Fans, why no initial success?

[Warped9]

This is a companion thread to "Fans, why do you like TOS." But I don't want to risk derailing that subject.

And so here I'm asking: as fans why do you think TOS couldn't succeed ratings wise initially? Why did TOS not connect until after it went out of production?

 

[Warped9]

Not to seek to derail this thread...

But I presume you are planning to start a thread on why The Original Series was never a big success, during those original NBC broadcasts?

I recognise how you hold Star Trek to a higher standard than any of its spin-offs, but this latest round of topics per series does seem to carry more of a bias.

Fair enough. I was just trying to think how to reword the question here.

As I mentioned I'm writing up something of a retrospective for the franchise. I have my own thoughts on all this stuff, but thats only my perspective. As in many things I suspect there's always more than one or two reasons why something is popular or conversely unsuccessful. In fairness I want to offer up other views. It isn't sufficient to simply say, "It tanked because it sucked." You have to at least try to be more articulate and specific as to why something worked or not.

 

[Botany Bay]

Great question, I'm looking forward to the responses from older posters on this, but a couple of thoughts :

- Critics were not very positive on the show.
- The timeslot changed at least twice, the final slot of late Friday nights being particularly unsuitable.
- The first episode they chose to air (which actually attracted a big audience) was not a great one (Man Trap).

 

[ChristopherPike]

Thanks Warped9 for opening up this alternate side of the debate. I hope I can bring some fodder to this discussion, after giving it some serious thought.

My initial impression of the Sixties and Seventies era of American TV is that it was a golden age. But I imagine the recent introduction of colour broadcast might play into the lack of initial success with the Original Series. Audiences simply didn't really know what they were missing. What might the uptake of colour sets be around this point? I know here in England, it was treated as an expensive luxury well into the early 1970's. I've heard a few stories about people gathering together depending which of the nearby households had the colour TV set, in the case of the 1966 England V Germany world cup. Undoubtedly the Moon Landing led to increased interest in both Star Trek and owning the right set on watch it on. So the next decade got the benefit of that and increased numbers in syndication.

You've also got NBC's scheduling of the show, apparently going against the increased interest in space around that time. Moving it to Friday nights, when most teenagers would be out on the town and giving their old early evening timeslot to Rowan and Martin's Laugh-in, which gave the world Goldie Hawn and might've even influenced shows like Saturday Night Live.

 

[Warped9]

My earliest memories of TOS were watching it in b&w and it still hooked me right off. Of course my antenna may have been tuning in to something I perceived in the show regardless of the lack of colour. Dad bought us a colour TV just before Christmas in '71 or '72 and, yes, we did think it was a very big deal then.

In the '60s and '70s I watched a lot of sci-fi: Voyage To The Bottom Of The Sea, Time Tunnel, Lost In Space, UFO, The Man From U.N.C.L.E. (kinda sci-fi), The Adventures of Superman, The Six-Million Dollar Man, Kolckak: The Night Stalker, and other stuff that's escaping me at the moment. For me Star Trek stood out from all of them. I also know that a lot of folks I knew who generally weren't into genre stuff often expressed the thought they felt TOS was just too fantastical, just too out there.

 

[MANT!]

It failed to get a huge audience yet it aired in the days before demographics were counted into the ratings. If demographic information was allowed, it would have been on for at least 1 or 2 more seasons..it had a lock on the 18-24 male demographic at the time...

These days, shows that have the ratings and demographic that Star Trek had in the 60s would be considered hits...

 

[Prons]

Syndicated audiances seem to be more open to science fiction and the super natural. Even in recent years, look at how popular Xena: Warrior Princess was, that was a syndicated show throughout it's years.

Of course time slots were also a problem. Star Trek had an after-school appeal but was shown at 10 at night.

 

[bigdaddy]

My dad said it was the timeslot. He was only 11-13 when it was on and back then no one was allowed to watch TV at 10 which is when it was on in the third season.

 

[Warped9]

It failed to get a huge audience yet it aired in the days before demographics were counted into the ratings. If demographic information was allowed, it would have been on for at least 1 or 2 more seasons..it had a lock on the 18-24 male demographic at the time...

These days, shows that have the ratings and demographic that Star Trek had in the 60s would be considered hits...

Yes, demographics have shown that TOS was right on target. It had just been unlucky (in some respects) to be introduced only a few years before demographics were more widely used.

Indeed I read somewhere (can't recall where) some years ago that if TOS' ratings were applied to today's TV market it would considered quite successful.

 

[Haggis and tatties]

I thought it was well known that TOS suffered from being bounced from time slot to time slot, and the whole outmoded nelsons rating system thing they had at the time.

 

[Steven Of Nine]

Another great Warped9 TOS thread...

