Scientific weirdness in Star Trek

[Pauln6]

Sorry, I missed that link when I read on my phone.

View attachment 25869

No source, as I suspected. Oh well.

They certainly had issues with some of the SF writers approached and/or employed, but then they had problems with non-SF writers too. Sturgeon was always late. Ellison was Ellison. Spinrad impressed some with "The Planet Eater/The Doomday Machine" and then utterly blew it with "He Walked Among Us", so much so that Justman retracted the nice things he said about him.

• Sci-fi writers had problems with the needs of action-adventure commercial television (their stories were frequently critiqued for lack of drama and inaction by the characters).
• Many TV writers had problems with SF concepts and the show's format or got lost in "the wonder of it all."

When you consider that some of the greatest episodes of Star Trek, including the Cage, were light on the action-adventure elements, it's a shame if this mindset existed at the time. I think Trek was made for US audience so this was likely true to the general family audience they were aiming for. I actually think that sticking to this formula is what led to Trek becoming a bit stale by season 3, albeit the high cost of sci fi was not helping its case.

Out of interest, there were other, much longer running shows at the time, what story-telling formulas were they using to keep the ball bouncing?

 

[Neopeius]

When you consider that some of the greatest episodes of Star Trek, including the Cage, were light on the action-adventure elements, it's a shame if this mindset existed at the time. I think Trek was made for US audience so this was likely true to the general family audience they were aiming for. I actually think that sticking to this formula is what led to Trek becoming a bit stale by season 3, albeit the high cost of sci fi was not helping its case.

Out of interest, there were other, much longer running shows at the time, what story-telling formulas were they using to keep the ball bouncing?

What genre are you thinking? Three seasons for a science fiction show was actually excellent for the 60s.

The long-lived dramatic shows in other genres as of the 66-67 season that I can think of were Andy Griffith, COMBAT!, Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea, The Man from U.N.C.L.E., The Fugitive, and some Westerns: Bonanza, Gunsmoke, Death Valley Days, Rawhide, Wagon Train, etc.

I'd guess the secret to the success of all of these shows was the popularity of the cast. Andy was limping with the departure of Knotts, though, and COMBAT! was getting very stale -- there's only so long you can liberate France.

 

[Pauln6]

What genre are you thinking? Three seasons for a science fiction show was actually excellent for the 60s.

The long-lived dramatic shows in other genres as of the 66-67 season that I can think of were Andy Griffith, COMBAT!, Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea, The Man from U.N.C.L.E., The Fugitive, and some Westerns: Bonanza, Gunsmoke, Death Valley Days, Rawhide, Wagon Train, etc.

I'd guess the secret to the success of all of these shows was the popularity of the cast. Andy was limping with the departure of Knotts, though, and COMBAT! was getting very stale -- there's only so long you can liberate France.

I suppose Trek would be more similar to Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea? If it was pitched as Wagon Train to the Stars, maybe Wagon Train might also be a good comparator? I haven't seen either.

Lost in Space was earlier but lasted quite a while with the same core cast. I suppose there, the formula was often Dr Smith, Will, or Penny getting into some kind of mischief that they would have to work together to get out of.

 

[Neopeius]

I suppose Trek would be more similar to Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea? If it was pitched as Wagon Train to the Stars, maybe Wagon Train might also be a good comparator? I haven't seen either.

Lost in Space was earlier but lasted quite a while with the same core cast. I suppose there, the formula was often Dr Smith, Will, or Penny getting into some kind of mischief that they would have to work together to get out of.

Right -- I excluded LiS partly because it's a kids' show and partly because, as of Trek, it had only gone for one season.

I think Trek is closest to Voyage, for sure. I'd submit that Voyage was never mature sf, and I personally think it's the dumbest show ever.

And yet.. there is something compelling about it. I've left it on KGJ (my personal TV station) when other shows have long since been taken off.

LiS, on the other hand, is just awful. As is the ill-fated Time Tunnel.

 

[Pauln6]

Right -- I excluded LiS partly because it's a kids' show and partly because, as of Trek, it had only gone for one season.

I think Trek is closest to Voyage, for sure. I'd submit that Voyage was never mature sf, and I personally think it's the dumbest show ever.

