• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Another attempt at Re-animation!

Personally, I think the only things wrong with TAS were that the episodes were not as long as a TOS episode, no Chekov or Rand, and not enough guest actors playing guest characters.

I wouldn't mind if voice actors wanted to have a pop at the guest characters and if scenes were added or extended to pad the episodes to 40 minutes and if Chekov and Rand appeared in a couple of episodes per season.

And wth are those field effect suits? Why didn't they keep some version of those in subsequent versions of Trek?
 
Last edited:
Filmation didn't have enough money to even bring Walter Koenig in as a cast member. Ain't no way they would've bothered with Grace Lee Whitney or any memorable guest voices at that point. That's why Nichelle, Jimmy, and Majel did so many additional voices.

The show wasn't intended as an hour-long series. It was always going to be a half-hour Saturday morning cartoon.
 
Filmation didn't have enough money to even bring Walter Koenig in as a cast member. Ain't no way they would've bothered with Grace Lee Whitney or any memorable guest voices at that point. That's why Nichelle, Jimmy, and Majel did so many additional voices.

The show wasn't intended as an hour-long series. It was always going to be a half-hour Saturday morning cartoon.
The fact that we got Stanley Adams, Roger Carmel and Mark Lenard was a damned miracle. Not to mention Ted Knight and Ed Bishop - not that they were big starts at this point but they were beyond the Filmation stable of regulars.
 
They make sense as a high tech, short term emergency piece of kit to plug a crack in a visor, protect against unforseen hazards. In how many episodes could it have saved lives?
 
The show wasn't intended as an hour-long series. It was always going to be a half-hour Saturday morning cartoon.
I think Gene Roddenberry wanted TAS to be a prime time show, like The Flintstones had been (and The Simpsons etc. would one day be), and he was disappointed at the Saturday morning slot.
 
The life-support-belt "halos" were an animation shortcut so that stock character cels could be used without the time and expense of having to draw and animate spacesuits.
These for me fall into a category that I'm not sure what to call. Probably TV Tropes has a name for it that's a lot pithier than "plot-solving free miracle tech". Science fiction shows can easily fall into the trap of creating a gizmo for a specific script that has a negative credibility implication for the series as a whole. "If they have this, why don't they keep using it? Why didn't they use it back when x, y, and z happened? Why isn't it standard procedure?" A great example is the subcutaneous transponders in Patterns of Force. Why on earth not make those part of the SOP for all landing parties?

Writers that are good at thinking through their plot give things like this an in-story reason why they were only used once. An obvious drawback or cost. A hard-to-replace object that gets depleted. A consequence that only becomes apparent after that one use. A sacrifice paid to make it work. Otherwise the main characters just look like morons for not equipping themselves on every mission with emergency recall transponders that can't be stolen by the natives, and magic life-support-halo belts that save them from all manner of hazards. Oh yeah, and of course a few doses of kironide from Platonius!

Brad Wright's writing team seemed to put a lot of thought into the limitations of their miracle tech. In the Stargate franchise, the gates (whose features are partly from the movie and partly from Wright's team) can teleport you to countless other planets in our galaxy (and a couple of others), but they can only travel in one direction at a time, don't guarantee you can come back, can't be kept open for more than 38 minutes, require a unique access code for every destination, etc. These limitations aid the suspension of disbelief, and create plenty of room for things to go wrong and for clever plots to unfold.

Also impressive to me is the list of restrictions on the time travel model used in the Netflix series Travelers: you can only go backward in time so it's always a one-way trip; you have to have precise four-dimensional coordinates (time, elevation, latitude, longitude); you can't ever go back any farther than the latest jump, so no undoing your mistakes before they happened; you have to do extensive research first, because every jump is guaranteed to impact the timeline by the very nature of how it works; repeated jumps to or from the same person take a physical/mental toll; and so on. That was an exceptionally smart show, and the care they put into limitations really paid off dramatically.

So anyway, that was a long-winded way to say I'm glad that Star Trek forgot it had the life-support halo. It's one of those magic tech gizmos that just isn't dramatically sustainable. It solves way too many problems with no apparent cost or other downside.
 
