fred freiberger : hack or hapless?

[Harvey]

A little more context (can only pull this quote right now, not more):

It's fully sponsored for a season's ride by R. J. Reynolds which, like all tobaccos, is restricted now to later time periods on the network Skeds.

-Feb 8, 1967, Weekly Variety

 

[Christopher]

^I thought it might be something like that -- new restrictions being put on advertising.

 

[Lee]

And I've read FF really scaled back on the [Space: 1999] sets. Why would he do that? They were already built, and the openness of main mission and medical really look good.

If I'm remembering correctly, during the break between seasons they lost the use of the studio where they had been filming, necessitating a move to a new studio and the building of new sets.

 

[ZapBrannigan]

Well, I'm making a semi-educated guess here, but building a large set isn't the only thing that costs money. A larger set would probably be costlier to light, would have more video monitors and blinky lights to operate, would take more time and labor to decorate and redress, would require more extras in it to make it seem fully occupied, etc. Putting Koenig's command desk in the same room instead of a separate office meant there was less need to change camera setups for different sets, and they no longer needed the elaborate sliding wall between Main Mission and Koenig's office. Also, Main Mission had windows looking out on the Moonscape and occasionally having interactive lighting effects when things were going on outside. The Command Center was belowground, so there was no need for such effects.

Also, a lot of the Command Center set was made of leftover pieces from Main Mission or other sets, so it wasn't as expensive as building a whole new set from scratch.

Also, making the main standing set smaller would open up more room on the soundstage for building swing (temporary) sets, and that could save on the expense of having to rent another soundstage, or something.

That last part was the biggest factor causing Space: 1999 to downsize its standing sets. It was all about the cost of floor space. Studios charge TV shows in a rent-like manner for the buildings they occupy. In order to make Year 2's reduced budget work, Space: 1999 had to move its entire production to a smaller sound stage. But the sets wouldn't all fit in the reduced floor space, so they re-designed.

I missed the luxurious Main Mission set, but the change that bugged me the most was the Eagle interior. They had to eliminate the module that stood between the cockpit and the passenger compartment. So in Year 2, the Eagle interior had this glaring mismatch with the ship miniature. Not that it matched perfectly in Year 1, but it ridiculously off in Year 2.

http://catacombs.space1999.net/cybermuseum/cmshow.html?pic=Making/36.jpg

 

[johnnybear]

Never realized that, Zap! I'll have to have a rewatch sometime as I still haven't gotten around to the Network second series!
JB

 

[Christopher]

There are lots of problems with matching the Eagle interiors and exteriors. The biggest one for me is the docking collars they extend to link two Eagles together side-by-side. There is nowhere in the interior set for those large, rigid docking collars to be stowed when they're retracted. They just magically materialize out of nowhere.

Also, the Eagles have the same problem as most Star Trek shuttlecraft: no airlocks! Just a single door between interior and exterior. Which is a very unwise design in a craft meant to operate in vacuum.

Otherwise, though, I think Space: 1999's technology design in general blew Star Trek's out of the water. Aside from those couple of glitches, the ships, sets, equipment, and spacesuits looked far more plausible, functional, and well-designed than TOS's did. And even though they used wirework and in-camera multiple-exposure mattes instead of bluescreens and optical compositing, their FX shots often looked better than TOS's in some ways, though they were more limited in others.

 

[mb22]

It's fully sponsored for a season's ride by R. J. Reynolds which, like all tobaccos, is restricted now to later time periods on the network Skeds.

-Feb 8, 1967, Weekly Variety

How late? I assume first season summer re-runs were still in the Thursday 8:30-9:30pm slot.

 

[Harvey]

It's fully sponsored for a season's ride by R. J. Reynolds which, like all tobaccos, is restricted now to later time periods on the network Skeds.

-Feb 8, 1967, Weekly Variety

How late? I assume first season summer re-runs were still in the Thursday 8:30-9:30pm slot.

That's not an article about Trek, I don't think, just more context about the rules.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

Must have been a new rule, as the 8:30 pm summer '67 re-run of "Space Seed" has a commercial for Viceroy cigarettes.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

I've seen examples like this before, where Viceroy was the cigarette sponsor in that period...brief as it might have been.

RCA--of course--was well represented in the hour.

Tobacco advertising on television changed dramatically over the course of the 1960s. In mid-1968, the FTC recomended banning tobacco advertisements entirely, or in the very least, limiting the hours in which they could be run. By 1969, legislation was introduced to ban them entirely, which took effect in 1971.

True---all of those spots with the "cool," "refreshing," "relaxing" cigarettes with the "great taste" so well sold to millions suddenly vanished with the growing idea that it was packaged poison (at least to some TV audiences). How quickly a TV standard disappeared after that legislation.

