Why do people keep repeating this uncritically as if it were gospel? I posted to a study above that shows this belief to be rather exaggerated. Just wanting it to have been true doesn't make it so.
Fans, why no initial success?
- Thread starter Warped9
- Start date
At the same time SF on TV (and sometimes film) were seen as something for kids. Anthology shows like "Twilght Zone" seemed to get a pass because of the lack of spaceships and rayguns on a regular basis. While Star Trek appealed to kids, teens and young adults, I think Gene, the network and the studio were hoping for the adult audience too. Star Trek's time slots moves didn't help with the audience it had or gain the audience it needed.
Star Trek failed because it was weird - Trekkies were persecuted because we were weird. It was a match made in heaven.
I hate to go batshit in here, but lets have a look at the shows scheduled during these seasons:
1966: The Andy Griffith Show, My Three Sons, Walt Disney, Combat!, The Beverly Hillbillies, Petticoat Junction, The Lucy Show, Bewitched. Daniel Boone, Flipper, Gilligans Island, Gomer Pyle, Get Smart, Green Acres, Hogan's Heroes, I Dream of Jeannie, Lost In Space, Batman, Man From Uncle
1967: My Three Sons, The Andy Griffith Show, Walt Disney, The Beverly Hillbillies, The Lucy Show, Petticoat Junction, Daniel Boone, Bewitched, Gomer Pyle, Green Acres, