Is TOS the best sci-fi TV American series until 1985?

[Harvey]

TREK_GOD_1 wrote:

---

Berman buried ST, which required a reboot (questionable as NuTrek is). Roddenberry cannot be accused of that.

Roddenberry was kicked upstairs to the role of a powerless "creative consultant" after the failure of Star Trek--The Motion Picture. Harve Bennet was brought onboard to give the franchise a new start; that he chose to keep the original actors while Abrams didn't is simply the difference thirty years makes.

[TREK_GOD_1]

Zombie Cheerleader wrote:

---

While it used the same actors and names for the characters it also reimagined them in many ways.

that has no bearing on reality. When Phase II was announced, then the movie, in no interview or press release were either siad to be anything which is described (today) as "reimagining." It was a conscious continuation of the TOS characters and experiences, acknowledging the passage of time, hence age, costume and ship changes. That's all.

Ditto for TWOK. Both gave the illusion of continuing from TOS, but in far too many ways theY were divergent.

Again, you would be incorrect. The film is a sequel to both TMP (as the next film) and "Space Seed" (direct) with a lead villain, and his motives for revenge (abandoned) occuring in the TV episode. There is no reimagining the TOS franchise, as seen in the Abrams film.

I'm sure you could find fans of all the "Berman" series and films who are very vocal about their favorites returning to either the small or large screen. Hell, you'll them right here on this very website!!!! Including the "horrible" Enterprise.

Apparently, their numbers were not large enough to prod Paramount/CBS into starting any of the Berman series again. Berman buried the franchise, which is why the PTB had no interest in digging up TNG/DS9/VOY/ENT. When TOS ended, it was not long when NBC (after discovering syndicated TOS actually reached that key demographic when it was first run) wanted the series to return, and as noted 1 post ago, we know what followed.

Of course, this was based on the astounding post-network interest in TOS, but the same cannot be said of the Berman series, otherwise, NuTrek would not exist, and we would be watching the twilight adventures of Picard and Co., but we are not. Few were sad to see the Berman series ride off into the sunset.

[BillJ]

TREK_GOD_1 wrote:

---

Apparently, their numbers were not large enough to prod Paramount/CBS into starting any of the Berman series again. Berman buried the franchise, which is why the PTB had no interest in digging up TNG/DS9/VOY/ENT. When TOS ended, it was not long when NBC (after discovering syndicated TOS actually reached that key demographic when it was first run) wanted the series to return, and as noted 1 post ago, we know what followed.

You sure about this? Seems to me that CBS is spending millions of dollars remastering TNG and may follow suit on the rest of the 24th century shows. And the TNG-R Blu-ray sets are selling very well. Those shows continue to sell well and CBS will be taking a second look at them.

I love Star Trek, I have a love/hate relationship with Modern Trek. The my Trek is better than your Trek shit gets tiresome.

[BillJ]

Harvey wrote:

---

Roddenberry was kicked upstairs to the role of a powerless "creative consultant" after the failure of Star Trek--The Motion Picture. Harve Bennet was brought onboard to give the franchise a new start; that he chose to keep the original actors while Abrams didn't is simply the difference thirty years makes.

And even Bennett wanted to recast after Star Trek V.

[Nerys Myk]

TREK_GOD_1 wrote:

---

that has no bearing on reality. When Phase II was announced, then the movie, in no interview or press release were either siad to be anything which is described (today) as "reimagining." It was a conscious continuation of the TOS characters and experiences, acknowledging the passage of time, hence age, costume and ship changes. That's all.

I watched the film. I watched the TV show. It was very real, whether they mentioned it or not in the press release is irrelevant. The changes in costuming and sets are normal when reviving a property or shifting it to the big screen. Still the look and feel of the ship and uniforms are a pretty radical shift. The age of the characters still didn't match the age of the actors. A decade had passed between the end of TOS and TMP. There is no reference for that much time passing for the characters. I don't recall any real callbacks to TOS episodes in TMP other than Decker's name. (and the plot of the Changeling). The characters/characterizations don't seem right either, especially Kirk. Decker presence/role also disrupts the character balance, even if he is doomed. If Phase II version with Decker as XO had gone into production this would be more evident. The tone of TMP is different than TOS too. Seemingly influenced by 2001 and "serious" SF. It's more sterile too and lacking the sense of fun that TOS had.

