fred freiberger : hack or hapless?

[johnnybear]

S1 has bumps here and there but it was never rubber monster of the week. In fact some of the best and most thought-provoking episodes were in the second half. The show was a little British and talky for the American viewers but Gerry wasn't under orders to re-tool or make drastic changes. It was selling well enough to warrant a second series which said a lot since ITC (American distribution) loved UFO at first too and green lit a second series with a bigger budget (which is the only reason why space 1999 exists) until the show got deeper and less action oriented, they reneged. S1999 despite its huge production cost coasted into a second series renewal comparatively speaking. FF didn't like scifi so he changed it into a bad lost in space.

Martin Landau hated what Freiberger did to the show. I remember seeing his first few episodes of series two and really felt it was far too different to the first! We had repeats of the first series on one channel here and the new shows on the other and the first series won every time! But Bringers of Wonder was a fantastic two parter and the beginning of the last bunch of shows!
JB

 

[johnnybear]

Agree, Kevin Wolff.
I believe johnnybear meant the second season arrival "....when he came on board.." of Fred Freiberger, not season one.

That's exactly what I meant, Galileo7 and many thanks for clearing that up with Kevin!
JB

 

[Kevin Wolff]

Martin Landau hated what Freiberger did to the show. I remember seeing his first few episodes of series two and really felt it was far too different to the first! We had repeats of the first series on one channel here and the new shows on the other and the first series won every time! But Bringers of Wonder was a fantastic two parter and the beginning of the last bunch of shows!
JB

Indeed he did. Imagine you're an actor reaching your 40's. You did a huge hit tv show(MI), some good film, even Hitchcock. Now you have to do scifi tv to feed the family (scifi was a joke prior to Star Wars production-wise (money-wise too) with the exception of Trek). Then you discover the show you reluctantly took is smart and deep and the characters are as real as any drama (whose moon has just left orbit with you on it) and you are fulfilled to some extent as an actor. Then along comes Fred and now your show AND your lead character are now a joke.

 

[Christopher]

If I'm not mistaken MI was Desilu orignanally also and part of Paramount's gripe with these expensive shows.

Yes, that's what I said -- that at the time Desilu was bought and merged with Paramount, it was already producing M:I and Mannix alongside Trek. Those were the three main dramas that Herb Solow developed for Desilu and that were in production when it became Paramount.

Also what I said was that in this case NBC was NOT the villain, villain being a metaphor for the usual antagonist who gets in one's way.

And it's the "in this case" that I object to, because it assumes that there usually is a "villain." I disagree with the general tendency of fans to assume that show cancellations are made because network executives are evil jerks out to destroy happiness, rather than businesspeople who are making decisions based on profit and loss. Blaming the network is usually just a way to avoid admitting that it's the audience that decides which shows live or die. If the audience doesn't watch, if the advertisers won't buy ad time, then the network can't afford to keep the show, especially if it's expensive to make.

The book talks about Shatner's and Nimoy's ego growing season by season, but also how they were a creative force in s3 helping FF to preserve Trek integrity. They cared about the show and their characters.

Which has nothing to do with the point I'm making about season 2's conceptual shortcomings and the way season 3 avoided them. Shatner and Nimoy were surely fighting just as hard for their characters in season 2. Again, I'm not denying that S3 had serious problems; I'm just trying to look beyond that same old narrative that we've been hearing for 47 years and suggest that maybe there's an additional angle we haven't fully considered.

 

[johnnybear]

The first series was very depressive I felt, probably why I liked it so much, with the crew never knowing how long they'd survive in space or what alien menaces were going to attack them next! But Fred gave them new outfits based on the old and made life a bit too easy for them especially with a woman who could change into anything she wanted minus the uniform!
JB

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Indeed he did. Imagine you're an actor reaching your 40's. You did a huge hit tv show(MI), some good film, even Hitchcock. Now you have to do scifi tv to feed the family (scifi was a joke prior to Star Wars production-wise (money-wise too) with the exception of Trek). Then you discover the show you reluctantly took is smart and deep and the characters are as real as any drama (whose moon has just left orbit with you on it) and you are fulfilled to some extent as an actor. Then along comes Fred and now your show AND your lead character are now a joke.

