More From Kurtzman And Orci
- Thread starter DWF
- Start date
It was marketed toward fourteen year olds and children of all ages like lost in space. That was popular, wasn't it as a kiddie show. Star Trek later transcended age barriers. Popular is only what's appreciated at the time. Anything great like like Star Trek is usually created for succeeding generations to enjoy and to stand the test of time.
What a silly question.
"Star Trek" was just a goofy thing that dorky kids - some of us in the Chess Club and the Science Club and the Science Fiction Society (you get the idea) watched on NBC. It was in no way a cool or popular TV show with the majority of kids.
It wasn't until the early to mid-seventies that the show's so-called "cult following" became cohesive and visible enough to generate any media attention whatever. Offhand, I'd date that to TV Guide's brief coverage of the first New York "Star Trek" convention at the old Commodore Hotel.
But then, I guess I remember that because I'm older than Trek.
number6
Vice Admiral
It was marketed toward fourteen year olds and children of all ages like lost in space. That was popular, wasn't it as a kiddie show. Star Trek later transcended age barriers. Popular is only what's appreciated at the time. Anything great like like Star Trek is usually created for succeeding generations to enjoy and to stand the test of time.
What a silly question.
"Star Trek" was just a goofy thing that dorky kids - some of us in the Chess Club and the Science Club and the Science Fiction Society (you get the idea) watched on NBC. It was in no way a cool or popular TV show with the majority of kids.
It wasn't until the early to mid-seventies that the show's so-called "cult following" became cohesive and visible enough to generate any media attention whatever. Offhand, I'd date that to TV Guide's brief coverage of the first New York "Star Trek" convention at the old Commodore Hotel.
But then, I guess I remember that because I'm older than Trek.
Not in the '60s. It was marketed as an adult sci-fi show.
No. Just the opposite.
When you say you're "as old as" Trek, I assume that means that you were born at the end of the 1960s? You don't seem to actually remember the beginnings of the thing.
I never learned to read books but somehow, I think I'm partially right someway but I did watch Lost in Space as I was born in 1966 so whatever. I don't think anybody knew what it was at the time and maybe still don't know today. Lucille Ball thought it was a USO show and gave it a green light.
Well I'm sure the national prescreening weren't cheap and in the end Serenity didn't appeal to a mass audience because it wasn't made for the mass audience. I'm sure that the Star Trek movie will be different but there's more competition this May than when Serenity premiered in Sept. of 2005.
No, that's not what happened either.
trevanian
Rear Admiral
With only a few notable exceptions, space movies don't do great business. More people probably knew the name WING COMMANDER (from the game) than SERENITY (from FIREFLY), and the result was even less with WC box office (deservedly so.) GALAXY QUEST, a really good movie, didn't make money in theaters (much to my sorrow.) SOLARIS was made fairly cheap (just a bit more than SERENITY) and it utterly bombed. EVENT HORIZON didn't do well, especially relative to its higher-than-trek budget (even though it was a paramount show.) LOST IN SPACE didn't do great either. Obviously SW flicks do great business no matter how bad they are, but they have a certain recognition factor as well as the 'have to go see it' factor for most sheep/drone-viewers. Go back far enough and you'll see 2001 took a few years to earn its nut back (and that was a movie that played non-stop for 2 years in San Jose and other locations 1968-70.) LAST STARFIGHTER did lousy business. DUNE did lousy business. 2010 did lousy business.
Space movies just don't usually ... fly.
STAR TREK has a hook that most of these non SW movies don't, but it is a two-sided one, since people who might be on the fence could skip it just because it is STAR TREK.
I read it in a book. Your argument is not convincing.
No you didn't.
You've confused and misremembered what you read.
The story is on page 22 of "Inside Star Trek" by Herb Solow and Robert Justman. The conversation in question was during a meeting of the Desilu board of directors which took place while "Star Trek" was in development and had already been pitched to two networks. Ball greenlit nothing based on the silly misunderstanding you suggest; in fact, Desilu put "Star Trek" into production because NBC ordered the pilot.
Again, you didn't read that "Lucille Ball thought it was a USO show and gave it a green light." Your earlier remark about never learning to read books may have been closer to the mark.
But that only proves that they need to grab the non fans and that they needed to spend the money to do it. And most of those movies including Lost In Space and Galaxy Quest more than made it's budget.
The Star Trek needs to reach out beyond the fans to able to beat the competition this May.
Yes, she did - but in a conversation at a board meeting after the studio had put "Star Trek" into early development and had pitched it to the networks. Solow privately reminded her after the meeting of what Trek actually was about - her confusion on that one public occasion had nothing to do with the show's approval for development. That is where you're confused.
number6
Vice Admiral
No. She was a figurehead for Desilu by that point and had no real authority.
She wouldn't have. Go back and read the book again, and try to get some sense of how the studio actually worked.
I wouldn't have liked to be the one to tell her she had no control. I could just picture her saying, yea, a uso show, sending stars over seas to entertain the troops. Sounds like fun, let's do that one. I rarely also believe Herb Solow about anything anyway. Talk about a bloated ego. You would have thought he created Star Trek all by himself with the amount of credit he took for it in retrospect.
number6
Vice Admiral
Without Herb Solow there would have been no Star Trek. Period.
Lucille Ball know her role in Desilu. Desi Arnaz was hands on with the day to day handling of Desilu. Lucy had little interest in being in charge of Desilu after they split up and let the people they both hired do their jobs.
Well then she didn't get what she thought she was getting but giving Credence to Solow's statements over Roddenberrys doesn't make sense since they were all after as much glory as they could get.
