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

[BillJ]

Harvey wrote:

---

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.

I remember there being questions about whether there would be follow-up films to TMP and TFF, due to them not performing to studio expectations.

[Harvey]

Agreed on TMP. As for TFF, I suppose my point was that the success of TNG on television had secured the franchise's position at that point. Shatner and Bennett's failure put serious doubt as to the possibility of a sixth feature film with the original cast, but the franchise's future was not in doubt at that point.

[Nerys Myk]

TREK_GOD_1 wrote:

---

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).

It means that costume changes aren't what I think of as re-imagining.

Interestingly enough, Phase II was going to use a variation of the TOS uniforms.

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

.Again, what was said is irrelevant. What appeared on the screen is. Tone and characterization.

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

That's nice, but Voyager didn't exist in the late 70s. So its unlikely that Roddenberry had 8 years in mind when he started work on Phase II/TMP. The only time stamp we have is it being two and a half years since Kirk was "out there" and him having five years of experience "out there".

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

Equally subjective. Though its clear with the additions of Decker, Ilia and Xon, the character dynamics of Star Trek were being changed ( and would be used later as the blue print for TNG)

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.

Links to said articles?

[Nerys Myk]

A question for those in the know. After it canceled Star Trek, did NBC have any connection to Star Trek in anyway? IIRC, Paramount pretty much owned the show and could do what ever it wanted once it was canceled, including shopping it to a different network. Was there some sort of "first look" clause between Paramount and NBC regarding Star Trek that resulted in TAS being on the same network as TOS or was it coincidence? Or perhaps Roddenberry and Filmation went to NBC first, because of its prior relationship with the series.

[Harvey]

Star Trek was owned by Paramount and the Norway Corporation (Roddenberry's production company). NBC did not have a stake in it, as far as I know.

[TREK_GOD_1]

Zombie Cheerleader wrote:

---

Again, what was said is irrelevant.

No offense, but are not making much sense: if the people behind a production tell you--or rather do not tell you a production is a reimagining, then no reimagining exists. Defining the content begins and ends there, not with how one audience member sees it.

What appeared on the screen is. Tone and characterization.

...which is the end result of what the producers intended: TMP was the same continuity as TOS. Nothing from the production parties involved or the filmed script suggests anything else--the reason to this day, TOS and the films are seen as a joined series. The TMP versions of the characters show growth, so naturally, they were not going to behave exactly as seen ten years earlier when serving on the original Enterprise. That's growth--far different than the trend of TV reunion movies were the actors are instructed to go through the same routines of yesteryear.

The only true reimagining in ST occured in NuTrek and in parts of ENT.

subjective. Though its clear with the additions of Decker, Ilia and Xon, the character dynamics of Star Trek were being changed

That's not reimagining, or anything close to it. Xon was eliminated, Nimoy returned, but even if he (Nimoy) refused to don the ears again, Phase II and TMP were "the continuing adventures of," not an alternate universe, reboot or a seperate continuity.

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.

Links to said articles?

I'm talking about old magazine articles of the period.

However, NBC's next move began with calling for another live action series, but, as noted on page 52 of Star Trek: Where No One Has Gone Before (Dillard, 1994) in the wake of learning the demographic impact TOS had:

Network executives approached Roddenberry. But it was determined that the venture would be too expensive--Paramount said that rebuilding sets and replacing props and costumes would cost $750,000--so the project was dropped.

...but the interest remained. Enter Filmation Associates, which scoped out ST as early as 1969.

Next, in the new bio Lou Schiemer: Creating the Filmation Generation:

NBC wanted Star Trek so desperately that they gave us that creative control....

So, it is historically established that both Filmation & NBC wanted more TOS.

[Harvey]

Once again, the demographic thing is a myth.

And I'm not sure how Enterprise counts as a re-imagining. It seems more like you're using the term to indicate things you don't like.