And yet.. there is something compelling about it. I've left it on KGJ (my personal TV station) when other shows have long since been taken off.

LiS, on the other hand, is just awful. As is the ill-fated Time Tunnel.

Even in a modern context, serious adult sci-fi is still a hard sell. The Expanse and Stargate Universe were solid sci fi but had to fight premature cancellation. Many other hard sci-fi shows did not make it beyond a single season but I suppose the same is true of many other genres too. Firefly was popular but not popular enough in relation to its cost. Earth: Final Conflict started out as much harder sci fi than where it ended up, which was schlocky sci fi and it was never really able to find the right balance. Space 1999 suffered a similar fate, although that was made for a UK audience.

I think you're right that it was the way the cast sold TOS that gave it enough spice to keep it popular, including the much overlooked supporting cast and guest cast. Did the other popular shows have a wider cast, more than a couple of lead characters, ongoing story elements etc. I watched Blakes 7 as a child and I was pretty oblivious to the ongoing story elements. I think another key is to balance the needs of avid viewers and casual viewers, which is not so much of a problem in the era of binge-watching but would have been a consideration in the sixties.

 

[Neopeius]

Even in a modern context, serious adult sci-fi is still a hard sell. The Expanse and Stargate Universe were solid sci fi but had to fight premature cancellation. Many other hard sci-fi shows did not make it beyond a single season but I suppose the same is true of many other genres too. Firefly was popular but not popular enough in relation to its cost. Earth: Final Conflict started out as much harder sci fi than where it ended up, which was schlocky sci fi and it was never really able to find the right balance. Space 1999 suffered a similar fate, although that was made for a UK audience.

I think you're right that it was the way the cast sold TOS that gave it enough spice to keep it popular, including the much overlooked supporting cast and guest cast. Did the other popular shows have a wider cast, more than a couple of lead characters, ongoing story elements etc. I watched Blakes 7 as a child and I was pretty oblivious to the ongoing story elements. I think another key is to balance the needs of avid viewers and casual viewers, which is not so much of a problem in the era of binge-watching but would have been a consideration in the sixties.

Andy Griffith was Andy, Opie, Barney, and Aunt Bea. Without Barney, it really flagged. Helen wasn't that interesting.

COMBAT! had swapping leads, which was cool, and a recognizable recurring ensemble: Little John, Gage, Kirby.

Voyage was mostly the relationship between Lee and the Admiral. Morton and Sparks were there, but mostly nonentities.

Muncle was, obviously, Solo and Kuryakin. It was the ur-slash pair, even pre-K/S

Fugitive had Gerard and Kimball -- they even started teaming up near the end. Mostly, Fugitive worked for the same reason as Route 66, but with a more plausible setup. But that show is done after four seasons (finale airs summer of 67).

Bonanza had one of the most famous casts in tv history, although it lost me when they lost Pernell Roberts.

Wagon Train had a consistent cast. Death Valley Days did not. I'm not really sure what the appeal of that show is...

 

[BK613]

Sure, but in '66, we didn't know that's what quasars were. We only knew they were light year-wide emitters of radio waves billions of light years away.

Got that by now. But I am here in the now and the microquasar, while not a perfect parallel, does check off some of the boxes the episode's dialog lays out, especially the scale of the effect.

ETA: This is one of the few times when I think the TOS-R FX change actually works.

 

[Neopeius]

Got that by now. But I am here in the now and the microquasar, while not a perfect parallel, does check off some of the boxes the episode's dialog lays out, especially the scale of the effect.

ETA: This is one of the few times when I think the TOS-R FX change actually works.

Oh yeah? Did they make it look like a microquasar?

The scale is still wrong, though. It actually makes it worse. Inside the quasar-like object are several systems. You could squint your eyes and fit several systems into a single light year, but not inside the space of a close binary accretion disk.

 

[mb22]

Space 1999 suffered a similar fate, although that was made for a UK audience.

I think the execs at ITC wanted a US audience, hence bringing in Freiberger as producer, and other changes in the show for the second season.

 

[The Old Mixer]

There is literally no one on the planet who can viscerally tell you what it's like to be in the late 60s more than I can right now, even more, in many ways, than the folks who lived through it the first time.