All that adds up to a major reimagining of the property to me.

Again, you would be incorrect. The film is a sequel to both TMP (as the next film) and "Space Seed" (direct) with a lead villain, and his motives for revenge (abandoned) occuring in the TV episode. There is no reimagining the TOS franchise, as seen in the Abrams film.

Yeah, it was the next film and was based on Space Seed, but it represents another tonal shift both visually and conceptually from TMP. Kirk becomes more of a "big action hero" than he was TOS and definitely more than he was in TMP. The 09 film is a sequel, too. That has little to do with reimagining. Of course, the 09 film is also a step back to TOS in certain aspects. The uniforms are obviously based on TOS. Its mix of action and character is also closer to TOS than TMP and the other films.

Is that "deimaginig?"

Apparently, their numbers were not large enough to prod Paramount/CBS into starting any of the Berman series again. Berman buried the franchise, which is why the PTB had no interest in digging up TNG/DS9/VOY/ENT. When TOS ended, it was not long when NBC (after discovering syndicated TOS actually reached that key demographic when it was first run) wanted the series to return, and as noted 1 post ago, we know what followed.

Of course, this was based on the astounding post-network interest in TOS, but the same cannot be said of the Berman series, otherwise, NuTrek would not exist, and we would be watching the twilight adventures of Picard and Co., but we are not. Few were sad to see the Berman series ride off into the sunset.

Well what followed was a half hour Saturday morning animated series, which I doubt reached the key demographics NBC coveted or appealed the Saturday morning demo either. And of course Roddenberry would "disavow" it.

Was it really NBC who "requested" TAS. I thought Filmation started the ball rolling.

Who can really say what the future will bring. Perhaps someday "Berman Trek" will get it's own reboot after a groundswell of interest by a new fanbase. After all, TNG was the most successful TV series and DS9 is probably more popular around here than any other series.

[Harvey]

TREK_GOD_1 wrote:

---

When TOS ended, it was not long when NBC (after discovering syndicated TOS actually reached that key demographic when it was first run) wanted the series to return, and as noted 1 post ago, we know what followed.

The success of the original Star Trek in key demographics has been greatly exaggerated, especially by Roddenberry. It's a myth that NBC only began measuring audience demographics after the series was cancelled. In fact, the fact that the show's limited audience was composed of demographics that the advertisers liked was one of the factors in its renewal for a second and third season in the face of overall low ratings.

[Nerys Myk]

The old Trek myths will never die.

[Harvey]

As long as lazy journalists keep relying on them and CBS and/or Paramount keep using them for marketing purposes, I doubt it. But, one can try.

[TREK_GOD_1]

BillJ wrote:

---

You sure about this? Seems to me that CBS is spending millions of dollars remastering TNG and may follow suit on the rest of the 24th century shows. And the TNG-R Blu-ray sets are selling very well. Those shows continue to sell well and CBS will be taking a second look at them.

Remastering--like digging up previously cut footage and adding to theatrical versions once on DVD/Blu Ray is a trend--even if the film was not a Star Wars-sized blockbuster (see the so-called "complete novel" of Coppola's The Outsiders) therefore it is a gamble based on the economy, base interest, etc. Its not as though the public was demanding TNG to be remastered.

Regarding TNG's market value--again, the series reached a 20th anniversary, and the media attention paid to it was next to nothing--the opposite of the reaction to TOS' 20th--and 40th.

[TREK_GOD_1]

Zombie Cheerleader wrote:

---

I watched the film. I watched the TV show. It was very real, whether they mentioned it or not in the press release is irrelevant. The changes in costuming and sets are normal when reviving a property or shifting it to the big screen.

Which means what? A costume change, as it was the late 70's and the same costumes and ship designs of TOS had to reflect the advancement of years--like the actors and their characters (not to mention the production standards set by productions such as Star Wars). Additionally, the early Phase II production work already set that ball in motion with the genesis (no pun intended) of what would become the movie engineering deck, bridge consoles, etc. But it was the same characters and situations. There was no reimagining, and Phase II--or TMP was never said to be that.

The age of the characters still didn't match the age of the actors. A decade had passed between the end of TOS and TMP.