 

[Harvey]

Here's the full quote that I posted a snippet of before:

Of the 19 primetime shows that get $50,000 a minute or better, CBS has 12, NBC five and ABC two. ABC's top-priced shows are "Bewitched" and "FBI," each getting $53,000 a minute. Others in the Tiffany group tor CBS are "Gomar Pyle," "Green Acres," "Family Affair," "Petticoat Junction" and Jackie Gleason. For NBC, they are ' Walt Disney," "Man From UNCLE," "Chrysler Theatre," and "T. H. E. Cat." The last is a curiosity, a freshman going nowhere in the ratings but carrying a pricetag of $50,000 per minute. It's fully sponsored for a season's ride by R. J. Reynolds which, like all tobaccos, is restricted now to later time periods on the network skeds. Ciggie firms expect to pay more for tv circulation these days, and the sponsor is evidently satisfied with "Cat's" demographics.

--Weekly Variety, February 8, 1967

T.H.E. Cat was on NBC from 9:30-10:00PM on Friday nights during the 1966-67 broadcast season.

Incidentally, it mentions the sponsor being happy with the show's demographics, further evidence that most of what has been written about Star Trek and demographics is nonsense.

 

[Harvey]

Here's a larger article from March 9, 1966 that provides even more context:

WIN KIDS, LOSE CIGGIE BUCKS
FAST & CAUTIOUS
The cigaret companies, puffing $120,000,000 into the three tv networks next season, are exhibiting a nervousness, as bad as that of compulsive smokers worried about the ciggie-health scare.
Never before have the companies moved in on a new season's schedule with such speed as for the upcoming season. And never before have the tobacco companies been as skittish about the audience composition of particular shows which will carry their commercials.
The big push is to get the bulk of the cig monies in past 9 p.m. on the networks, although there are some eye-raising exceptions. The apparent motif of the ciggie tv network buying is to stay away from tv shows with strong kid and teenage appeal. However, that's no easy task, with youngstars watching tv more than ever, and with tv series more often than not keyed to juvenile appeal -especially in the early evenings.
For cigaret monies, the 8: 30 p.m. network period is considered a proper strating time for their commercials in entertainment shows.
There are no hard and fast rules. Playing a behind-the-scenes active role in the maddening decisions is the Cigarette Advertising Code Inc., the tobacco industry organization administered by Robert (Mike) Meyner, former Governor of New Jersey. Meyner's group not too long ago circulated a list of nighttime network series considered not to be good vehicles for cigaret commercials because of the youth appeal of the shows.
Dropping-The Hits
It's not accidental that R. J. Reynolds pulled out as alternate week sponsor of NBC's hit series, "Get Smart", next season. That show placed as the number one show
among kids from 6 to 11, according to Nielsen. R. J. Reynolds also has pulled out of "F Troop" on ABC next season, reportedly for the same reasons.
Ed Sullivan in booking The Beatles and other teenage rock ' n' roll faves won rating points and the youngsters, but In the process he's lost Kent next season, and there isn't a ciggie replacement at this date.
In these days when cig packs in the U.S. carry the warning; "Caution: Cigarette Smoking May Bo Injurious to Your Health," everyone connected with selling ciggies on tv in the U.S. resembles Don KnOtts having one of his nervous spells. The tobacco companies don't want to trigger tougher legislation. Neither they, nor their agencies, want other government health reports like the last ciggie-lung cancer one. The networks don't want to be responsible for administering the tobacco industry's code which clearly states "Cigarette advertising shall not appear on television . . . directed primarily to persons under twenty-one years of age."
The networks, like other media, readily accept the ciggie biz. The networks don't want the responsibility of saying which show may have heavy juve appeal. That's up to Gov. Meyner's Cigarette Advertising Code Inc., the webs say. Meyner's group, ad agencies report, has worked out guidelines for its member companies, firms which represent 99% of the ciggies produced in the I_ . S. The ciggie code guidelines are reported to be keyed to the time period, the total number of youngsters under 19 in that viewing audience, 2hd the percentage of the under 19 group in relation to the total audience of the program.
Applying the Guidelines -
These are abstractions. How the guidelines are applied is another matter. Ed Sullivan may kick up a ruckus in Washington, the way ho did, when some Senator saw a cigcommercial close to The Beatles' act. The ciggie companies get scared, even though the "Ed Sullivan Show" in general is strongly loaded with adult audiences. Why is a "Wild, Wild West" ciggie buy okay, but not a ciggie commercial in "Get Smart," which also attracts a lot of other viewers besides kids?
To get a more definite description of guidelines from Gov. Meyner's Madison Ave. office proved fruitless. It's reliably reported that the Poobah of ciggie advertising organized a panel of experts to watch the network shows and render their impressions on the appeal of the shows to youngsters. A member of that panel was said to ba Dore Schary, playwright and former head of production of Metro. What the panel recommended also was indicated by Gov. Meyner's office. That office, according to agencies, is serving as a clearing houso for ciggie . buys, although Gov. Meyner is reported to be playing it softly with his member companies.
Meyner was described by one agency exec as a "suggestion man," his staff avoiding hard, fast and tough tv rules. To the press, sinco becoming Poobah of Tobacco Country, he's "silent Mike."
The nine member companies of Cigarette Advertising Code includo the big six tobacco companies, R. J. Reynolds, American Tobacco, P. Lorillard, Liggett & Meyers, Philip Morris, and Brown & Williamson. In addition, the group includes three smaller, firms, U.S. Tobacco, Stephano Bros., and Larus & Brohter Co.

