fred freiberger : hack or hapless?

[PCz911]

I just finished reading the gross and Altman book and many quotes were not too kind towards Fred freiberger.

Wikipedia has this to say:
Freiberger has a dubious reputation in science-fiction fandom, mostly due to his involvement in the final seasons of Star Trek, Space: 1999, The Six Million Dollar Man and the cartoon series Josie and the Pussycats, all of which were cancelled on his watch. This has resulted in Freiberger being given the nickname "The Series Killer" in some circles,although both Nichelle Nichols and William Shatner have refused to assign any blame to Freiberger for the poorly received third season of Star Trek. Martin Landau, however, blamed Freiberger for the changes and drop in quality of the second season of Space: 1999

Was he just a victim of bad timing "here, take over and the budgets cut" on all these shows.... A scapegoat...Or is he a hack.... Or somewhere in between ?

 

[Spock's Barber]

I don't know what to think about him. For many years, I would watch the closing credits of a 3rd season TOS episode, see 'Produced by Fred Freiberger' and I would curse him for the drop in quality. But there seems to have been many reasons for the demise of TOS. However, I still believe that Bob Justman, with his intimate association with ST from the beginning, could have made a minor difference in the 3rd season episodes if he had been made producer. Who knows?

 

[Christopher]

I'll quote a post I made about Freiberger last year:

Freiberger came into Star Trek at a disadvantage for several reasons -- the show was already flailing in the ratings when he arrived, it was in a niche genre to begin with, and Freiberger was given little guidance or briefing on the series by Roddenberry or any other veteran staffers (since Roddenberry was focusing on his next project and all the veterans had left). Any producer coming into the show in those conditions would've had a slim chance of success.

I've also come to feel recently that we've been too hard on Freiberger and the season-3 staff in some ways. There were several failings of earlier seasons that the third season largely managed to avoid. For one, many second-season episodes fell short of ST's morality-tale aspirations, featuring simplistically evil enemies defeated through force of arms, rather than more nuanced adversaries and problems solved through reason and compassion -- "The Doomsday Machine," "Wolf in the Fold," "The Changeling," "The Apple," "Obsession," "The Immunity Syndrome." Season 3 had some of those, but it also had plenty of episodes that were resolved by the heroes standing up for their peaceful and tolerant principles -- "Spectre of the Gun," "The Empath," "Day of the Dove," "Plato's Stepchildren," "The Savage Curtain." Also, season 3 had a lot more strong, commanding women in guest roles than the previous two seasons did -- Elaan, Miramanee, the Romulan Commander, Miranda Jones, Natira, Mara, Deela, Losira, Droxine. So it was less sexist on the whole, although "Turnabout Intruder" alone almost counteracts the rest of the season (note, though, that "Intruder" was one of the few scripts credited to Roddenberry himself).

The other main thing I realized is that the first couple of seasons of ST -- with season 2 again being the worst offender -- had a lot of aliens that were based on stock Orientalist or tribal-native stereotypes from ’60s TV. Green Orion women are essentially belly dancers and harem girls, right down to their dance music being written in a stock Arabesque style. Klingons were specifically imagined as "space Mongols," a sci-fi variant of sinister, treacherous Orientals. The Capellans from “Friday’s Child” are part American Indians, part Arab nomads, and their tradition that widows must die with their husbands is straight out of sati in Hinduism. The Argelians in “Wolf in the Fold” are blatantly Arabian/Orientalist, with belly dancers and seances (not to mention the inclusion of the Iranian Tania Lemani and the Filipina-American Pilar Seurat in the cast, a departure from the usual pattern of casting white actors as Orientalized aliens to make their basis a bit less obvious). The Vaalians in “The Apple” were your basic South Seas island primitives. Nona the “Kanutu witch woman” in “A Private Little War” implies African stereotypes of witch doctors. Elasians in “Elaan of Troyius” were pretty clearly Orientalist, again with an actress of Asian ancestry as the featured player. Even the Vulcans of “Amok Time” had hints of it, with the precession and costumes and bells and Gerald Fried’s “tribal” music. And then of course we have the literal space Indians of “The Paradise Syndrome.” But aside from those two early episodes, season 3 doesn't really resort to those stereotypes.