Timo used the Voyager dates as a means of eastablishing a fairly fixed period of 8 years between TOS and TMP:

Timo wrote:

---

On the other hand, "hard" onscreen facts include Voyager 6 being more than three centuries old. That pushes TMP to 2278 at least, considering Voyagers 1 and 2 date back to 1977, and forces an eight-year gap between TOS and the movie. Unless we assume the Voyager program of Star Trek was different from the real one in some details.

Timo Saloniemi

....so its only short a decade by 2 years.

The characters/characterizations don't seem right either, especially Kirk. Decker presence/role also disrupts the character balance, even if he is doomed. If Phase II version with Decker as XO had gone into production this would be more evident. The tone of TMP is different than TOS too. Seemingly influenced by 2001 and "serious" SF. It's more sterile too and lacking the sense of fun that TOS had.

Subjective--which is no official statement that TMP was a reimagining....because it was not meant to be, and was not.

Well what followed was a half hour Saturday morning animated series, which I doubt reached the key demographics NBC coveted or appealed the Saturday morning demo either. And of course Roddenberry would "disavow" it.

Was it really NBC who "requested" TAS. I thought Filmation started the ball rolling.

One, Roddenberry's latter day rejection was an ego/vanity thing, once ST was truly a big screen creature. Notice that he was not actively saying this before TMP's debut.

Two, there was a mutual interest in Trek returning; Filmation (and another animation house) wanted to adapt it (remember, the early 1970s was a hot period of old TV series adapted into the cartoon format, such as The Addams Family, Gilligan's Island, My Favorite Martian, I Dream of Jeannie, The Partridge Family, and specials based on Lost in Space and Gidget) but from the articles i've read, TOS' mighty syndication feat prodded NBC into wanting a return of TOS.

Who can really say what the future will bring. Perhaps someday "Berman Trek" will get it's own reboot after a groundswell of interest by a new fanbase. After all, TNG was the most successful TV series and DS9 is probably more popular around here than any other series.

"Around here" is not the general public. TOS' post network success occured because it was grabbing more than those who followed/campaigned for it while on NBC.

New fans (child and adult) discovered the series and became Trekkers by the shipload, media critics had to take a second look at what was fueling the phenomenon, which also triggered a merchandinsing boom not seen when TOS was first run. Keep in mind, this occured only a couple years after cancellation.

On the other hand, TNG and DS9 (immediately after series end) just how many swelling numbers were/are discovering the series (particluarly in a period where home video gave the shows an added exposure advantage TOS did not have in 1970).

TNG made the leap to film, but with each new entry, the Berman project managed to dig a rather deep grave for his era. Ever notice how Paramount/CBS is not exploring the return of TNG, or a first DS9 film? If--after so much time--either series is not exactly starting a post 1st run phenomenon of its own, perhaps it is time to ask "why?"

[mos6507]

After enough time it becomes clear whether a show has elevated to pop culture icon or not. Regardless of the original ratings, TOS has many times over. It is right up there with I Love Lucy as one of the top TV shows of all time. But TNG has also become part of that club--to a lesser extent. But the other shows haven't. You can tell TNG has become immortal in the way it's used for humor on the web (Picard facepalms, etc...) and on TV (Family Guy, Big Bang Theory). Everyone knows TNG whether they are Trek fans or not. I don't think people view TNG with the same reverence they do TOS. It simply did not break as much ground. However, it is an enduring symbol of the era of the late 80s. And since the prime buying demographic is nostalgic for that era, that is why they went back to remaster TNG.

Do I think they will do the same for the other shows? It's possible, but I think it would be more of a PR move on CBS' part to please the die-hards than something they think would really pay off.

There is a halo-effect with JJ Trek. The same thing happens with old superhero properties like the Bill Bixby Hulk or any reboot (Starsky and Hutch). People become interested in other takes on the same material. I don't think the average juvenile JJ Trek fan would find DS9, Voyager, or Enterprise that interesting. They never grew up with these shows and all these shows either suffer from bad writing or deviate too far from what people like about Trek or both.

