Fascinating TAS Information

[jayrath]

My main problem with "The Practical Joker" is that the big rubber Enterprise was pink. Flagship of the Federation of Bazooka Joe Planets?

[Redfern]

Umm, are you sure about that? Here's the page of screen captures from the epi' in question, and the balloon decoy was a pale blue.

http://tas.trekcore.com/gallery/thum...lbum=19&page=9

And I don't think this was one of the "touch-ups" just for the DVD release as I remember it being blue in the original mid 70s airing and the reruns on Nick' in the 80s.

Yeah, a lot of things were painted pink like the tribbles and the Kzinti spacesuits, but the decoy was not one of them.

Sincerely,

Bill

[TREK_GOD_1]

Christopher wrote:

---

I'm not sure I'd agree with Andy that doing an animated series today would be a risky or unusual move. It's actually common these days to have animated shows to cross-promote with movie franchises -- we've currently got them for Spider-Man, Iron Man, The Avengers, and Transformers, for example, and the Transformers Prime animated series is actually produced by Kurtzman & Orci, who have expressed interest in doing a new Trek animated series too -- and may even be actively developing one.

The difference between all of the named series is that they have their origins in comic books or toys, which--historically--lend themselves to their natrual "cousin" in animation with greater ease than movies. After more than three decades, ST is still more a live action property than not--created for TV, but spun off into film. While TAS was appreciated at the perfect storm time (post TOS) and at a time when once-exclusively live action TV properites were adapted as cartoons by the truckload by the major animation companies, I tend to agree with Andy about the risks of producing a new animated series, when ST is first and foremost live action.

Comic characters turned into film, then turned into spin-off cartoons are not percieved the same way.

Further, the NuTrek films are still trying to justify their existence in a modern film world that has surpassed it in terms of interest, spectacle and basic appeal (post Potter, Rings, Hunger Games, numerous comic book adaptations, etc.), so a new cartoon based on NuTrek (or any Trek, for that matter) is a dicey concept at best. This was not the case when TAS was created, as the interest for more TOS was at a fevered pitch. That made the acceptance of an animated version easier than what ST as a franchise faces at present.

[Christopher]

TREK_GOD_1 wrote:

---

The difference between all of the named series is that they have their origins in comic books or toys, which--historically--lend themselves to their natrual "cousin" in animation with greater ease than movies.

But the series I named are far from an exhaustive list. Remember The Real Ghostbusters? That wasn't based on a comic or a toy. Nor was Men in Black: The Series. There was also a Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventures cartoon released between the two films; The Mummy: The Animated Series based on the Brendan Fraser films; even animated adaptations of the R-rated RoboCop and Rambo franchises, not to mention Police Academy. These things have never been limited solely to comic and toy adaptations. It's just happenstance that the ones currently airing are mainly based on such things, because so many feature films these days are based on them.

Further, the NuTrek films are still trying to justify their existence in a modern film world that has surpassed it in terms of interest, spectacle and basic appeal (post Potter, Rings, Hunger Games, numerous comic book adaptations, etc.), so a new cartoon based on NuTrek (or any Trek, for that matter) is a dicey concept at best. This was not the case when TAS was created, as the interest for more TOS was at a fevered pitch. That made the acceptance of an animated version easier than what ST as a franchise faces at present.

I think you're overestimating the audience interest in a new Trek series as of 1973. I grew up as a Trek fan in the '70s, and I can tell you that although ST did become something of a cult phenomenon at the time due to its success in syndication, it never had the kind of mainstream acceptance that TNG gained. Indeed, science fiction as a whole, in those pre-Star Wars days, was much more of a niche market than it is today. So there was enough audience interest for Filmation and Roddenberry to convince NBC to do the animated show, but interest wasn't at a fever pitch among the public as a whole. I'd say the situation wasn't too much different from today, where there's still a loyal and widespread fanbase but the franchise is far from the top of the pop-culture heap. Except that SF/fantasy in general is far more accepted as a mass-media cash cow than it would've been 40 years ago.

[TREK_GOD_1]

Christopher;7569400

But the series I named are far from an exhaustive list. Remember [I wrote:

---

The Real Ghostbusters[/I]? That wasn't based on a comic or a toy. Nor was Men in Black: The Series. There was also a Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventures cartoon released between the two films; The Mummy: The Animated Series based on the Brendan Fraser films; even animated adaptations of the R-rated RoboCop and Rambo franchises, not to mention Police Academy. These things have never been limited solely to comic and toy adaptations.