Certainly season 3 did a worse job in terms of writing, plot logic, characterization, and production values, but could it be that, in its own clumsy way, it actually succeeded better than previous seasons at embodying the core philosophies we associate with Star Trek?

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Well, "The Doomsday Machine" is hardly a failing.

 

[diankra]

There does however seem to be a pattern of Freiberger only getting hired if no-one else is available because of a late pick-up (Cagney and Lacey) or because other people turn down a sinking ship. The one exception is Space 1999, where - to be blunt - they didn't pay attention to Trek seasons and thought they were hiring Roddenberry or Coon.
So basically, a hack who took the jobs no-one better wanted. Whether anyone else could have done a better job of Trek 3... maybe not given the studio constraints. But someone else could definitely have made a better 1999 s2.

 

[PCz911]

I'll quote a post I made about Freiberger last year:



I've also come to feel recently that we've been too hard on Freiberger and the season-3 staff in some ways. There were several failings of earlier seasons that the third season largely managed to avoid. For one, many second-season episodes fell short of ST's morality-tale aspirations, featuring simplistically evil enemies defeated through force of arms, rather than more nuanced adversaries and problems solved through reason and compassion -- "The Doomsday Machine," "Wolf in the Fold," "The Changeling," "The Apple," "Obsession," "The Immunity Syndrome." Season 3 had some of those, but it also had plenty of episodes that were resolved by the heroes standing up for their peaceful and tolerant principles -- "Spectre of the Gun," "The Empath," "Day of the Dove," "Plato's Stepchildren," "The Savage Curtain." Also, season 3 had a lot more strong, commanding women in guest roles than the previous two seasons did -- Elaan, Miramanee, the Romulan Commander, Miranda Jones, Natira, Mara, Deela, Losira, Droxine. So it was less sexist on the whole, although "Turnabout Intruder" alone almost counteracts the rest of the season (note, though, that "Intruder" was one of the few scripts credited to Roddenberry himself).

The other main thing I realized is that the first couple of seasons of ST -- with season 2 again being the worst offender -- had a lot of aliens that were based on stock Orientalist or tribal-native stereotypes from ’60s TV. Green Orion women are essentially belly dancers and harem girls, right down to their dance music being written in a stock Arabesque style. Klingons were specifically imagined as "space Mongols," a sci-fi variant of sinister, treacherous Orientals. The Capellans from “Friday’s Child” are part American Indians, part Arab nomads, and their tradition that widows must die with their husbands is straight out of sati in Hinduism. The Argelians in “Wolf in the Fold” are blatantly Arabian/Orientalist, with belly dancers and seances (not to mention the inclusion of the Iranian Tania Lemani and the Filipina-American Pilar Seurat in the cast, a departure from the usual pattern of casting white actors as Orientalized aliens to make their basis a bit less obvious). The Vaalians in “The Apple” were your basic South Seas island primitives. Nona the “Kanutu witch woman” in “A Private Little War” implies African stereotypes of witch doctors. Elasians in “Elaan of Troyius” were pretty clearly Orientalist, again with an actress of Asian ancestry as the featured player. Even the Vulcans of “Amok Time” had hints of it, with the precession and costumes and bells and Gerald Fried’s “tribal” music. And then of course we have the literal space Indians of “The Paradise Syndrome.” But aside from those two early episodes, season 3 doesn't really resort to those stereotypes.

Certainly season 3 did a worse job in terms of writing, plot logic, characterization, and production values, but could it be that, in its own clumsy way, it actually succeeded better than previous seasons at embodying the core philosophies we associate with Star Trek?

That has got to be the most articulate and well thought out response I've seen in many a day. Thank you for taking the time to answer so eloquently.

 

[Spock's Barber]

I'm shaking in my boots...I read that GR originally wanted Fred to produce ST, but Fred already had a trip to Europe planned at the time. If he was indeed a hack, he might have destroyed the ST franchise before it was ever established.

 

[hbquikcomjamesl]

Hack or hapless?

Yes. In equal measure.

As it happens, though, I actually prefer the look and feel of Space: 1999 on his watch to the first season. And I agree that there were a few very good season 3 episodes.

 

[BillJ]

Hack or hapless? Neither. He walked into a bad situation, there was a reason NBC put it on Fridays at 10, they were already planning to kill it.