Nah, the production values for Space: 1999 were unusually high. Each first season episode cost around a quarter of a million dollars, give or take depending on your source, and that's not including the multi-million dollar startup cost for the series. One of the things that Freiberger did was work within a smaller budget for season two, promotional publicity regarding the launch of season two notwithstanding.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space:_1999#cite_note-22:

^ In an interview in Destination: Moonbase Alpha, Freiberger is quoted as saying that the second series episodes were brought at US$185,000 each—a significant amount less than the $235,000 budgeted for each first-series episode (and the supposed $270,000 per episode budget ITC promotions indicated as allotted for the second series). Another clue is the lack of an on-screen credit for RAI in the second series; this seems to indicate their one-third contribution ($75,000) to the budget was removed. Left with $160,000, when one adds the reported $25,000 increase from ITC, Freiberger's claim of $185,000 becomes valid.

http://catacombs.space1999.net/press/wrefp75cost.html
http://catacombs.space1999.net/main/pguide/vpnn1.html

 

[Galileo7]

The first series was very depressive I felt, probably why I liked it so much, with the crew never knowing how long they'd survive in space or what alien menaces were going to attack them next! But Fred gave them neew outfits based on the old and made life a bit too easy for them especially with a woman who could change into anything she wanted minus the uniform!
JB

Agree, one extreme to another.
I have been a Space:1999 fan since I was a boy and saw it's debut in September 1975. Comparing season one to season two is very much like comparing Star Trek:The Motion Picture to Wrath Of Khan.
It feels like a reboot because so much of what was established was changed in the next season or next ST film.

 

[Harvey]

For what it's worth, $185,000 is about what Freiberger made each episode of Star Trek's third season for.

 

[Kevin Wolff]

Yes, that's what I said -- that at the time Desilu was bought and merged with Paramount, it was already producing M:I and Mannix alongside Trek. Those were the three main dramas that Herb Solow developed for Desilu and that were in production when it became Paramount.



And it's the "in this case" that I object to, because it assumes that there usually is a "villain." I disagree with the general tendency of fans to assume that show cancellations are made because network executives are evil jerks out to destroy happiness, rather than businesspeople who are making decisions based on profit and loss. Blaming the network is usually just a way to avoid admitting that it's the audience that decides which shows live or die. If the audience doesn't watch, if the advertisers won't buy ad time, then the network can't afford to keep the show, especially if it's expensive to make.




Which has nothing to do with the point I'm making about season 2's conceptual shortcomings and the way season 3 avoided them. Shatner and Nimoy were surely fighting just as hard for their characters in season 2. Again, I'm not denying that S3 had serious problems; I'm just trying to look beyond that same old narrative that we've been hearing for 47 years and suggest that maybe there's an additional angle we haven't fully considered.

That's why I stated that television production in of itself is a different discussion. TV production and programming are difficult and complex businesses that provoke their own discussion among those who appreciate that cross-section of the entertainment biz. My saying NBC is a villain is as innocuous as stating Shakespeare was right about lawyers in the same sentence where I thank the Lords of Kobol that my lawyer just won the case against the guy who was defecating in my koi pond. Having said that, I do realize the need the growing need for "accuracy of words" (Ah, the Giver, what as yet unrealized potential) as we interact with one another on a global stage and retract any statement claiming NBC or any studio, production company, or business in general is evil. Star Trek teaches us to be more enlightened. Except for Verizon which is actually an evil corp! Joking again.

True, I didn't address season 2 at all. I've been processing Gene Coon's contribution to s2 as I've been reading the book and re-watching TOS. I commented in another thread that I think there's schism between Coon and Roddenberry episodes as to which is really Trek (by the way, which one's Pink!). Gene Coon being related as a wonderful person gave me pause at first to declare that I like his episodes least of all. The informality and light tone was not to my taste. I liked a sterner Kirk of s1. I'm not only a season 1 fan but the Cage is my all-time favorite because to me Pike is Picard and TNG is my number one. FF was closer in tone to season 1 so I tolerated the increasing imperfections and admit my bias towards him is because of Space:1999 more than Trek.