[Nerys Myk]

TREK_GOD_1 wrote:

---

No offense, but are not making much sense: if the people behind a production tell you--or rather do not tell you a production is a reimagining, then no reimagining exists. Defining the content begins and ends there, not with how one audience member sees it.

If they don't tell you, then the possibility exists. Heck, even if they tell you it isn't, it can still be one. Of course we are talking about the late 70s, the term "reimagining" wasn't even part of the lexicon back then, even though the concept existed.

I'm doubt I'm alone in this. But I was quite clear that it was argument that "could be made" not a hard fact.

...which is the end result of what the producers intended: TMP was the same continuity as TOS. Nothing from the production parties involved or the filmed script suggests anything else--the reason to this day, TOS and the films are seen as a joined series. The TMP versions of the characters show growth, so naturally, they were not going to behave exactly as seen ten years earlier when serving on the original Enterprise. That's growth--far different than the trend of TV reunion movies were the actors are instructed to go through the same routines of yesteryear.

The only true reimagining in ST occured in NuTrek and in parts of ENT.

I didn't see any "growth" just a change in characterization. Kirk being an admiral isn't character growth.

That's not reimagining, or anything close to it. Xon was eliminated, Nimoy returned, but even if he (Nimoy) refused to don the ears again, Phase II and TMP were "the continuing adventures of," not an alternate universe, reboot or a seperate continuity.

Of course it's reimagining. They're changing the role of Kirk by adding Decker as a "Kirk in training" type character. The absence of Spock also alters the dynamic of Star Trek's cast.

I'm familiar with the history behind Phase II and TMP's development, so Nimoy coming back isn't news. Saying its the "continuing adventures" doesn't make it either production any less of a "reimagining". TNG is pretty obviously a reworking of Phase II even though its set 100 years in the "future".

I'm talking about old magazine articles of the period.

The older the book the more likely it was just regurgitating the "myths".

As for the more recent book:

Still the question remains. Did NBC contact Filmation or did Filmation contact NBC?

And, if NBC was so hot to acquire Star Trek to tap into the demo they desired, why a Saturday morning animated series that was unlikely to reach that demo?

[TREK_GOD_1]

Zombie Cheerleader;7213936If they [B wrote:

---

don't tell you[/B], then the possibility exists.

No, that's creating something the producers never said.

That's no different than Star Wars fans arguing George Lucas somehow did not follow an alleged storyline when the prequel film Jedi did not fight a group of warriors all dressed like Boba Fett during the Clone Wars, just because the novelisation of The Empire Strikes Back claimed that occured.

The take away: Lucas never promised that, and it was not in his prequels screenplays, so any fans losing their minds over this would-be omission are doing so based on their own false conclusions/wishes...much like the "TMP is reimagined" notion.

I'm doubt I'm alone in this. But I was quite clear that it was argument that "could be made" not a hard fact.

One cannot have facts--even "soft" facts if the established history is disregared in favor of opinion.

I didn't see any "growth" just a change in characterization. Kirk being an admiral isn't character growth.

Subjective, and you must have watched another film if the main theme of an older Kirk wanting to return to "his place" in the captain's chair, and Decker making him feel his years did not hit you over the head.

That age/purpose issue is explored character growth.

Of course it's reimagining. They're changing the role of Kirk by adding Decker as a "Kirk in training" type character. The absence of Spock also alters the dynamic of Star Trek's cast.

Changing a dynamic is not "reimagining." You need to understand what "reimagining is"--and that is a new, altered version of a basic concept, with no casting or history/story continuity to the original. A fine example of this was the early 90's Dark Shadows revival series, which featured all new cast, altered character relationships, and had no connection to the relationships and specific situations of the 1966-71 soap opera. That is not TMP in any way, shape, or form.

Adding younger characters to an established series is as old as the medium, and usually occurs for any of a number of reasons:

A. when a series has run so long its principals are too old to continue.

B. or the PTB feel "fresh" blood needs to be added for whatever reason.

C. to add generational conflict to the established older characters. Series such as E/R used this plotting gimmick every few years, as some new, hothead, or know-it-all doctor ended up at Cook County to cause friction with the veterans.