 

[Spock's Barber]

Hack or hapless? Neither. He walked into a bad situation, there was a reason NBC put it on Fridays at 10, they were already planning to kill it.

Fridays at 10! I was out painting the town red and raising Hell like 99% percent of the teenagers.

 

[Kevin Wolff]

There does however seem to be a pattern of Freiberger only getting hired if no-one else is available because of a late pick-up (Cagney and Lacey) or because other people turn down a sinking ship. The one exception is Space 1999, where - to be blunt - they didn't pay attention to Trek seasons and thought they were hiring Roddenberry or Coon.
So basically, a hack who took the jobs no-one better wanted. Whether anyone else could have done a better job of Trek 3... maybe not given the studio constraints. But someone else could definitely have made a better 1999 s2.

Exactly, regarding s1999 s2. He ignored s1 and "fixed" a show that didn't need fixing. The only thing that broke down up to that point was the Andersons' marriage. Sylvia was the producer and left but even prior Gerry was still considering Frieberger for a writer position ( which would have been fine because they could have course corrected after seeing he couldn't write) but instead he made Fred show-runner and when Gerry didn't like the changes Fred was making, he stepped away instead of stopping it (assuming he could have). S2 was terrible from start to finish and although I've outgrown much of my fanboy rigidity since I've gotten older, I will never acknowledge s2 as canon. Instead I imagine not only what could have been in s2, but what if S1999 was instead what it was intended to be...UFO:1999.

 

[Warped9]

Unless there had been a miraculous turnaround in ratings during the third season I don't think it would have mattered who was producing. NBC was out to get rid of TOS when the third season was done.

And the loss of Justman and Fontana as well as Coon earlier simply hampered the show. Even GR's absence hurt the show.

Things were stacked against Frieberger so I think he has been judged unfairly.

 

[Marsden]

I really don't think season 3 was so bad.

Yes, it's in third place out of the three for best season, that still does not make it bad.
It's the season that has And the Children... which is most likely the worst episode.
But take that and 2 or 3 other so so attempts, and the remaining episodes are not bad at all.

Maybe people really prefer yellow to blue?

 

[Spock's Barber]

Before Harve Bennett produced TWOK he watched all 79 TOS episodes. He said some were excellent, some were good and the rest were just average. That's how I feel about season 3.

 

[Christopher]

Exactly, regarding s1999 s2. He ignored s1 and "fixed" a show that didn't need fixing.

To be fair, though, he did that because it was what he was hired to do. It was higher-up people who decided to retool the show to be more "American" in hopes of getting better US ratings, and Freiberger was the person they gave that task to. I wouldn't say he did it well, of course, but it's not like it was his unilateral decision to change the show.

Unless there had been a miraculous turnaround in ratings during the third season I don't think it would have mattered who was producing. NBC was out to get rid of TOS when the third season was done.

That's a myth. According to Solow and Justman's Inside Star Trek, NBC execs were quite proud of Star Trek and liked having it on their network. It was a prestigious production, impressively produced and intelligent, and it got annual Emmy nominations for Leonard Nimoy and the visual effects. But it cost them too much money, because the ratings just weren't high enough to offset the expense of making it. They were able to renew the show twice because it encouraged the sale of color TVs, which brought profit to their parent company RCA. But eventually they just couldn't afford to keep losing money on the show. Yes, they did put it in a bad time slot in season 3, but that wasn't because they hated it; it was because it wasn't the only show on the network. They had to give the better time slots to the shows that had the best chance of making a profit in those slots, and so underperforming shows like ST had to give way. The mistake people make is in assuming that the decision to cancel a show is exclusively about that show. Usually, it's also about the other shows it's competing with and whether they're potentially more profitable than it.

 

[Warped9]

To be fair, though, he did that because it was what he was hired to do. It was higher-up people who decided to retool the show to be more "American" in hopes of getting better US ratings, and Freiberger was the person they gave that task to. I wouldn't say he did it well, of course, but it's not like it was his unilateral decision to change the show.