Still a small list compared to the natural flow of comic and toy based concepts into animation: from the 80s GI Joe, to He-Man, Monchichis, My Little Pony (and too many to list here), to the dozens of shows based on DC & Marvel comics from the 1960s-forward, live action film's place as animated adaptations are not all that frequent.

I think you're overestimating the audience interest in a new Trek series as of 1973. I grew up as a Trek fan in the '70s, and I can tell you that although ST did become something of a cult phenomenon at the time due to its success in syndication, it never had the kind of mainstream acceptance that TNG gained. Indeed, science fiction as a whole, in those pre-Star Wars days, was much more of a niche market than it is today. So there was enough audience interest for Filmation and Roddenberry to convince NBC to do the animated show, but interest wasn't at a fever pitch among the public as a whole.

I was around as a fan at that time, too, and TOS--even in the infancy of its syndicated success--was already well known. In fact, the marketing of the show was so heavy, that it had a stronger cultural impact beyond the first-run fans who were more of an exclusive club. Remember, before Star Wars, the news media covered the huge Trek and/or sci-fi cons, and with TOS merchandising exploding in the early 70s, TOS had captured hearts amongst a generation not born while the series was on NBC.

On the NBC note, networks were and are all about the bottom line:the dollar, and for their interest in bringing back a failed series is speaks to its growth in cultural power since 1969--a recognition of a broad appeal. If NBC truly believed they were only going to deal with a handfull of ST fans, then a new series would not be in their best interests.

TAS may not have broken all-time ratings records, but I recall serious excitement & interest from numerous ST fans. Even some of the "outsiders" who had become aware of ST, realized that it was a cancelled show from the 60's, but found it interesting that a cartoon based on it was on its way. I think few would deny its crucial part in keeping ST alive as more than just a cancelled series.

Except that SF/fantasy in general is far more accepted as a mass-media cash cow than it would've been 40 years ago.

Agreed, as 40 years ago, only ST and Planet of the Apes broke were elevated to pop culture fame status, and enjoyed a flood of money-making ventures in the ancillary market.

However, the culture of today seems to lean toward very soft sci-fi (Star Wars) or the various themes under the fantasy umbrella, including comic book characters. Star Trek now seems the odd man out, where 30 years ago--during the early years of the TOS movie series--it was a strong part of the "fantastic film" roster.

[Christopher]

TREK_GOD_1 wrote:

---

Still a small list compared to the natural flow of comic and toy based concepts into animation: from the 80s GI Joe, to He-Man, Monchichis, My Little Pony (and too many to list here), to the dozens of shows based on DC & Marvel comics from the 1960s-forward, live action film's place as animated adaptations are not all that frequent.

But that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about the prospects of adapting a live-action property, Star Trek, into a contemporaneous animated series. There are numerous prior instances where that has been done. The fact that they're outnumbered by straight comics-to-animation adaptations is irrelevant to this particular point. They're also outnumbered by entirely original animated shows that aren't based on anything. And they're outnumbered by cars on the highway and stars in the sky. But those aren't relevant to the specific question we're asking here, which is whether it's feasible at all for a live-action franchise to have a contemporaneous animated adaptation. Since it has, in fact, happened multiple times, it is therefore possible. Period.

I was around as a fan at that time, too, and TOS--even in the infancy of its syndicated success--was already well known.

Yes, and it's even more well-known today. It's not as if people have forgotten it existed. The 2009 film was the 7th-highest grossing movie of the year in the US! It just doesn't make sense to say that ST was more popular or more of a cultural icon in 1973 than it is in 2013. Yes, ST's popularity has waned considerably from where it was twenty years ago, but it's still bigger than it was forty years ago.

On the NBC note, networks were and are all about the bottom line:the dollar, and for their interest in bringing back a failed series is speaks to its growth in cultural power since 1969--a recognition of a broad appeal. If NBC truly believed they were only going to deal with a handfull of ST fans, then a new series would not be in their best interests.

Again, I do not dispute that it was popular back then. What I dispute is your insistence that it's somehow become obscure and forgotten today. The fact is, CBS has made gazillions of dollars from Trek over the decades and they're very well aware that it's got enormous profit potential. So they would absolutely be interested in a new Trek series, animated or otherwise. They may, in fact, already be talking with Kurtzman & Orci about making a new animated series.

