Flip-Floping on TAS Anyone?

[Shawnster]

Flip flop? Nope. Never.

I never saw TAS in original run. I discovered it through Alan Dean Foster's Log books and through Bjo Tremble's Concordance. I read about all these stories and adventures I thought I would never get to see.

That changed in 1985 with Nickelodeon when they aired TAS on Saturdays. 13 years old and seeing new (to me) Trek. It was great!

Some of it is a little goofy, but I think that's a limitation of animation (both principle and application). It may not have been billed as a kids show but, let's face it, it was a 1970s animated show that aired on Saturdays. Anyone creating animation at that time is thinking "children will watch this". So the stories are a bit simplistic. The animation is also a bit rough. I like the idea of the food dispenser spewing out all kinds of food in "Practical Joker" but the visuals just fall flat for me. I also was disappointed with the way BEM was depicted. The idea of a gestalt colony species is cool, but he ended up just being a humanoid who could detach his limbs and control them by remote. Meh, ok.

I love TAS and view it as season/year 4 of TOS.

 

[Laura Cynthia Chambers]

no tacked on condescending moral of the week PSAs.

This guy invented some. https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLMpofmkxKHBJfta_JzekLbWGHUSLUJoLt

 

[hbquikcomjamesl]

Well, except for all the years when pornography did, in fact, get released theatrically.

Uh, Deep Throat (huh? Whaddya mean it wasn't about Mark Felt?) was 1972. The Devil in Miss Jones was 1973. Behind the Green Door (never heard of that one) was 1972. The New Erotic Adventures of Casanova was 1977. Fritz the Cat was 1972. Midnight Cowboy was 1969. Myra Breckinridge (huh? Whaddya mean she wasn't any relation to Tondaleo or Congolia Breckinridge?) was 1970. (I can honestly say that I've never had the slightest interest in seeing any of them.)

The Rating System replaced the Hays Code in 1968.

To be sure, filmmakers were starting to ignore Hays during the 1960s, as the Studio System was breaking down. The whole fuss over "hump the hostess" in Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf, which gave Valenti the opportunity to abolish the Hays Code and introduce the Rating System, happened in 1966.

And (with the exception of Valenti not anticipating that first the Disney-wannabes, then the Disney studio itself, would make really stupid assembly-line movies that would be of no interest to anybody over the age of 6) the whole problem of ratings creep boils down to the simple fact that the MPAA wasn't very good at communicating stuff. Sometimes intentionally so. Sure, if you looked stuff up, you'd know that the only criterion on which ratings are assigned is suitability or unsuitability for children, and that the one absolute, non-negotiable requirement for those who wanted to be on the Ratings Board was that you had to be a parent, probably with at least one pre-teen child in your care. And if you looked at the fine print on the various ratings badges, you might have even figured out the first part. But the only thing I've ever seen in terms of mass-educating parents on the meaning of ratings was a 1990s poster (by which time the damage had already been done decades earlier) that explained the ratings thusly:

• G: Take the kids
• PG: Know your kids
• PG-13: See it with your kids
• R: Think before taking your kids
• NC-17: Hire a sitter

The other thing they were very poor at communicating (and intentionally so) was the reason why a given film was assigned a given rating. Valenti wasn't just over-cautious about ratings being spoilers, he was paranoid. And so he adopted a policy of saying absolutely nothing about whether a rating was the result of sex, violence, sexual violence, horror shock scenes, nightmare fodder, or more than one of the above. Like telling viewers which of the above were the justification for the rating would be any meaningful plot-spoiler.

I distinctly recall seeing ads for a (roughly) 1980s horror film that declared that the film was unrated, that it contained no sexual content whatsoever, and that purely because of violence and horror shock scenes, nobody under 18 would be admitted.

 

[DarrenTR1970]

I distinctly recall seeing ads for a (roughly) 1980s horror film that declared that the film was unrated, that it contained no sexual content whatsoever, and that purely because of violence and horror shock scenes, nobody under 18 would be admitted.

George A. Romero's "Dawn of the Dead" (1979) and "Day of the Dead" (1985) were both released unrated, with a warning on the poster/advertising that due to the extreme violence and gore/bloodshed, no one under 18 was to be admitted to the theater.

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

In 1979, "Dawn" was successful due in part to individual movie houses choosing whether or not to screen the movie for their audience.

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

In 1985, when "Day" was released, the rise of the multiplex and movie chains, led to a decrease in bookings because theater owners wouldn't take a chance on an unrated movie.