That's a myth. According to Solow and Justman's Inside Star Trek, NBC execs were quite proud of Star Trek and liked having it on their network. It was a prestigious production, impressively produced and intelligent, and it got annual Emmy nominations for Leonard Nimoy and the visual effects. But it cost them too much money, because the ratings just weren't high enough to offset the expense of making it. They were able to renew the show twice because it encouraged the sale of color TVs, which brought profit to their parent company RCA. But eventually they just couldn't afford to keep losing money on the show. Yes, they did put it in a bad time slot in season 3, but that wasn't because they hated it; it was because it wasn't the only show on the network. They had to give the better time slots to the shows that had the best chance of making a profit in those slots, and so underperforming shows like ST had to give way. The mistake people make is in assuming that the decision to cancel a show is exclusively about that show. Usually, it's also about the other shows it's competing with and whether they're potentially more profitable than it.

It's a business no matter how much they might like a show. But the simple fact is that if you exile a show to Fridays at 10pm back in those days you were sending it to the graveyard. Thats the same as being out to get rid of it.

 

[Spock's Barber]

Herb Solow has said repeatedly that TOS was cancelled because of the combination of low ratings and lack of full sponsorship. ST at the time was not making money for the studio or the network. Bummer.

 

[Kevin Wolff]

To be fair, though, he did that because it was what he was hired to do. It was higher-up people who decided to retool the show to be more "American" in hopes of getting better US ratings, and Freiberger was the person they gave that task to. I wouldn't say he did it well, of course, but it's not like it was his unilateral decision to change the show.




That's a myth. According to Solow and Justman's Inside Star Trek, NBC execs were quite proud of Star Trek and liked having it on their network. It was a prestigious production, impressively produced and intelligent, and it got annual Emmy nominations for Leonard Nimoy and the visual effects. But it cost them too much money, because the ratings just weren't high enough to offset the expense of making it. They were able to renew the show twice because it encouraged the sale of color TVs, which brought profit to their parent company RCA. But eventually they just couldn't afford to keep losing money on the show. Yes, they did put it in a bad time slot in season 3, but that wasn't because they hated it; it was because it wasn't the only show on the network. They had to give the better time slots to the shows that had the best chance of making a profit in those slots, and so underperforming shows like ST had to give way. The mistake people make is in assuming that the decision to cancel a show is exclusively about that show. Usually, it's also about the other shows it's competing with and whether they're potentially more profitable than it.

Actually, according to multiple viewpoints of the 50-year mission book, Paramount was the one trying to get out from under this huge expense they inherited when they bought Desilu. Solow wouldn't know because he was Desilu and not on the lot anymore after some point in the 2nd season when Paramount took charge of production. The Desilu money men wanted to jump ship too after season 1, but Lucy herself renewed production, and it cost her the company. She was forced to sell mid-season 2. Enter Paramount. The show cost too much, Gene didn't bow to their will. Desilu tolerated his artistry where Paramount did not. One of the quotes was that it was clear to many people that Paramount did not want to be in business with Gene anymore. They also are believed to have held Gene personally responsible for the letter-writing campaign that saved the show, that he used his influence with the fans. Indirectly they were right. So with all the literal fanfare, they couldn't dump the show after season 2 like they intended. So the shared opinion of more than a few is that nothing short of miracle ratings would save the show. Gene still gave notes throughout s3, but FF did his own thing. Anyone who doubts the hack he is simply needs to compare Space:1999 series 1 and 2. Watch the interviews from the series where he talks about the changes and lightening things up, etc. He's a second string TV producer. Harve Bennett without the talent. He should never have been allowed near Trek.

 

[hbquikcomjamesl]

I have what seems to be an utterly contrarian view of the two seasons of Space: 1999. Probably because I started with the second season. But quite frankly, I found the first season to be reminiscent of (and only slightly less unwatchable than) The Starlost (which is to say, I got through most of Space: 1999's first season; I got through about 15-20 minutes of one episode of The Starlost). Then again, I didn't care for Bain and Landau in Mission: Impossible, either (their characters seemed to have a sadistic streak), and thought it was a better show in the Linda Day George years, or the Leonard Nimoy years, or the Lesley Ann Warren years. (I also despise Connery's version of James Bond.)

 

[Indysolo]

Hack or hapless? Neither. He walked into a bad situation, there was a reason NBC put it on Fridays at 10, they were already planning to kill it.

Killing it with cigarettes.

Neil