Hubris is not a good look. Whether it's the '60s or something else, no attempt to recreate what it was like to have "been there" can match actually having been there. This is coming from somebody who used to be married to someone who was there. My book learning about the period was no substitute for the first-hand experiences that she and her siblings had growing up then.

 

[Nerys Myk]

When you consider that some of the greatest episodes of Star Trek, including the Cage, were light on the action-adventure elements,

I don't know about the Cage. It featured a fight with a giant axe wielding alien , a damsel in distress and a mountain being blasted by a giant frickin' laser. ( and smaller lasers too). Plus exotic dancing girls and some hand to hand with an illusionary space gorilla.

 

[Neopeius]

Hubris is not a good look. Whether it's the '60s or something else, no attempt to recreate what it was like to have "been there" can match actually having been there. This is coming from somebody who used to be married to someone who was there. My book learning about the period was no substitute for the first-hand experiences that she and her siblings had growing up then.

You're right. That was poorly phrased. I've fixed it accordingly.

My point was that I'm living there now, consuming the media and material, in the present tense. For your wife, it was 55 years ago. That's why I said "in many ways" not "in all ways." Ironically, it's my writers who lived through the period who let slip the most anachronisms in their writing.

Is the Journey perfect? Of course not. But it's probably the best any one person can do. At least without completely losing one's grip on reality!

(I probably should have just answered Shaw's question with a simple "yes" and left it at that. Thankfully, there is an edit button.)

 

[Maurice]

Perhaps but it does put a form of quasars within Kirk's reach. "Quasar-like" could be instances where a super-heated, radiation-spewing accretion disk exists around a gravity well that is not a black hole.

Maybe Lester Del Rey?
https://www.fanac.org/fanzines/Degler/Degler158-01.html

Maybe. But I doubt people in the Trek production offices were telling these writers the flat truth about the reasons for their decisions.

When you consider that some of the greatest episodes of Star Trek, including the Cage, were light on the action-adventure elements, it's a shame if this mindset existed at the time. I think Trek was made for US audience so this was likely true to the general family audience they were aiming for. I actually think that sticking to this formula is what led to Trek becoming a bit stale by season 3, albeit the high cost of sci fi was not helping its case.

Out of interest, there were other, much longer running shows at the time, what story-telling formulas were they using to keep the ball bouncing?

The show was sold to NBC as an action adventure, and NBC didn't like it when they got episodes that were not the show the were promised.

Mind, you, it wasn't NBC who was griping about the story submissions, it was Roddenberry, Fontana, Justman, et al. "Action" doesn't necessarily mean fistfights and phaser beams, it means the characters taking action in an attempt to solve the problem. Many of the scripts and stories they got had Kirk standing around and talking with the guest star of the week and not actually taking action.

Let me give you a silly example. Had Roddenberry or Coon in 1967 gotten Niven's "The Soft/Slaver Weapon" story submitted, I can just about guarantee they would have complained that the heroes were just observers and not active in the story, nor affecting the climax. They'd probably have suggested that the lead (probably Kirk) manipulate the Kzitini captain into finding the self destruct setting, because then they would be taking action in the story, not just waiting inertly [Filmation joke here] to see what happened.

 

[publiusr]

Oh yeah? Did they make it look like a microquasar?

The scale is still wrong, though. It actually makes it worse. Inside the quasar-like object are several systems. You could squint your eyes and fit several systems into a single light year, but not inside the space of a close binary accretion disk.

I like to think that the black hole from the remaster was recent, the planet’s orbit on the other side being disrupted.

It might even be the black hole on its way to Ceti Alpha VI?

 

[Shaw]

(I probably should have just answered Shaw's question with a simple "yes" and left it at that. Thankfully, there is an edit button.)

You seemed to have been triggered by me pointing out an innocuous aspect of my life (having majored in math/physics) which I sighted to make a point about some of my professors still studying Steady State Theory in the 80's. That point was that viewed from the 2020's it would seem that such professors would be considered anathema in the field, but at the time they were highly respected (even if people didn't agree with them).

Frankly, I was surprise that you seemed so threatened. The only blowback I expected from that post was from others over my opinions about the Enterprise.