Oddly enough, by the time "Day" was released, movies like "Friday the 13th" had already pushed the envelope of what could be shown on screen; so, George and Richard Rubinstein decision to release "Day" unrated when a trim here or there could have got them a "R" rating and a chance to be shown on more screens, hurt them in the long run.

 

[Christopher]

As Christopher points out, TAS makes no concession to the Saturday morning child audience. There is no obligatory Filmation comedy relief mascot character, no funny animals, so song interludes, no dumbed-down vocabulary, no tacked on condescending moral of the week PSAs. It is a respectable, albeit earnest, budget animated series telling Star Trek stories in a manner that is compliant with broadcast standards and practices for mid-seventies Saturday morning television. It is not the nineties Batman:The Animated Series, but, it couldn't be, just as TOS couldn't be the 21st century Battlestar Galactica reboot.

Mostly yes, but comedy-relief mascots were hardly unique to Filmation; Hanna-Barbera named entire series after theirs (e.g. Scooby-Doo, Jabberjaw, etc.).

Also, yes, the state of the art of TV animation improved greatly between Star Trek: TAS and Batman: TAS -- indeed, even Filmation's own animation was notably better by 1977-8 than it had been in 1973-4 -- but I wouldn't say the two are that different in terms of writing. Both shows were made to be accessible to children but sophisticated enough for adults, both were more mature than was typical for their contemporaries, and both had episodes written by veterans of the original works they were based on (Batman comics in the latter case).

Also, several of B:TAS's creators, including Bruce Timm, Paul Dini, Michael Reaves, and Tom Ruegger, were former Filmation staffers, though they all came after ST:TAS.

Some of it is a little goofy, but I think that's a limitation of animation (both principle and application). It may not have been billed as a kids show but, let's face it, it was a 1970s animated show that aired on Saturdays. Anyone creating animation at that time is thinking "children will watch this".

Of course, but that's reflected mainly in the lack of onscreen deaths (except in "The Slaver Weapon," which I'm surprised they got away with) and romantic/kissing scenes. And the same goes for plenty of well-regarded animated shows like the aforementioned Batman: TAS, Gargoyles, X-Men: TAS, Avatar: The Last Airbender, etc. As I keep saying, it's completely wrong to assume that a show made to be safe for viewing by children is unable to be sophisticated or enjoyable by adults. The one and only thing it means is that it avoids graphic violence, profanity, or sexual content. Other than that, children's stories can be every bit as intelligent as adult stories. Children are a lot smarter and more perceptive than adults tend to give them credit for, and good storytellers understand that.

 

[hbquikcomjamesl]

Mostly yes, but comedy-relief mascots were hardly unique to Filmation; Hanna-Barbera named entire series after theirs (e.g. Scooby-Doo, Jabberjaw, etc.).

Indeed. I associate them more with HB than with Filmation. While I didn't follow any of Filmation's iteration of Archie too closely (a group of teenage kids that had a bubblegum rock band just didn't appeal to me*, and I didn't pay much attention to the newspaper strip either), the only furry character I recall was Hot Dog, whom I'd always understood to have come straight out of the comic books and newspaper strip.

That's interesting: Josie and the Pussycats is an Archie Comics property, but unlike Archie and Sabrina the Teenage Witch (both Filmation series in every iteration), HB got the TV rights for all iterations. Never realized the Archie milieu was so big.

As I keep saying, it's completely wrong to assume that a show made to be safe for viewing by children is unable to be sophisticated or enjoyable by adults. The one and only thing it means is that it avoids graphic violence, profanity, or sexual content. Other than that, children's stories can be every bit as intelligent as adult stories. Children are a lot smarter and more perceptive than adults tend to give them credit for, and good storytellers understand that.

On that we are in complete agreement. And even when children are the primary audience, the writing and production values can be (and frequently are) at least as good as most TV with an adult target audience, and better than a lot of it.
_____
*My tastes in music have always run to classical, and to strictly-acoustic forms of jazz. Have I ever mentioned that my favorite Beatles albums are Beatles cover albums? Bach on Abbey Road, by pianist John Bayless, and The Off-White Album, by the Hampton String Quartet. Even funnier: the protagonist of my novel, in her high school and undergrad years, plays the organ in two successive garage bands. Organ as in real pipes (take that, Veronica!). And she started playing Beatles covers in kindergarten.

