Flip-Floping on TAS Anyone?

[systemcat]

I can't remember what channel I saw TAS when I was little but I suspect it was Nickelodeon (late 80's). I don't remember getting impressed by it. In fact in my child mind I considered it an inferior cartoon but an odd one.

Many many years later I re-watched it on Netflix. Memory refreshed but unwavering from childhood opinion.

Two years ago watched it on Paramount+ ... and my opinion switched over to considering it now a good show. However with a children's content focus that I hadn't accepted eariler.

What happened? It's not as though it has a soft spot in my love of nostalgia. Anyone else have their opinion of this show flip-flop with them?

 

[publiusr]

I always loved it….a massive shuttlebay meant the TAS ship would have had to have been 947 METERS long .

I’ll allow it.

I grew up with that being one of the biggest human spaceships on screen…until the advent of The Big Three (ISD, Galactica, Draconia).

That never sat right with me.

 

[ZapBrannigan]

I can't remember what channel I saw TAS when I was little but I suspect it was Nickelodeon (late 80's). I don't remember getting impressed by it. In fact in my child mind I considered it an inferior cartoon but an odd one.

Many many years later I re-watched it on Netflix. Memory refreshed but unwavering from childhood opinion.

Two years ago watched it on Paramount+ ... and my opinion switched over to considering it now a good show. However with a children's content focus that I hadn't accepted eariler.

What happened? It's not as though it has a soft spot in my love of nostalgia. Anyone else have their opinion of this show flip-flop with them?

I can't separate TAS from nostalgia, because it premiered on NBC when I was 11. Home video was years away, and I was so hungry for on-air Star Trek that I drank it in uncritically. I taped the music and sat through every rerun, of which NBC ran plenty.

Also, TAS premiered with a blast of publicity unheard of for a kids' show. There were newspaper articles, interviews, and even a TV Topics cover story. So it had all that validation on top of my pre-existing condition. It was a big deal to me.

 

[BillJ]

I’ve always loved it and have rewatched regularly over the years.

Just a reminder that animation can tell compelling stories. For anyone hesitant to watch Lower Decks or Prodigy.

 

[Christopher]

Two years ago watched it on Paramount+ ... and my opinion switched over to considering it now a good show. However with a children's content focus that I hadn't accepted eariler.

TAS was never really aimed at children, aside from toning down the sex and violence. It was promoted at the time as the first Saturday morning show made for adults (though there had been previous prime-time animated shows aimed at adult viewers, notably The Flintstones and The Jetsons). Compared to its contemporary Saturday morning shows, it was much less child-oriented; it didn't have cute animal mascots or have the characters perform songs at the end about the moral of the week. It had some fanciful concepts, but no more so than the live-action series did. A giant Spock clone is no more absurd than a giant Apollo. The crew shrinking is no more absurd than Kirk being accelerated to hyperspeed.

Basically, TAS was made with the goal of being simply a continuation of TOS, written on the same level but with fewer budgetary restrictions on depicting alien worlds and creatures. And it pretty much succeeded. It had its share of weak or mediocre episodes, but so does every Trek series, and it produced some classics such as "Yesteryear" and "Once Upon a Planet" (which I think is actually a better episode than "Shore Leave," because it actually has real stakes and the problem is solved by the main characters rather than a deus ex machina guest star).

 

[FormerLurker]

there had been previous prime-time animated shows aimed at adult viewers, notably The Flintstones and The Jetsons)

The two I remember seeing were The Barkleys and Wait Until Your Father Gets Home.

 

[FredH]

I liked it fine, and still think much of it is quite watchable.

 

[Ray Hardgrit]

It had some fanciful concepts, but no more so than the live-action series did. A giant Spock clone is no more absurd than a giant Apollo. The crew shrinking is no more absurd than Kirk being accelerated to hyperspeed.

I think you might need to rewatch the one where they go to the centre of the universe, meet Lucifer and learn magic. Or the one where they go to a universe where time goes in reverse and they all become babies for some reason. Even Strange New Worlds' writers would look at TAS scripts and think 'We could totally get away with doing that, but it would have to be a dream at the end'.