[Carcazoid]

Christopher wrote:

---

But that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about the prospects of adapting a live-action property, Star Trek, into a contemporaneous animated series. There are numerous prior instances where that has been done. The fact that they're outnumbered by straight comics-to-animation adaptations is irrelevant to this particular point. They're also outnumbered by entirely original animated shows that aren't based on anything. And they're outnumbered by cars on the highway and stars in the sky. But those aren't relevant to the specific question we're asking here, which is whether it's feasible at all for a live-action franchise to have a contemporaneous animated adaptation. Since it has, in fact, happened multiple times, it is therefore possible. Period.

Yes, and it's even more well-known today. It's not as if people have forgotten it existed. The 2009 film was the 7th-highest grossing movie of the year in the US! It just doesn't make sense to say that ST was more popular or more of a cultural icon in 1973 than it is in 2013. Yes, ST's popularity has waned considerably from where it was twenty years ago, but it's still bigger than it was forty years ago.

Again, I do not dispute that it was popular back then. What I dispute is your insistence that it's somehow become obscure and forgotten today. The fact is, CBS has made gazillions of dollars from Trek over the decades and they're very well aware that it's got enormous profit potential. So they would absolutely be interested in a new Trek series, animated or otherwise. They may, in fact, already be talking with Kurtzman & Orci about making a new animated series.

Just to clarify, Paramount has made the gazillions

There was little studio excitement n bringing Trek back until Star Wars hit, even with the development of Phase II. Then it was balls to the wall. We can thank Lucas for the revival of Trek. The proposed series would have been a miserable failure. Some will disagree, but that's OK. History has proved that Star Trek works on the big screen better than on television.

[Christopher]

Carcazoid wrote:

---

Just to clarify, Paramount has made the gazillions

And the corporation that was called Paramount Television back then is called CBS Studios now. It's still essentially the same entity.

History has proved that Star Trek works on the big screen better than on television.

Are you kidding? Based on what? There are a dozen Trek movies and over 700 TV episodes. TNG was such a huge success that it spawned a whole industry of first-run syndicated scripted shows. We had two simultaneous Trek series on TV for seven years in a row, but the movies only came out once every 2-4 years. And the TV shows were big-budget, prestige productions by TV standards while the films were middle-budget productions by feature standards. And as for quality, the movies have been pretty uneven over the years; so have the series, but I think that if you averaged out the rankings of all the Trek episodes ever made, you'd get at least a slightly higher figure than if you averaged the rankings of all the movies.

[jayrath]

This thread seems to have gotten derailed far earlier than most. That's fine, I guess, but much of the above debate might be better in a whole new thread, rather than in a discussion of the recent "fascinating TAS information."

[TREK_GOD_1]

Christopher;7570231
But that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about the prospects of adapting a live-action property, [I wrote:

---

Star Trek[/I], into a contemporaneous animated series. There are numerous prior instances where that has been done. The fact that they're outnumbered by straight comics-to-animation adaptations is irrelevant to this particular point.

It is the central point: they were outnumbered because historically, attempts to adapt movies as cartoons have not been a strong sub-genre in animation--certainly not as successful as media which has a more natural place in animation.

Since it has, in fact, happened multiple times, it is therefore possible. Period.

Many were flops, including Fantastic Voyage, The Karate Kid, etc.

Yes, and it's even more well-known today. It's not as if people have forgotten it existed. The 2009 film was the 7th-highest grossing movie of the year in the US! It just doesn't make sense to say that ST was more popular or more of a cultural icon in 1973 than it is in 2013. Yes, ST's popularity has waned considerably from where it was twenty years ago, but it's still bigger than it was forty years ago.

What I dispute is your insistence that it's somehow become obscure and forgotten today.

It is not relevant anymore. The current cultural heroes from the aforementioned films/series have completely ripped the attention away from ST. Any film can be the 7th biggest domestic earner in a year, but what is actually staying with the public? Why was it not the 2nd or year end winner?

Characters from the noted series are, not NuTrek, which to the swelling masses who could not get enough of The Avengers (and other Marvel films), Dark Knight, the LOTR films, Avatar, Potter or Hunger Games, ST is just "more of the same," since it overstayed its welcome during the 4 Berman series and related films.