However, by your standards, if Decker means ST was reimagined, then Chekov's season 2 debut/taking script parts meant for the absent Takei/adding a youth element could mean TOS season 2 (in tradition of this "reimagining" stretch) is another series altogether, with little to no connection to TOS season 1, as the Sulu dynamic in relation to the series leads was largely modified in favor of Chekov, with his youthful energy, Russian pride, etc.

...but that's not the case.

I'm familiar with the history behind Phase II and TMP's development, so Nimoy coming back isn't news. Saying its the "continuing adventures" doesn't make it either production any less of a "reimagining". TNG is pretty obviously a reworking of Phase II even though its set 100 years in the "future".

You are trying to fight against the facts, which do not support any sort of "reimagining" of ST at the Phase II or TMP stage. Your perception is not historical reality. Again, aside from the aforementioned ENT's various changes, the only complete reimagining in franchise history was NuTrek.

The older the book the more likely it was just regurgitating the "myths".

1994 was not some ancient period of your so-called "myths" about ST, otherwise, the same book's chapter about other possible Enterprise captains (Jack Lord and Lloyd Bridges among them) should be disregarded as myth in the present day...despite the fact they were documented considerations still accepted as fact.

Still the question remains. Did NBC contact Filmation or did Filmation contact NBC?

You need to read the rest of Scheimer's book....

And, if NBC was so hot to acquire Star Trek to tap into the demo they desired, why a Saturday morning animated series that was unlikely to reach that demo?

You read the main reason: a projected live action budget was too expensive at the time, but ST became a smoking hot brand, so as Schiemer pointed out, NBC wanted Trek, and--as the sequence of events proved--they would take it in any form.

Moreover, you seem to forget that ST was appealing to adults and children, so once Roddenberry, Fontana, et al, were promising the same serious level of science fiction (more often than not), they realized adult fans would tune in.

Historically speaking, this was not the first time adults watched network cartoons, as Hanna-Barbera's Jonny Quest and The Flinstones also attracted adult viewers.

Adding to that, the well-known Los Angeles Times reivew of TAS from 1973:

NBC's new animated Star Trek is as out of place in the Saturday morning kiddie ghetto as a Mercedes in a soapbox derby.

Don't be put off by the fact it's now a cartoon... It is fascinating fare, written, produced and executed with all the imaginative skill, the intellectual flare and the literary level that made Gene Roddenberry's famous old science fiction epic the most avidly followed program in TV history, particularly in high I.Q. circles.

NBC might do well to consider moving it into prime time at mid-series

It was clear the article's writer (Cecil Smith) was just grasping what NBC and ST fans already realized: cartoon or not, adults would tune in, and contrary to Smith's prime-time suggestion, the time change was not needed to reach that demographic.

[Nerys Myk]

You can re-imagine a series and stay within continuity. Buck Rogers underwent some reimagining in it's second season. It doesn't have to be a new start with a new cast. The term for that is a reboot. NuTrek branched off from TOS so its in continuity. Its "past" prior to the birth of James Kirk is the same as the one seen in TOS. TOS was reimagined between pilots and between the second pilot and the first episode filmed. Names were changed, characters added, sets altered and the concept fine tuned for the network.

Enterprise is a prequel. It contains a few retcons, but what Trek series doesn't.

Assuming that just because one piece of information in a book is true makes everything in that book true is incredibly naive, foolish and shortsighted. That Lord and Bridges were considered for the part of the Captain is a matter of records and aren't a Trek myth. The Trek myths are things like the Network didn't want a female XO or they were resistant to casting nonwhites.

The the opinions of a reviewer is not the same as NBC's. Show me a memo from NBC about how they'd love to have TAS in primetime or a new live action show, then you'll have something worth believing.