 

[Galileo7]

That last part was the biggest factor causing Space: 1999 to downsize its standing sets. It was all about the cost of floor space. Studios charge TV shows in a rent-like manner for the buildings they occupy. In order to make Year 2's reduced budget work, Space: 1999 had to move its entire production to a smaller sound stage. But the sets wouldn't all fit in the reduced floor space, so they re-designed.

I missed the luxurious Main Mission set, but the change that bugged me the most was the Eagle interior. They had to eliminate the module that stood between the cockpit and the passenger compartment. So in Year 2, the Eagle interior had this glaring mismatch with the ship miniature. Not that it matched perfectly in Year 1, but it ridiculously off in Year 2.

http://catacombs.space1999.net/cybermuseum/cmshow.html?pic=Making/36.jpg

True.
Season One Cellini in Access Corridor, behind him is the Passenger module:

Season Two Koenig inside Passenger module walking to Cockpit there is no Access Corridor:

 

[Galileo7]

There are lots of problems with matching the Eagle interiors and exteriors. The biggest one for me is the docking collars they extend to link two Eagles together side-by-side. There is nowhere in the interior set for those large, rigid docking collars to be stowed when they're retracted. They just magically materialize out of nowhere.

Also, the Eagles have the same problem as most Star Trek shuttlecraft: no airlocks! Just a single door between interior and exterior. Which is a very unwise design in a craft meant to operate in vacuum.

Otherwise, though, I think Space: 1999's technology design in general blew Star Trek's out of the water. Aside from those couple of glitches, the ships, sets, equipment, and spacesuits looked far more plausible, functional, and well-designed than TOS's did. And even though they used wirework and in-camera multiple-exposure mattes instead of bluescreens and optical compositing, their FX shots often looked better than TOS's in some ways, though they were more limited in others.

Agree on Space:1999.
TOS Shuttlecraft and Space:1999 Eagle Transporter passenger module did not have an airlock at the door.
Irwin Allen did remember to place an airlock at the hatch door of the Jupiter 2 on Lost In Space.
This type Space:1999 Eagle passenger module did have an airlock, but the interior set was never built so the viewer saw the same passenger module set without the airlock.
Eagle passenger module with airlock on both sides:

 

[suarezguy]

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."

I could be misremembering but I thought "The Changeling" concluded with the use of reason and it had more than did "The Savage Curtain" (the latter pretty action-y and with simplistic evil enemies, although that was kind of the point).

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

I thought the depiction of Elaan and Droxine were pretty negative (although not excessively so and with the latter no more than the other cloud-dwellers) while the depiction of Losira was pretty much outright misogynistic.

One point for Season 3 is, watching it I don't see how the budget was reduced, at least in a way that's harmful to the quality of the shows. I don't mind "bottle shows" and regardless there didn't seem to be a disproportionate amount of them.

 

[Christopher]

I could be misremembering but I thought "The Changeling" concluded with the use of reason and it had more than did "The Savage Curtain" (the latter pretty action-y and with simplistic evil enemies, although that was kind of the point).

I'm talking about reasoning with the antagonists to change their minds, not just logicking up a way to kill them. And yes, "Savage Curtain" was pretty clumsy, but it did have a point about how the side of good was motivated more by the protection of others than by personal gain. And it gave us an effective portrait of Surak as an admirable and courageous man of peace.

I thought the depiction of Elaan and Droxine were pretty negative (although not excessively so and with the latter no more than the other cloud-dwellers) while the depiction of Losira was pretty much outright misogynistic.

I said strong and commanding -- I never said they had to be good guys. And I don't see the misogyny with Losira -- sure, there were two points in the episode where people commented on her beauty, but that's not actually misogyny (which means hatred toward women), just superficiality. And Losira's innate intelligence and compassion came through in her projections despite their murderous programming, which delayed the projections enough to let the crew defeat them. Kirk overtly said as much, and said that she must have been "remarkable."

One point for Season 3 is, watching it I don't see how the budget was reduced, at least in a way that's harmful to the quality of the shows. I don't mind "bottle shows" and regardless there didn't seem to be a disproportionate amount of them.