Oh, and to answer the thread's question: nope!

 

[CorporalCaptain]

I've always been a fan. I'm not a fan of changing the color of the Elysian sky from red to black, though.

 

[Mudd]

Nah. The cartoons don't do much for me, and this one least of all.

 

[Starflight]

I like it a lot, especially the psychedelic, fantastical direction it often heads in. The only major snag is that the animation is truly dogshit, like, so bad that it actively hampers the show at every turn.

Some of the art is lovely though. The mage battle in "Megas-Tu" is far more spectacular than it has any reason to be, the temple full of female statues in "The Lorelei Signal" feels genuinely otherworldly, and basically every frame in "The Ambergris Element" is absurdly cool.

 

[Ssosmcin]

I like it a lot, especially the psychedelic, fantastical direction it often heads in. The only major snag is that the animation is truly dogshit, like, so bad that it actively hampers the show at every turn.

I think that's harsher than it deserves. Filmation itself did worse work when they started and limited animation was pretty much the norm. The reuse of stock drawings is what stands out the most, but the art is really good. It's still easier on the eyes than some H-B shows of the same period.

You want abysmal animation, watch The Marvel Super-Heroes cartoons. I love them as a comic book fan, but outside of that and the awesome library music they used, it's a masterclass in shortcuts.

I think you might need to rewatch the one where they go to the centre of the universe, meet Lucifer and learn magic. Or the one where they go to a universe where time goes in reverse and they all become babies for some reason. Even Strange New Worlds' writers would look at TAS scripts and think 'We could totally get away with doing that, but it would have to be a dream at the end'.

Since TNG did that with Rascals to a degree, SNW would unapologetically go back to diapers without a dream cop out. TBH,

Spoiler

I'm surprised they went with the dream for the Muppets. They usually lean into the absurdity.

Oh, and to answer the thread's question: nope!

I always loved the animated series. It's the original series characters with their original actor voices. For that reason alone, I will always treasure it.

 

[Steve Roby]

I saw most of it in the mid-1970s and liked it, really liked Alan Dean Foster's novelizations, and paid way too much for VHS tapes around 1990 when they were really hard to find in Canada. And was glad to buy the DVDs. I liked the music, too, though they certainly made the most of a limited number of cues. TAS is part of my early years of being a fan and I still like it.

 

[Christopher]

I think you might need to rewatch the one where they go to the centre of the universe, meet Lucifer and learn magic.

Then you should rewatch the live-action movie where they go to the center of the galaxy again (you mean galaxy, not universe), meet "God," and somehow survive a photon torpedo going off 50 feet behind them, which might as well be magic. TAS hardly has a monopoly on silly premises.

Or the one where they go to a universe where time goes in reverse and they all become babies for some reason. Even Strange New Worlds' writers would look at TAS scripts and think 'We could totally get away with doing that, but it would have to be a dream at the end'.

Alan Dean Foster's novelization revealed it as an illusion. Which is more than we can say for "Threshold" or "Four and a Half Vulcans."

I think that's harsher than it deserves. Filmation itself did worse work when they started and limited animation was pretty much the norm. The reuse of stock drawings is what stands out the most, but the art is really good. It's still easier on the eyes than some H-B shows of the same period.

Yes. Filmation made a trade-off, favoring good-looking art at the expense of movement, while Hanna-Barbera made the opposite trade-off. I prefer Filmation's approach.

Although TAS's first-season animation was more limited and error-laden than their usual work, since that season was produced on an insanely tight schedule, 16 episodes in 6 months. They had more time in season 2, so the last 6 episodes look much better.

I always loved the animated series. It's the original series characters with their original actor voices. For that reason alone, I will always treasure it.

Right, and also many of the original writers (who were available because there was a strike at the time, so they couldn't work on live-action shows, but the strike didn't cover animation). It's the most direct and faithful continuation of TOS that exists, and that alone makes it worthwhile regardless of its limitations.