[Harvey]

TREK_GOD_1 wrote:

---

1994 was not some ancient period of your so-called "myths" about ST, otherwise, the same book's chapter about other possible Enterprise captains (Jack Lord and Lloyd Bridges among them) should be disregarded as myth in the present day...despite the fact they were documented considerations still accepted as fact.

CBS and Paramount continue to propagate myths about the series in promotional materials. Just take a look at a book like Star Trek 365 (2010). It's a nicely illustrated book, with some good material in it, but that doesn't stop it from simply quoting Roddenberry's debunked accounts of certain things (i.e. Number One's elimination from the first pilot).

I don't get your second point. Because the book has things in it that aren't true (like the demographic story) it can't have things in it that are true (like Jack Lord and Lloyd Bridges being considered for the role of Robert April/Christopher Pike)? That doesn't make any sense.

[TREK_GOD_1]

Harvey wrote:

---

CBS and Paramount continue to propagate myths about the series in promotional materials. Just take a look at a book like Star Trek 365 (2010). It's a nicely illustrated book, with some good material in it, but that doesn't stop it from simply quoting Roddenberry's debunked accounts of certain things (i.e. Number One's elimination from the first pilot).

I don't get your second point. Because the book has things in it that aren't true (like the demographic story) it can't have things in it that are true (like Jack Lord and Lloyd Bridges being considered for the role of Robert April/Christopher Pike)? That doesn't make any sense.

What I mean is if Zombie Cheerleader elects to make what I understood to be a blanket rejection of older published material, then such a viewpoint would prevent one from accepting things from the same source that were proven true by outside sources and remain confirmed to this day. One cannot simply write off everything published in the past, as the passage of time also carries the "poison" of revisionist history (the 365 book you referred to which is loaded with revision) for present day ST property handlers trying to reshape the franchise in their own image.

In other words, it is a myth that all older publications are filled with false stories, since my other example (the NBC/Filmation matter) was in the 1994 book, and the man behind Filmation confirms it in his 2012 bio, with no countering information to debunk either passage.

[TREK_GOD_1]

Zombie Cheerleader wrote:

---

You can re-imagine a series and stay within continuity.

History--and evidence--proves you wrong, and i'm still waiting for official acknowledgement about TMP being a "reimagining" of TOS.

Enterprise is a prequel. It contains a few retcons, but what Trek series doesn't.

ENT had in volume.

Assuming that just because one piece of information in a book is true makes everything in that book true is incredibly naive, foolish and shortsighted. That Lord and Bridges were considered for the part of the Captain is a matter of records and aren't a Trek myth. The Trek myths are things like the Network didn't want a female XO or they were resistant to casting nonwhites.

As posted previously, you were making a blanket rejection of older published material, as though it is all a pack of myths and lies:

The older the book the more likely it was just regurgitating the "myths".

...which you stated without offering so much as a single word of countering, proven fact. It should be easy to see why your argument cannot be taken seriously.

The the opinions of a reviewer is not the same as NBC's. Show me a memo from NBC about how they'd love to have TAS in primetime or a new live action show, then you'll have something worth believing.

You were also rejecting NBC's basic interest in both a return of TOS and TAS, which I quickly debunked with two published references about the TAS' journey to the NBC schedule. I notice you avoid commenting on that.

Hmm....

...and this from a person who--without a bit of evidence--argues that TMP was a "reimagining....

Hmm...

[plynch]

I'm gonna regret this, but, yeah, TMP was a reimagining. Post-2001 cinema ("motion picture," not "movie." Desire to go more late-GR-ish, cerebral sci-fi vs. NBC space action. My two cents.

[CorporalCaptain]

TREK_GOD_1 wrote:

---

History--and evidence--proves you wrong, and i'm still waiting for official acknowledgement about TMP being a "reimagining" of TOS.

Space: 1999 year two and Buck Rogers in the 25th Century year two [as pointed out by ZC himself] are just two examples that support the Zombie Cheerleader's position here.