 

[Spock's Barber]

For what it's worth, $185,000 is about what Freiberger made each episode of Star Trek's third season for.

Like Bob Justman said, "With a budget that small, we'll be doing radio shows."

 

[Kevin Wolff]

Agree, one extreme to another.
I have been a Space:1999 fan since I was a boy and saw it's debut in September 1975. Comparing season one to season two is very much like comparing Star Trek:The Motion Picture to Wrath Of Khan.
It feels like a reboot.

I would say more like TMP to ST5 [shudder]

 

[Kevin Wolff]

I would say more like TMP to ST5 [shudder]

It's too bad that a lot of scifi fans are put off by Space1999. I've been a graphic designer and an illustrator in my life and much of what I understand of picture-making in any medium is from that show as a child. From the the forced perspective logo to up close detail shots of the eagles (this was 1974 folks) and dynamic fight scenes with characters jumping over the camera. No one was doing that. Anyone who thinks TV looked bad in the old days (70's-90's) because of the limitations of 4:3 ratio need to study s1 of s1999. The show could be slow and talky because the viewer needed to catch their breath from the action or theatrical level horror that show exhibited. The mix of classical and guitar funk soundtrack worked surprisingly well too. We may need a s1999 thread. Or at least a Gerry/Sylvia thread. Century 21!

 

[Harvey]

Visually, Space: 1999 is very imaginative. The creators of Star Trek would have killed to have had those production values -- the sets, the costumes, the props, and the model work is all top-notch, oftentimes feature-quality. (Yes, it's dated, but what science fiction, especially televisual science fiction, isn't?)

Dramatically, the show is a mess. Unmotivated character conflicts come and go from episode to episode. Metaphysical mumbo-jumbo is frequently used as a substitute for narrative coherence. The leading characters are reactive, even passive, rather than active participants in the story in many cases.

One day I'll finish the first season (I've watched 17 episodes in about 4 years). I'm not sure I'll ever see the second season; no distributor in the U.S. seems interested in picking up the series for Blu-Ray release.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Here are my Space: 1999 reviews in a thread about the possible revival project, which last time I checked is stalled. There's quite a bit of discussion about the series in that thread, at least for this board.

http://www.trekbbs.com/threads/space-1999-revival.161083/page-7#post-5832682
http://www.trekbbs.com/threads/space-1999-revival.161083/page-9#post-5912353

(At the second link I have my view of things that were wrong in Season 2.)

IIRC, @Warped9 had a whole series rewatch thread.

 

[Kevin Wolff]

Visually, Space: 1999 is very imaginative. The creators of Star Trek would have killed to have had those production values -- the sets, the costumes, the props, and the model work is all top-notch, oftentimes feature-quality. (Yes, it's dated, but what science fiction, especially televisual science fiction, isn't?)

Dramatically, the show is a mess. Unmotivated character conflicts come and go from episode to episode. Metaphysical mumbo-jumbo is frequently used as a substitute for narrative coherence. The leading characters are reactive, even passive, rather than active participants in the story in many cases.

One day I'll finish the first season (I've watched 17 episodes in about 4 years). I'm not sure I'll ever see the second season; no distributor in the U.S. seems interested in picking up the series for Blu-Ray release.

So you stopped at War Games. Keep going, some of the best is still to come. Dramatically it is a mess and for a very good reason. It;s not the show we were making. There's a comprehensive wiki article about UFO and how Space 1999 was supposed to be UFO: 1999 which makes including the year in the title more sensible. UFO series 1 took place in 1980. Imagine Straker as an older war-torn commander (imagine the more sensitive Landau as the Victor Berman character, etc) Even as a child I wondered why the same company made 2 shows about a base on the moon. The Americans loved UFO at first but then the tide turned as it got deeper, and it was deep. Imagine Star Trek meets Mad Men. The plug was pulled after months of production, set and costume design. A new larger moonbase as Shado moves to the moon full time (alpha). Eagle INTERCEPTORS, etc. No moon leaving orbit. The moon was last defense against an increasing alien attack meant to colonize our planet...and bodies. Would it have been better? Who knows. In my mind it sure as hell is.