So anyway, that was a long-winded way to say I'm glad that Star Trek forgot it had the life-support halo. It's one of those magic tech gizmos that just isn't dramatically sustainable. It solves way too many problems with no apparent cost or other downside.

Well, that's completely untrue. Force-field dampeners are a sci-fi staple and exist in Star Trek.


One of those could completely ruin your day if you're using in a life-support belt in a hard vacuum. If I were writing for the show and had to cope with that scenario, I'd posit that the belt could hold a static charge for a period of time even without a working power generator, as a safety mechanism. (Otherwise it would be too stupid to rely on exclusively.)

Moreover, Star Trek has "survived" many plot devices that were introduced to simplify production and/or story construction: transporters and warp drive being the two most important. They can either magically save the day or be completely negated, as the story demands.

On the gripping hand, at least since TNG, live-action Trek has essentially used the technology, even when not in the form of a belt. When the ship has taken damage, force fields are commonly used to seal off areas of the ship that would otherwise be open to space.
 
These for me fall into a category that I'm not sure what to call. Probably TV Tropes has a name for it that's a lot pithier than "plot-solving free miracle tech". Science fiction shows can easily fall into the trap of creating a gizmo for a specific script that has a negative credibility implication for the series as a whole. "If they have this, why don't they keep using it? Why didn't they use it back when x, y, and z happened? Why isn't it standard procedure?" A great example is the subcutaneous transponders in Patterns of Force. Why on earth not make those part of the SOP for all landing parties?

Writers that are good at thinking through their plot give things like this an in-story reason why they were only used once. An obvious drawback or cost. A hard-to-replace object that gets depleted. A consequence that only becomes apparent after that one use. A sacrifice paid to make it work. Otherwise the main characters just look like morons for not equipping themselves on every mission with emergency recall transponders that can't be stolen by the natives, and magic life-support-halo belts that save them from all manner of hazards. Oh yeah, and of course a few doses of kironide from Platonius!

Brad Wright's writing team seemed to put a lot of thought into the limitations of their miracle tech. In the Stargate franchise, the gates (whose features are partly from the movie and partly from Wright's team) can teleport you to countless other planets in our galaxy (and a couple of others), but they can only travel in one direction at a time, don't guarantee you can come back, can't be kept open for more than 38 minutes, require a unique access code for every destination, etc. These limitations aid the suspension of disbelief, and create plenty of room for things to go wrong and for clever plots to unfold.

Also impressive to me is the list of restrictions on the time travel model used in the Netflix series Travelers: you can only go backward in time so it's always a one-way trip; you have to have precise four-dimensional coordinates (time, elevation, latitude, longitude); you can't ever go back any farther than the latest jump, so no undoing your mistakes before they happened; you have to do extensive research first, because every jump is guaranteed to impact the timeline by the very nature of how it works; repeated jumps to or from the same person take a physical/mental toll; and so on. That was an exceptionally smart show, and the care they put into limitations really paid off dramatically.

So anyway, that was a long-winded way to say I'm glad that Star Trek forgot it had the life-support halo. It's one of those magic tech gizmos that just isn't dramatically sustainable. It solves way too many problems with no apparent cost or other downside.
Trek has been guilty of this a lot but they are also guilty of introducing sensible tech which they later forgot about.

In That Which Survives, it was established that standard uniforms have an in-built heating system - a sensible way to explain why they beam down to planets without cold weather gear but it clearly has limits and can't be used for longer periods (Enemy Within). Yet in subsequent shows, they seem to forget that this is a thing. In Tomorrow, Tomorrow, and Tomorrow, they actually throw away their high tech uniforms. It's not fantasy physics, the technology exists, and they have discovered that keeping forearms heated protects hands from exposure as well.

Another one is transporter inhibitors. In Picard they were manually adding these to the bridge. Why are they not already built into the entire ship? In a universe where vessels can't keep shields up 24/7 a cloaked assassin could just beam a bomb into the bridge or engineering.

