could be long, and that it could be heartbreakingly human.