I couldn't tell you why it wasn't successful. I mean, I understand why the general public doesn't like "thinking" shows, and the like. But I always see things I like, like TOS, and think, "Oh, this one they'll like..."

Most of the sci-fi shows that have made it to tv since then, especially the ones I like, fail after a short period. Only the ones I dislike (LOST, 3rd Rock, etc.) go on forever........

I think there was too much talk, too little action. But then, most sci fi shows were shortlived, weren't they? Even famous classic sci-fi shows from the period only maxxed out at 4-5 years.

 

[Ovation]

It failed to get a huge audience yet it aired in the days before demographics were counted into the ratings. If demographic information was allowed, it would have been on for at least 1 or 2 more seasons..it had a lock on the 18-24 male demographic at the time...

These days, shows that have the ratings and demographic that Star Trek had in the 60s would be considered hits...

Yes, demographics have shown that TOS was right on target. It had just been unlucky (in some respects) to be introduced only a few years before demographics were more widely used.

Not really.

Some relevant quotations:

What About Demographics?
For decades, it has been suggested that NBC cancelled Star Trek shortly before the television networks began using demographic breakdowns when determining the relative success or failure of television programs. If demographics had been taken into consideration, some believe, Star Trek would never have been dropped. However, demographics were a part of the decision making process during the mid-1960s.

In February of 1967, as Star Trek was winding down its first season, CBS made the shocking decision to cancel its long-running western Gunsmoke, despite the fact that the series had a 21.7/35 Nielsen rating [44]. CBS was disappointed that twice as many viewers over the age of 50 were watching Gunsmoke compared to viewers in the 18-to-34 demographic. CBS eventually reversed its decision, but the precedent had been set. At the time, an NBC spokesman noted that the network was focusing on general rating trends when canceling programs [45].


A year later, however, Broadcasting reported that NBC’s upcoming 1968-1969 schedule “represents the fruition of a five-year process in building shows with youth appeal [46]. The schedule “would emphasize an attraction to the young influentials,” or the “articulate, upper-income families from the more heavily populated areas of the country” [47]. At the same time, officials noted that the network wasn’t forgetting other age groups: “Our programming is aimed for balance, diversity, with strong leaders, such as Bonanza and the Dean Martin Show, which appeal to all age groups” [48].


Star Trek was renewed for the 1968-1969 season — perhaps due in part to a letter writing campaign — but saw a drop in its per minute commercial price, from $39,000 to $36,000 [49]. At the end of the 1968-1969 season, Star Trek’s last, NBC trumpeted its ratings success in a variety of categories, including the 18-to-49 demographic [50]. If Star Trek had been a demographic success, why would it have been cancelled?


In reality, Star Trek’s young adult audience wasn’t any larger than the ABC and CBS programs it competed with. According to Television Magazine, the four episodes broadcast between October 27th and November 17th, 1966 averaged 8,630,000 viewers in the 18-to-49 age group, making up 43% of the show’s total audience [51]. By comparison, during the same period ABC’s Bewitched (which aired opposite Star Trek from 9:30-10PM) averaged 10,210,000 young adult viewers or 37% of the total audience.
As for CBS, My Three Sons (aired from 8:30-9PM) averaged 8,580,000 young adult viewers (the series was pre-empted on October 27th) or 36% of the program’s total audience. Thus, while Star Trek had a larger percentage of viewers in the young adult demographic, two of the programs it competed with had more viewers overall (and Bewitched had more young adult viewers as well). This was at the start of the show’s run; ratings fell every season.

 

[Hober Mallow]

Critics were not very positive on the show.

Source? The only retro reviews I've read from critics at the time were all positive.

 

[Ovation]

Critics were not very positive on the show.

Source? The only retro reviews I've read from critics at the time were all positive.

What The Critics Had To Say
In their reviews of Star Trek, television critics were rather doubtful about the long-term prospects of the series. A nationwide survey of 24 critics conducted by Television Magazine found only five considered Star Trek “good,” while eight found it “bad” and eleven were “indifferent” [13]. One of the best reviews came from Harry Harris of The Philadelphia Inquirer, who called the premiere episode a “suspenseful, puzzling and ultra-imaginative yarn” [14].


Other positive reviews came from The San Francisco Chronicle’s Terrence O’Flaherty, who noted that the “opening yarn was a breath-catcher” and Bill Irvin of Chicago’s American, who wrote “I LIKE THIS ONE” [15]. Lawrence Laurent of The Washington Post wrote that “the plots may be space opera but the show has been produced with care and lots of money” [16].


Other critics were less impressed. Percy Shain of The Boston Globe felt that the series was “too clumsily conceived and poorly developed to rate as an A-1 effort,” and Bob Williams of The New York Post suggested that “one may need something of a pointed head to get involved” [17]. The Houston Chronicle’s Ann Hodges called the premiere a “disappointingly bizarre hour” [18].