 

[Christopher]

Indeed. I associate them more with HB than with Filmation. While I didn't follow any of Filmation's iteration of Archie too closely (a group of teenage kids that had a bubblegum rock band just didn't appeal to me*, and I didn't pay much attention to the newspaper strip either), the only furry character I recall was Hot Dog, whom I'd always understood to have come straight out of the comic books and newspaper strip.

Yes, Hot Dog is one of those characters created for an adaptation and later adopted by the comics, along with Jimmy Olsen, Perry White, Harley Quinn, Renee Montoya, Phil Coulson, etc. (Also at least two police detectives in the Detective Conan series, Takagi and Chiba, started out as bit anime characters that got accidentally referred to in outtakes by their voice actors' names, but the names stuck and they both became regular characters in the original manga as well as the anime.)

 

[hbquikcomjamesl]

<Johnny Carson> I did not know that. </Johnny>

 

[Mres_was_framed!]

Even if that's true, whether it's silly is still a separate conversation from whether it was made for children.

Knowing that we both have some interest in Power Rangers, it's worth noting that show's Japanese counterpart is not really viewd as specifically a kids' show in Japan, and yet Power Rangers is viewed as that in the U.S.

no tacked on condescending moral of the week

Star Trek's episodes frequently included a moral, but they were not tacked on or condescending. In fact, your comment is making me realize, as it was pointed out that TAS did not have time 24 minutes for as much of the political/moral discussion that TOS had, that it is actually the reduced amount of discussion of a moral that could make TAS feel a bit different, as opposed to the likelihood of a cartoon to have a moral if aimed at kids.

Scooby-Doo,

Insomuch as Scooby Doo's pratfalls often eventaully end with some kind of clash with the villian that revleas a critical clue, in that one case I think that Scooby Doo's role can usually be seen as important to the plot and not just as comedy for kids, so it also makes sense to give his name as the title of the show.

 

[Donald G]

Knowing that we both have some interest in Power Rangers, it's worth noting that show's Japanese counterpart is not really viewd as specifically a kids' show in Japan, and yet Power Rangers is viewed as that in the U.S.

Star Trek's episodes frequently included a moral, but they were not tacked on or condescending. In fact, your comment is making me realize, as it was pointed out that TAS did not have time 24 minutes for as much of the political/moral discussion that TOS had, that it is actually the reduced amount of discussion of a moral that could make TAS feel a bit different, as opposed to the likelihood of a cartoon to have a moral if aimed at kids.

Insomuch as Scooby Doo's pratfalls often eventaully end with some kind of clash with the villian that revleas a critical clue, in that one case I think that Scooby Doo's role can usually be seen as important to the plot and not just as comedy for kids, so it also makes sense to give his name as the title of the show.

When I mention the tacked on condescending moral of the week, I am talking about the separate bit after the story proper when a character directly lectures the children at home to drive home what pro-social value they were meant to learn from the story, as seen in at the end of episodes of Shazam!, Isis, He-Man, and She-Ra back in the seventies and eighties.

For non-Filmation shows, eighties kids would recognize what I'm talking about as what they watched at the end of G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero that ended with the constant " . . . and learning is half the battle. YO, JOE!"

 

[mb22]

Not part of the show, but still a PSA...

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

 

[Greg Cox]

When I mention the tacked on condescending moral of the week, I am talking about the separate bit after the story proper when a character directly lectures the children at home to drive home what pro-social value they were meant to learn from the story, as seen in at the end of episodes of Shazam!, Isis, He-Man, and She-Ra back in the seventies and eighties.

Without being too spoilery, the new MASTERS OF THE UNIVERSE movie pokes a bit of fun at those moralistic codas.

 

[Nerys Myk]

I've always liked it.

 

[Christopher]

Knowing that we both have some interest in Power Rangers, it's worth noting that show's Japanese counterpart is not really viewd as specifically a kids' show in Japan, and yet Power Rangers is viewed as that in the U.S.

No, Super Sentai was regarded as younger-skewing than its sister series Kamen Rider. Certainly compared to Power Rangers it had more content that American broadcasters would consider unsuitable for kids, like references to drinking and death, but less so than Rider; it's just that Japanese media has more faith in children's ability to handle such ideas. (And to handle complex emotions and character conflicts. Power Rangers character arcs and conflicts tended to be very lightweight compared to the intense drama in tokusatsu shows.)