 

[UnknownSample]

S1 has bumps here and there but it was never rubber monster of the week. In fact some of the best and most thought-provoking episodes were in the second half. The show was a little British and talky for the American viewers but Gerry wasn't under orders to re-tool or make drastic changes. It was selling well enough to warrant a second series which said a lot since ITC (American distribution) loved UFO at first too and green lit a second series with a bigger budget (which is the only reason why space 1999 exists) until the show got deeper and less action oriented, they reneged. S1999 despite its huge production cost coasted into a second series renewal comparatively speaking. FF didn't like scifi so he changed it into a bad lost in space.

I think mr. bear was talking about s2 there, not s1. And I agree with everything you say there, except... did you really read that FF disliked science fiction? The only thing I do tentatively give FF credit for is caring about ST, in his own Ed Wood sort of way. I think his "Star Trek is not a comedy" stand was good, an attempt to keep the show's integrity in his own myopic, wrong-headed way. People without much of a sense of humor think straight-ahead non-stop seriousness is the way to go, otherwise you're not taking what you're doing seriously, and mocking it. Others of us find it hard to take perpetual seriousness without a break seriously. I can't get through bleak stretches of life without some humor, even if it's black humor. I think FF was one of those utterly straightforward, unironic people. I credit him for being protective about ST, and not wanting it to degenerate into goofiness. Unfortunately, his approach created the very thing he meant to avoid. Actually, that's an area that deserves a lot more thought, but I can't form those thoughts yet... How important is a sense of humor to creating good drama?
-------------------
All the people defending s3 are doing it pretty unenthusiastically. I get that way sometimes, right after a s3 marathon,say, when the badness leaves such a bad taste in my mouth, because my favorite thing, ST, was allowed to fall apart as if it was nothing. Then I think back on the intermittent greatness, and the old glow returns for me. As much as I may dump on s3 myself, I also love so much of it that it seems, at this point, that I'm its biggest defender, on this thread anyway.
-----------------------
I don't have to give FF credit. ST had a creative machine with over two years' experience, that "got" the show, and were willing to defend it against clueless, oblivious, uncreative suits placed in authority over them. I think. It reminds me of Dark Shadows, in which there always seemed to be a struggle between the creator/exec producer, Dan Curtis, always trying to fill the show with bad clichés because he didn't respect the audience, and writers who were always trying to make the show soar, and too often got fired for their belief in the show. Shows can be great despite the person in charge.

 

[Kevin Wolff]

I think mr. bear was talking about s2 there, not s1. And I agree with everything you say there, except... did you really read that FF disliked science fiction? The only thing I do tentatively give FF credit for is caring about ST, in his own Ed Wood sort of way. I think his "Star Trek is not a comedy" stand was good, an attempt to keep the show's integrity in his own myopic, wrong-headed way. People without much of a sense of humor think straight-ahead non-stop seriousness is the way to go, otherwise you're not taking what you're doing seriously, and mocking it. Others of us find it hard to take perpetual seriousness without a break seriously. I can't get through bleak stretches of life without some humor, even if it's black humor. I think FF was one of those utterly straightforward, unironic people. I credit him for being protective about ST, and not wanting it to degenerate into goofiness. Unfortunately, his approach created the very thing he meant to avoid. Actually, that's an area that deserves a lot more thought, but I can't form those thoughts yet... How important is a sense of humor to creating good drama?
-------------------
All the people defending s3 are doing it pretty unenthusiastically. I get that way sometimes, right after a s3 marathon,say, when the badness leaves such a bad taste in my mouth, because my favorite thing, ST, was allowed to fall apart as if it was nothing. Then I think back on the intermittent greatness, and the old glow returns for me. As much as I may dump on s3 myself, I also love so much of it that it seems, at this point, that I'm its biggest defender, on this thread anyway.
-----------------------
I don't have to give FF credit. ST had a creative machine with over two years' experience, that "got" the show, and were willing to defend it against clueless, oblivious, uncreative suits placed in authority over them. I think. It reminds me of Dark Shadows, in which there always seemed to be a struggle between the creator/exec producer, Dan Curtis, always trying to fill the show with bad clichés because he didn't respect the audience, and writers who were always trying to make the show soar, and too often got fired for their belief in the show. Shows can be great despite the person in charge.