But the question stands... how have you segregated your hyperintellect to match that of the average (even if motivated) viewer from 1967? You seem well suited (based on your post) to overthinking things, but doesn't this really require a bit more underthinking?

The closest answer you gave me came in the second edit of your response to include a reference to a Britannica article. What would have been ideal would have been that you had an existing set of the Encyclopedia Britannica published in the early 60's and were using that to tap down your over abundance of knowledge.

My point is that you know more about the before, during and after of 1967 than anyone who was living it at the time. To put it into a more science fiction perspective... wouldn't you essentially be a Kwisatz Haderach in 1967? That seems well beyond anyone of 1967 to me.

I hope this doesn't trigger you more, I was just curious if you had taken this into consideration. Your original response made it seem like you hadn't, but maybe you were answering emotionally rather than logically. If you still don't get what I'm asking... feel free to ignore me (I only post a few times a year, so no loss).

 

[BK613]

The scale is still wrong, though. It actually makes it worse. Inside the quasar-like object are several systems. You could squint your eyes and fit several systems into a single light year, but not inside the space of a close binary accretion disk.

Fortunately, the episode doesn't say that. "That thing out there has ionized this complete sector. ... At least four complete solar systems in the immediate vicinity." It never says that those systems are in Murasaki 312, just within the ionizing effects of it. Just like the Enterprise was affected, even though it was still looking in from outside the swirling blight. IOW, the Murasaki effect extends way beyond the physical size of the object. IMO, YMMV.

ETA: FWIW, I was referring to this
https://tos.trekcore.com/hd/albums/1x16hd/thegalileosevenhd004.jpg
over this
https://tos.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/1x16/The_Galileo_Seven_048.JPG

 

[BK613]

Maybe. But I doubt people in the Trek production offices were telling these writers the flat truth about the reasons for their decisions.

Sorry, I meant that as bit of humor. And I thought I had added an emoji. Will fix.

I only post a few times a year, so no loss

Actually, your absence is our loss...

 

[Neopeius]

I hope this doesn't trigger you more, I was just curious if you had taken this into consideration.

Yes.

 

[Neopeius]

Fortunately, the episode doesn't say that. "That thing out there has ionized this complete sector. ... At least four complete solar systems in the immediate vicinity." It never says that those systems are in Murasaki 312, just within the ionizing effects of it. Just like the Enterprise was affected, even though it was still looking in from outside the swirling blight. IOW, the Murasaki effect extends way beyond the physical size of the object. IMO, YMMV.

That's a good point!

 

[Henoch]

Fortunately, the episode doesn't say that. "That thing out there has ionized this complete sector. ... At least four complete solar systems in the immediate vicinity." It never says that those systems are in Murasaki 312, just within the ionizing effects of it. Just like the Enterprise was affected, even though it was still looking in from outside the swirling blight. IOW, the Murasaki effect extends way beyond the physical size of the object. IMO, YMMV.

ETA: FWIW, I was referring to this
https://tos.trekcore.com/hd/albums/1x16hd/thegalileosevenhd004.jpg
over this
https://tos.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/1x16/The_Galileo_Seven_048.JPG

I like to think that the Murasaki 312 is a "yet" to be discovered quasar-like formation. Being so rare a phenomena, Starfleet has standing orders to study them.

MEARS: Mister Spock, radiation is increasing.
SPOCK: Stop forward momentum, Mister Latimer.
LATIMER: I can't, sir. Nothing happens.
SPOCK: Galileo to Enterprise. Galileo to Enterprise. Come in, please.
BOMA: Ionic interference, Mister Spock.
MCCOY: We're being drawn right into it.
SPOCK: Galileo to Enterprise. Galileo to Enterprise. We are out of control, being pulled directly into the heart of Murasaki three one two. Being hit by violent radiation on outer hull.

This quasar-like formation was unstable, bursting out with radiation and gravity waves. In treknobabble, it must have disrupted (warped) the local space such that the shuttlecraft was pull into the zone at faster than light speed. Another thought was that the shuttlecraft was already moving at warp speed and the ship's navigation/direction/speed circuits were affected by the radiation and ionic effects.