Well, there's the original outline for "The Mark of Gideon" compared to the much sillier final episode. The original would've had a lot less wandering through empty corridors and a more intense conflict with the Gideonites, and lacked the absurdity of an impossibly overcrowded world having room to build an exact duplicate of an entire starship, not to mention somehow getting detailed, classified plans for one despite having very little prior contact with the Federation. That change was undoubtedly made to save money on sets and guest stars, and it did diminish the quality of the episode.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

Incidentally, it mentions the sponsor being happy with the show's demographics, further evidence that most of what has been written about Star Trek and demographics is nonsense.

Good information.

 

[FormerLurker]

True.
Season One Cellini in Access Corridor, behind him is the Passenger module:

Season Two Koenig inside Passenger module walking to Cockpit there is no Access Corridor:

Agree on Space:1999.
TOS Shuttlecraft and Space:1999 Eagle Transporter passenger module did not have an airlock at the door.
Irwin Allen did remember to place an airlock at the hatch door of the Jupiter 2 on Lost In Space.
This type Space:1999 Eagle passenger module did have an airlock, but the interior set was never built so the viewer saw the same passenger module set without the airlock.
Eagle passenger module with airlock on both sides:

Your image links are broken. Best check to see if they fall within allowed links.

 

[CrazyMatt]

I thought about this a bit more, and putting the actual quality of the shows produced in season three aside for the moment, it would have been very difficult, if not impossible, for any director to produce shows of the same quality as the first two seasons for two primary reasons:

1. The dramatic cut in budget, which went from $193K per episode in season one to $178K in season three. Considering much of that budget was taken up in must-pay sunk costs (salaries for primary cast, etc.), this left far less money for sets, less overtime for the crew to get things 'just right,' diminished opportunities for location filming, fewer guest stars and fewer extras. As Justman wrote, the budget reductions essentially turned Star Trek into a 'radio show' during season three.

2. The loss of Roddenberry from the day-to-day creative staff. Nimoy said in a number of interviews that he thought Freiberger "didn't understand the show." I'm not sure I totally agree, but having GR around to provide constant creative input and oversight would have definitely aided Freiberger.

Which of these two factors impeded the new director more? While it's hard to chose, I would say the budgetary limitations, as they would have still hurt the series severely even if Roddenberry were active in his role as executive producer.,

 

[Christopher]

I thought about this a bit more, and putting the actual quality of the shows produced in season three aside for the moment, it would have been very difficult, if not impossible, for any director to produce shows of the same quality as the first two seasons for two primary reasons:

1. The dramatic cut in budget, which went from $193K per episode in season one to $178K in season three. Considering much of that budget was taken up in must-pay sunk costs (salaries for primary cast, etc.), this left far less money for sets, less overtime for the crew to get things 'just right,' diminished opportunities for location filming, fewer guest stars and fewer extras. As Justman wrote, the budget reductions essentially turned Star Trek into a 'radio show' during season three.

Except that more money doesn't automatically mean more quality. Look at how many huge-budget movies are terrible because all the money gets thrown into spectacle and action at the expense of story and character and coherence. Low budgets compel discipline, and discipline makes for better filmmaking. Two of ST's most acclaimed episodes, TNG's "The Drumhead" and DS9's "Duet," were made as low-budget, money-saving episodes, designed to focus on character and drama and ideas rather than action and spectacle. That's the secret to low-budget SFTV -- to turn the limitations from a weakness into a strength, to craft stories that are driven more by words and ideas than by visuals and stunts and effects. Science fiction is the literature of ideas. It's not about pew-pew space battles, it's about asking "What if?" questions and exploring their possible answers. And there are a lot of such questions that are more conceptual or psychological and can be explored through dialogue and performance.

 

[suarezguy]

I said strong and commanding -- I never said they had to be good guys.

Sure and that's fine (although even by that Droxine seems a lot more spoiled than strong but again so were most of the others in her class; it may have indeed been an improvement over the depictions of women generally in seasons 1 and 2).

I don't see the misogyny with Losira -- sure, there were two points in the episode where people commented on her beauty, but that's not actually misogyny (which means hatred toward women), just superficiality. And Losira's innate intelligence and compassion came through in her projections despite their murderous programming, which delayed the projections enough to let the crew defeat them. Kirk overtly said as much, and said that she must have been "remarkable."

That may have been the intention and even reflected in the ending but for most of the episode it seemed like the program was dedicated to trying to get men to touch her knowing that touching her would kill them, a rather extreme and seemingly bitter version of the idea of women as dangerous temptresses, and the ending felt confused with Kirk claiming the original Losira was somewhat reluctant and compassionate and Spock that it was doing defense and on the other hand her thinking, seemingly coldly and without doubt or regret, that killing non-members as selective defense was natural and not a big deal ... both Kirk and Spock's judgments seemed disconnected from the recording.