No, of course not. I have no idea how FF felt about scifi. It was just my over-the -top way of saying he didn't appear to be good at it. He tried to emulate Roddenberry more than Coon based on the s3 tone. Gene Coon's episodes were more "familiar" if not lighthearted and less to my taste. But the episodes are also well crafted because Gene Coon put in the work. That much is affirmed from multiple sources in the book. My problem with FF is more related to s1999 than Trek. If I got back to my ancient VHS collection when you bought a single episode for 20 dollars USD I bought mostly s1, but the same quantity of s2 and s3.
I've been guessing Garth as the white alien minority on other threads (post Axanar/pre Whom Gods) for Discovery, so clearly I still see s3 as valuable Trek canon.

 

[UnknownSample]

Okay, this thread has added something to my Coon education. I had come to think of him as representing the grave, adult, 3D side of Trek. I'd thought of Roddenberry having a tendency toward unintentional goofiness that needed to be restrained by those around him. Now people are saying Coon made the tone lighter and was responsible more for s2 than s1. Fleshing the characters out and adding humor was a good thing, but season one is the best and purest Trek to me. I can't see my reversing myself completely and seeing Roddenberry as the champion of adult Trek, and Coon as the lighter weight popularizer, but maybe I should. ??

 

[diankra]

Freiberger did spoil a lot of things about Space 1999 it's true to say but he did end the show with a great row of episodes! The cerebral first series did degenerate into a rubber monster of the week type of show when he came on board and he did screw up the timeline of the series it has to be said! His tenure on TOS also had it's good and bad moments but he did give us Enterprise Incident, Day of The Dove and The Tholian Web didn't he!
JB

The thing about the end of S1999 season two is that it finishes with a run of episodes by Johnny Byrne (and other season one writers): the main writer on season one who left early in season two.
There's no documents to confirm this for sure, but it seems very likely that with no money for new scripts at season end, Freiberger had to use scripts from the old guard that he'd previously put on hold.
The Making of Space 1999 book ( written midway through production of season two) doesn't paint a good portrait of FF, even though it was an authorised 'positive' book written at a time when he'd have remained in charge if there was a third season.

 

[diankra]

Okay, this thread has added something to my Coon education. I had come to think of him as representing the grave, adult, 3D side of Trek. I'd thought of Roddenberry having a tendency toward unintentional goofiness that needed to be restrained by those around him. Now people are saying Coon made the tone lighter and was responsible more for s2 than s1. Fleshing the characters out and adding humor was a good thing, but season one is the best and purest Trek to me. I can't see my reversing myself completely and seeing Roddenberry as the champion of adult Trek, and Coon as the lighter weight popularizer, but maybe I should. ??

That is sort of right. Roddenberry ran the first 16 episodes, then Coon did the rest of season one and much of season two, which includes an awful lot of the most memorable episodes.
John Merdyth Lucas did the backend of season 2 after Coon had a slight breakdown (often using scripts Coon had shelved as 'Not quite up to it', but which had to be brushed off due to budget limits). Then Freiberger ran season three under even worse budget constraints.
Basically, Roddenberry is the impossible ideal. Coon is the accessible ideal. Lucas is the populist 'big concept,' somehow we'll make it work. Freiberger is the 'We have to make this work, even though we can't on this budget'.