You'll have to forgive my ignorance, but even as a life long Star Trek fan, I still happened to have been born 2 years after its cancellation, & thereby lack 1st hand knowledge of the circumstances of the time. So I have to wonder.
The one thing that still flabbergasts me about the cancellation of Star Trek is specifically when in history it took place. How, in a time where a solid decade or more of space racing between superpowers had been capturing the attention of all the world's media, & gripping the imaginations of the entire human race, could a t.v. show that fantasizes a future built on that very initiative lose its foothold in television broadcasting? I mean, less than half a year after Star Trek was cancelled, the world rejoiced in the 1st man to walk on the surface of another celestial body. The adding of Chekov to the crew was even a timely nod to how advanced the Russians were in that very endeavor
It defies all sense to me. Surely, one couldn't ask for a BETTER time in history to broadcast a show about spacefaring humans. What do you think explains how the best one out there was yanked, right in the middle of the whole space craze? The show itself was very likely an imaginative reaction, on Roddenberry's part, to our real life space endeavors. How does Star Trek miss the mark when there couldn't have been a more appropriate environment in which to have it air? Part of me has to think it might have been a little sour grapes. After all, until Neil Armstrong's moon landing in July of the year Star Trek was cancelled, the U.S. had gotten beaten out by the Russian space program at almost every turn.
Did Star Trek pay the price for America's bruised ego? & perhaps because America succeeded thereafter in landing a dozen men on the moon, & leaping out in front of the space initiative, throughout the next several years, could the U.S. t.v. viewership beginning to feel good about the real space program have been one of the contributing factors in why Star Trek's fan base grew in reruns, at that time, as well, giving it the due success that it has now long enjoyed? Food for thought.
The one thing that still flabbergasts me about the cancellation of Star Trek is specifically when in history it took place. How, in a time where a solid decade or more of space racing between superpowers had been capturing the attention of all the world's media, & gripping the imaginations of the entire human race, could a t.v. show that fantasizes a future built on that very initiative lose its foothold in television broadcasting? I mean, less than half a year after Star Trek was cancelled, the world rejoiced in the 1st man to walk on the surface of another celestial body. The adding of Chekov to the crew was even a timely nod to how advanced the Russians were in that very endeavor
It defies all sense to me. Surely, one couldn't ask for a BETTER time in history to broadcast a show about spacefaring humans. What do you think explains how the best one out there was yanked, right in the middle of the whole space craze? The show itself was very likely an imaginative reaction, on Roddenberry's part, to our real life space endeavors. How does Star Trek miss the mark when there couldn't have been a more appropriate environment in which to have it air? Part of me has to think it might have been a little sour grapes. After all, until Neil Armstrong's moon landing in July of the year Star Trek was cancelled, the U.S. had gotten beaten out by the Russian space program at almost every turn.
Did Star Trek pay the price for America's bruised ego? & perhaps because America succeeded thereafter in landing a dozen men on the moon, & leaping out in front of the space initiative, throughout the next several years, could the U.S. t.v. viewership beginning to feel good about the real space program have been one of the contributing factors in why Star Trek's fan base grew in reruns, at that time, as well, giving it the due success that it has now long enjoyed? Food for thought.