Since they threw away the idea that you must have a local scanning relay device (a communicator) to be beamed from somewhere other than a transporter pad, why even bother with a bomb? Just beam the bridge crew into space while simultaneously beaming your own crew on board to replace them. Sure, the ship may raise shields once the transporter beam is detected, but by then, you have a foothold.

They should have stuck doggedly to the same principle as Blakes 7. No relay, no beam up. Unable to remotely hack a transporter pad, no beam in. They could still use exceptions, like transporter tagging in Insurrection, which would be useful plot devices. Slapping a radioactive patch on Kirk is STVI was ludicrous. Don't prisons scan prisoners for contraband like that? But they could have done something clever, like Spock having a last drink with them and slipping them a shielded high tech tag that lay dormant in their intestines for a period of time until after the trial was over.
 
Last edited:
Trek has been guilty of this a lot but they are also guilty of introducing sensible tech which they later forgot about.
Top men are researching it.


I love TAS and count Yesteryear, How Sharper Than A Serpent's Tooth, The Infinite Vulcan, and the Ambergris Element as among my favorites. The stories are great, and have some excellent innovation of technology. Always loved the forcefield belts, and used it with my Mego figures, and Lego sci-fi stories I created as a youngster.
 
Well, that isn't correct. They spent as much on the animation as they did for any of their other animated productions - as little as possible.

Filmation was not a cheap animation house, and TAS was treated as the jewel in Filmation's crown, hence how visually faithful it was to TOS (and evolved some TOAS visuals, as well). That would not have been possible with junk companies such as 1970s Hanna-Barbera.


And yet people don't blink at blandly generic character design and rigged-figure limited animation like Lower Decks. The only reason modern shows look as smooth as they do is because computers.

Thank you. If anyone can sit through the astoundingly cheap-looking LD (like bad Flash animation from 2006), yet criticize TAS, I suspect there are other motivations behind their opinions.
 
Trek has been guilty of this a lot but they are also guilty of introducing sensible tech which they later forgot about.

In That Which Survives...


It was "Spock's Brain" actually.


Your observations are sound. Here is another. They ought to actually be able to beam through shields. They can fire phasers, scan with sensors, and send communications with shields up. Shields have specific frequencies so, apparently, this is how those transmissions work (see TNG Borg episodes and GEN). Transporters ought to work similar since they are just one more type of energy transmission.
 
Filmation was not a cheap animation house, and TAS was treated as the jewel in Filmation's crown, hence how visually faithful it was to TOS (and evolved some TOAS visuals, as well). That would not have been possible with junk companies such as 1970s Hanna-Barbera.




Thank you. If anyone can sit through the astoundingly cheap-looking LD (like bad Flash animation from 2006), yet criticize TAS, I suspect there are other motivations behind their opinions.
I think the CGI version is well done but very stylised. There are some modern animation styles that might suit the episodes better from shows like Invincible or modern He-Man. The pacing in the animated shows was quite languid though. If the animation was slicker, I think you would need to jazz up the action scenes and the musical score.
 
They ought to actually be able to beam through shields. They can fire phasers, scan with sensors, and send communications with shields up. Shields have specific frequencies so, apparently, this is how those transmissions work
I don't fundamentally disagree with you, but I will point out that beaming people is a bit different from all those other tasks in that, well, you're beaming people. Perhaps they actually can beam through the shields, but regulations are adamant about not doing it because it's so risky. So everyone kind of automatically thinks of it as an impossibility, the way we might think of drinking gasoline as an impossibility when in fact it isn't. If passing through the shields occasionally defocuses or misdirects your phaser beam, or mangles your scan or comm data, you can just try again. But if your captain shows up with an arm missing or his entire body inside-out, that's a different level of problem.

Another way to say this is that phasering, scanning, and communicating all probably have built-in "retry" error correction, similar to how internet protocols automatically check every packet of information and re-send the ones that got mangled. But maybe transporters just don't have the luxury of that oh-well-try-again loop. Somehow they are delicately handling living creatures' very souls, after all.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top