According to Jack Gould of The New York Times:

“‘Star Trek’ makes clear that life in space will probably be more traumatic than on earth. [...] The accent was less on the super-duper gadgetry usually associated with travel in the heavens than on astronautical soap opera that suffers from interminable flight drag. It was TV’s first psychodrama in orbit.” [19]
​

One of the worst reviews came from Mary Ann Lee, who wrote in The Memphis Press-Scimitar that Star Trek was “one of the biggest disappointments of the season. Producer Gene Roddenberry had promised a show that would be science fact, not bizarre fiction” [20].

From the same source as my previous post.

 

[JoeD80]

But I imagine the recent introduction of colour broadcast might play into the lack of initial success with the Original Series.

No, that plays in to it getting higher ratings then it would have otherwise. Star Trek was the #1 rated show for color television sets. The networks were pushing color right around the time Star Trek came around. NBC was the first network to have all of its shows in color. Star Trek did very well initially in that respect; just that overall averaged the ratings ended up low, and Nielsen paid more attention to the overall numbers in those days instead of looking at specific groups.

 

[Ryan Thomas Riddle]

Critics were not very positive on the show.

Source? The only retro reviews I've read from critics at the time were all positive.

The first TV Guide review wasn't too kind on the series as it reviewed the weakest of the first batch of episodes, "The Man Trap," and the first aired on September 8, 1966.

IIRC, the review is reprinted in Inside Star Trek by Solow and Justman. And I'd have to agree with TV Guide's initial impression based on that episode. After being touted as the "first adult space drama," the series kicked off with a monster show that appeared more for kiddies than grups.

 

[Bara Khuda]

I'm not sure why Man Trap is disliked by so many. We learned a lot about many of the crew, like Sulu, who in later appearances seemed to get less dialogue. Interesting, tense dialogue throughout. Tension between Spock & Uhura. It had great Kirk-Bones abrasiveness & tension, you can almost feel how uncomfortable it is when Kirk berates McCoy for musing over Nancy. McCoy unknowingly being lured into an affair with the creature, forced to kill what he had thought was his girlfriend, great otherworldly ambience, and thought provoking: imagine what it was like for Crater to be living with the Salt Vampire for "a year...or was it two?"

In my opinion, Operation Annihilate and Obsession were "weak monster" episodes nowhere near as good as Man Trap. TV Guide criticized Kirk's acting; in all honesty it was one the finest examples of acting in the history of TV. I wonder if TV guide criticized the acting in "Nightmare at 20,000 ft."

 

[Captain Randy Hall]

This is a companion thread to "Fans, why do you like TOS." But I don't want to risk derailing that subject.

And so here I'm asking: as fans why do you think TOS couldn't succeed ratings wise initially? Why did TOS not connect until after it went out of production?

Like one of those companions on Doctor Who? Great, just don't let them scream every five minutes.

Star Trek was pretty simply ahead of its time. It was the beginning of color TV, and the show was supposed to play on that with colorful costumes and the like. There had been many science-fiction shows (Twilight Zone, Outer Limits), but they didn't have a positive vision of the future.

So they cancelled Trek and it fell into the gorge of syndicated TV, in which the companies that owned previously hit shows could wring a few more cents out of them.

But to everyone's surprise, Trek thrived in syndication. Yeah, it was all over the place on any channel's schedule, but the people who liked Trek sought it out and watched it many times. Then came The Motion Picture and The Wrath of Khan, and things went along pretty well until we hit Nemesis and Enterprise. Call it what you will, but the audience wasn't there for those Treks.

Was it a masterful selection of actors for the characters? Was it Gene Roddenberry's vision of the future? Was it great writing and directing?

The simple answer is "Yes" and the combination of all those factors helped boost Trek from just another syndicated show to a worldwide phenomenon.

I know some folks like to say Trek would have been better if the first show was Next Gen or DS9, but that's all guessing. What do know is that Classic Trek, imperfections and all, started something that will definitely live long and prosper.

 

[pookha]

This is a companion thread to "Fans, why do you like TOS." But I don't want to risk derailing that subject.

And so here I'm asking: as fans why do you think TOS couldn't succeed ratings wise initially? Why did TOS not connect until after it went out of production?

the problem was it did well in what soon would the driving criteria more so
then just numbers of people.
it did great in demographics but that realization came along to late.

but the basic number thing is it was science fiction.
back then science fiction just wasnt that cool to most people.

 

[Warped9]

When I was watching TOS initially in the early '70s there was also a lot of other sci-fi on at the time. I do recall some general comments from some folks at that time they thought TOS was too fantastical and even too serious for their tastes.

Go figure.