It's not that these aren't considered kids' shows -- it's just that the category of "kids' show" isn't presumed to exclude adult viewers. After all, Sentai ran for 50 years straight (before going on indefinite hiatus this past February), while Kamen Rider is 55 years old and has been airing continuously since 2000, and Ultraman is 60 this year. So there are whole generations that grew up watching these franchises.

It's like Doctor Who. It was always meant as a kids' show, but that was never meant to exclude adults, nor should it.

 

[fireproof78]

I've always liked it.

There's no reason to not.

 

[Ssosmcin]

Not part of the show, but still a PSA...

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 love running into this PSA. I vaguely remember seeing it as a kid and all it did was make me obsessed with wanting to see an episode.

 

[I am not Herbert]

When I mention the tacked on condescending moral of the week, I am talking about the separate bit after the story proper when a character directly lectures the children at home to drive home what pro-social value they were meant to learn from the story, as seen in at the end of episodes of Shazam!, Isis, He-Man, and She-Ra back in the seventies and eighties.

For non-Filmation shows, eighties kids would recognize what I'm talking about as what they watched at the end of G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero that ended with the constant " . . . and learning is half the battle. YO, JOE!"

My recollection is a bit different. I remember the PSA sections of GI JOE being more standalone, typically unrelated to the main plot, and not "pro-social" but rather overtly safety-related. I never thought of them as any more condescending than McGruff the Crime Dog or Smoky the Bear, and still do not. It's not the worst thing in the world for a kid staring at a TV screen for hours a time to hear a useful tip about not talking to strangers, speaking up if someone is abusing them, etc. However dorky it seemed to us at the time, some lives were probably saved. Hell, the throwaway 'Heimlich maneuver' gag from that early Simpsons episode has (allegedly) saved multiple lives.

 

[PCz911]

Flip flop? Nope. Never.

I never saw TAS in original run. I discovered it through Alan Dean Foster's Log books and through Bjo Tremble's Concordance. I read about all these stories and adventures I thought I would never get to see.

That changed in 1985 with Nickelodeon when they aired TAS on Saturdays. 13 years old and seeing new (to me) Trek. It was great!

Some of it is a little goofy, but I think that's a limitation of animation (both principle and application). It may not have been billed as a kids show but, let's face it, it was a 1970s animated show that aired on Saturdays. Anyone creating animation at that time is thinking "children will watch this". So the stories are a bit simplistic. The animation is also a bit rough. I like the idea of the food dispenser spewing out all kinds of food in "Practical Joker" but the visuals just fall flat for me. I also was disappointed with the way BEM was depicted. The idea of a gestalt colony species is cool, but he ended up just being a humanoid who could detach his limbs and control them by remote. Meh, ok.

I love TAS and view it as season/year 4 of TOS.

This describes me, also.

 

[Christopher]

Hell, the throwaway 'Heimlich maneuver' gag from that early Simpsons episode has (allegedly) saved multiple lives.

Conversely, the "hide from a tornado under an overpass" scene in Man of Steel may well have cost lives, because overpasses amplify the wind passing through them and are the most dangerous possible place to be during a tornado. It drives me crazy that a story about a life-saving superhero included something so potentially deadly to its audience, and it drives me even more crazy that a Superman & Lois episode some years later did the exact same horrifically irresponsible thing.

But that's not unique, sadly. I've heard that bystanders in traffic accidents have been known to worsen the victims' injuries by dragging them quickly away from the wrecked cars, because film and TV have conditioned people to assume that any wrecked car is a time bomb guaranteed to explode.

 

[hbquikcomjamesl]

And (I remember this from a safety meeting during a brief period when I was working as a maintenance worker for the Los Angeles Unified School District), the whole business of getting under a desk or a table during an earthquake (adapted, of course, from air raid and atomic bomb drills) is so much bovine scat, because if an earthquake is that severe, the furniture could be jumping around, and likewise, if you get into an open doorway, the door could be wildly swinging about. (At the time, they recommended an open archway.)

I also remember, from reading up on first aid as a child, NEVER MOVE AN INJURED PERSON UNLESS THE DANGER FROM NOT MOVING HIM/HER EXCEEDS THE DANGER OF MOVING HIM/HER. And I also remember plenty of rescues depicted in Emergency! leaving the injured person in situ until the appropriate backboard and/or cervical collar, and/or splint(s) can be applied, radioing the vitals to the hospital in situ, possibly even starting a TKO IV in situ.