With each new production dating back to TNG, ST has lost the fascination of the present day general public, which says something about the lack of cultural "glue" of recent series which--in theory--should be the fresh memory in the minds of audiences, but it is the extreme opposite.

Characters like Kirk and Spock and the image of the 1701 were already part of the general pop culutral iconography/language in the so-called lean, "in between" years of 1970-78, so much so that even something seemingly insignificant as catchphrases never uttered on TOS were thought to be genuine. that says much about how popular it was.

Contrast that with the Berman series, where, most average people on the street would struggle to even name a single character from his series.

Futhermore, there would have been no reason to reboot the franchise if all was going well...and even after rebooting, the problems remain when pitting ST against the movie/cultural goliaths of the modern day. For example, back in 1982, E.T. was--by far--the biggest film of that year, but TWOK was not only a hit, but more importantly, people--even beyond Trekkers--were talking about the film. It saved the franchise by living up to the broad appeal temporarily lost by TMP. In '84, Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom and Ghostbusters were the biggest hits, but TSFS continued to fuel ST as a vital part of the new fantasy/blockbuster era otherwise known as the 1980s.

Today, people talk about Marvel movies, the LOTR films...even characters in the awful Twilight films, but NuTrek is here...but that's all one can say about it, as the characters and situations are not striking that larger, pop cultural chord.

The fact is, CBS has made gazillions of dollars from Trek over the decades and they're very well aware that it's got enormous profit potential. So they would absolutely be interested in a new Trek series, animated or otherwise. They may, in fact, already be talking with Kurtzman & Orci about making a new animated series.

Talking about a new AS, or even producing it does not change the state of the Trek union, so to speak.

[TREK_GOD_1]

Did not see your comment until after I posted my own, jayrath.

[ssosmcin]

Carcazoid wrote:

---

The proposed series would have been a miserable failure.

There's no way you could possibly know that.

Even if it wasn't that great from the start, it would have been the flagship series of a new Paramount TV network, much like Voyage on UPN. The ratings would have been high because there was NO other Trek available beyond the TOS reruns. It probably would have been given time to develop, much like TNG got to live down it's shaky early seasons.

[Lance]

Carcazoid wrote:

---

History has proved that Star Trek works on the big screen better than on television.

I'd have to respectfully disagree with that notion. I don't think history has "proved" any such thing. Star Trek was birthed as a television concept, and I've often felt that it just feels most at home as a weekly television series. Big screen Star Trek has always had to make compromises to the format which don't usually pan out to a very 'good' representation of the true heart of Star Trek. Even if said compromises do make for better movies.

I mean, just look at TNG's translation to the big screen. People often say the TNG movies didn't "feel" right, they say Picard acted out-of-character or whatever. The truth is that the specified format -- self-contained two hour stories -- require that kind of condensing of character. When you've only got two hours to tell your story, then the substance of that story is always going to be very different. What works terrifically on television doesn't always translate to the cinema screen very well at all.

For my money, Star Trek is just at it's best on television. Whatever medium it exists in, it only needs to have the right people in charge, somebody with direction. Personally, I'd very much have welcomed a 'Phase II' television series in the 1970s.

[USS KG5]

Sector 7 wrote:

---

The most fascinating part of the article was that Gene Roddenberry wanted a gay character on TNG. If that would have happened, perhaps we would have been fully accepted by now. As it is, many of us in the US, and elsewhere, are still waiting for full equality.

I'd aim for full acceptance first. Even here in the liberal UK I'm amazed by how many people openly will talk about "stringing up" gay people, mostly not very nice people who say it, but still.

Personally, as a Trek fan, I thought the best recognition was in Rejoined,, not for the titilating lesbianism, but because every character went on about ancient Trill rules, and the fact both lovers were the same gender was not even an issue.

If anything, I'd leave the more outright statements to shows like Family Guy, who can actually say "F**k off" live on air to peoples and groups, and leave Trek to show a future where no-one bats an eyelid!

[RPJOB]

Christopher wrote:

---

Remember The Real Ghostbusters? That wasn't based on a comic or a toy. Nor was Men in Black: The Series.

A point of correction. Men in Black was originally a comic series published first in 1991, six years before the movie and animated series.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men_in_Black_(franchise)