As for the movie era deviating from canon, the original production design for TOS started in what, 1964? And even then, with the gooseneck screens and things, it was very much warmed over Forbidden Planet. By the time the final episode aired, TOS had gone from looking contemporary to looking like a cartoon caricature of SF. 2001 was Trek's contemporary, and even shared an actor (Gary Lockwood) from Trek's pantheon, and yet 2001 still feels barely dated compared to Trek. (HAL even looks like it has isolinear memory ala TNG.) I've seen the Phase II screen tests and they were not advancing the look very much, at least with the uniforms, which were going to be exactly the same as TOS. By the time they got to TMP they had the opportunity to reflect how much our vision of the future had changed. The TOS enterprise was nice for its time but the TMP enterprise had a lot more thought put into it.

The hype behind JJ Trek, and I remember even Cawley being sold on this when he visited the bridge, was that JJ was making Trek feel plausible, but it doesn't. Sure, the FX are better, but the ship designs suck. Engineering looks like a brewery. They designed things to suit a particular gag or to evoke a style but not because it made any technical sense. TMP had science advisors, but I don't think JJ Trek ever did. Trek seemed to still have a mission of being "speculative fiction" back with TMP. JJ just treated the Trek property as you would a comic book one.

I stand corrected. JJ Trek had a science advisor. You'd never know it, though.

[BillJ]

TREK_GOD_1 wrote:

---

Remastering--like digging up previously cut footage and adding to theatrical versions once on DVD/Blu Ray is a trend--even if the film was not a Star Wars-sized blockbuster (see the so-called "complete novel" of Coppola's The Outsiders) therefore it is a gamble based on the economy, base interest, etc. Its not as though the public was demanding TNG to be remastered.

Regarding TNG's market value--again, the series reached a 20th anniversary, and the media attention paid to it was next to nothing--the opposite of the reaction to TOS' 20th--and 40th.

You really have no idea what you're talking about and it shows.

I love Star Trek: The Original Series. It is by far my favorite TV series ever, nothing else even comes close. It could be incredibly awesome and appallingly bad, watching The Cage and And the Children Shall Lead over the last few days confirms it. I once heard that a third of TOS was great, a third of it average and a third of it bad and it's the truth.

What your analysis lacks is that the TV business was far different when TOS and TNG hit strip syndication respectively. When TOS hit, there was nothing like it and no home video or cable networks to speak of. The Original Series was the only game in town, competing with sitcoms and the nightly news for eyeballs and there was no time-shifting. I know, I was there.

The Next Generation and its spinoffs had some pretty stiff competition. Starting with folks ability to buy material on home-video and time-shift as well. Why watch the same episodes fifteen times if you have a choice? Yet TNG and its spinoffs were still deemed valuable enough for The National Network (Spike TV), to pay a billion dollars to Paramount to buy the exclusive syndication rights for a number of years. Then last year, Netflix paid two billion for CBS' back catalog of shows based primarily on the strength of having all of Trek to show.

Did the TNG movies fail? Absolutely! But I think that has more to do with Paramount not bringing in movie people to make the movies than people not liking TNG. And lets not forget that Roddenberry (The Motion Picture and TNG season one) and Bennett (The Final Frontier) nearly drove the franchise over a cliff as well.

[Harvey]

mos6507 wrote:

---

I stand corrected. JJ Trek had a science advisor. You'd never know it, though.

The new film was no worse than the original series, which frequently ignored the science advice of Harvey P. Lynn (in the first season) and de Forest Research (all seasons).

You may recall that Isaac Asimov became involved with the series with an article in TV Guide -- which criticized the series for scientific inaccuracy!

[Harvey]

BillJ wrote:

---

And lets not forget that Roddenberry (The Motion Picture and TNG season one) and Bennett (The Final Frontier) nearly drove the franchise over a cliff as well.

Roddenberry's management of TNG was poor, but the ratings were good enough that it didn't matter. They were also good enough that Bennett (and Shatner) bungling the fifth film with the original cast didn't matter much, either.

[BillJ]

Harvey wrote:

---

The new film was no worse than the original series, which frequently ignored the science advice of Harvey P. Lynn (in the first season) and de Forest Research (all seasons).

You may recall that Isaac Asimov became involved with the series with an article in TV Guide -- which criticized the series for scientific inaccuracy!

Scientific accuracy has never been one of Trek's strengths in the thirty-five years I've been watching. Regardless of series or movie.