 

[I am not Herbert]

I think that's harsher than it deserves. Filmation itself did worse work when they started and limited animation was pretty much the norm. The reuse of stock drawings is what stands out the most, but the art is really good. It's still easier on the eyes than some H-B shows of the same period.

Depending on the perspective, you're both right. You're entirely correct in saying it's a lot better and more inventive than many other shows of the same period. But in terms of a person coming to the show new, who is going to compare it not to shows of the time but other present-day animated shows, the animation will likely get in the way of the storytelling. I don't mind it all (and find it charming) but I grew up watching shows in that era.

 

[1001001]

I think that's harsher than it deserves. Filmation itself did worse work when they started and limited animation was pretty much the norm. The reuse of stock drawings is what stands out the most, but the art is really good. It's still easier on the eyes than some H-B shows of the same period.

You want abysmal animation, watch The Marvel Super-Heroes cartoons. I love them as a comic book fan, but outside of that and the awesome library music they used, it's a masterclass in shortcuts.

Since TNG did that with Rascals to a degree, SNW would unapologetically go back to diapers without a dream cop out. TBH,

Spoiler

I'm surprised they went with the dream for the Muppets. They usually lean into the absurdity.

I always loved the animated series. It's the original series characters with their original actor voices. For that reason alone, I will always treasure it.

Please do not post spoilers for this season of SNW. We’re nowhere near the 6 month point.

Thanks!

 

[hbquikcomjamesl]

I have the same basic opinion of TAS that I had when I dragged myself out of bed on Saturday mornings to watch it in first-run: it was generally good Star Trek, and there were plenty of TOS episodes that were at least as bad as the worst TAS episodes.

Alan Dean Foster's novelization revealed it as an illusion.

I, too, like what ADF did with "The Counter-Clock Incident." But of course, it's not canonical, and if you put canonicity ahead of good storytelling that makes sense, it's probably lost on you (I'm with @Christopher on that: I'll take something well-thought-out but non-canonical over canonical nonsense any day of the week).

And thanks, @1001001. I stumbled onto the spoiler to which you referred earlier this month, in another thread, and the DVD set is still months away from release.

 

[Starflight]

I think that's harsher than it deserves. Filmation itself did worse work when they started and limited animation was pretty much the norm. The reuse of stock drawings is what stands out the most, but the art is really good. It's still easier on the eyes than some H-B shows of the same period.

The art is fabulous, but the movement of characters and objects always feels so limited. "The Jihad" is a really good example - the art itself is characteristically brilliant with the cat-like alien at the start, the character design of the crew, the weirdness of the floating "soul" in the chamber at the end.

But then the animation turns what should be a sweeping adventure into something that often feels awkward. Setpieces like the car outrunning the lava don't really come off because the animation is so strange, and the climactic low-gravity hand-to-hand fight against the bird guy is... stiff, to say the least.

I don't know a great deal about animation from the early 70s though; I can buy that Filmation were trying the best they could under tough circumstances.

 

[hbquikcomjamesl]

In hand-drawn animation, one speaks of "twos," "threes," and so forth: the number of frames that would be exposed before making some change to the stacked cels and background. Theatrical animation was typically done in "ones" and "twos"; on the other hand, Bill Hanna and Joe Barbera (veterans of MGM Animation before they founded their own studio) came up with the concept of "limited animation," which involved "threes" and "fours," and so forth, and animating the body parts that were moving on separate cels.

At least one of the more renowned animators (was it Chuck Jones?) described the result as "illustrated radio."

And yes, TAS was done on an impossible schedule and budget, probably descending to "eights" and "twelves." And yet, I'm told that occasionally (I've heard this mainly in relation to "How Sharper Than a Serpent's Tooth"), the animators would do a scene in "ones" and "twos" because they felt strongly about it.

 

[FredH]

In all of TAS, the only silly bit that struck me as being outside the TOS silly-range was Giant Clone Spock having a Giant Starfleet Uniform — seemingly cloned right along with him.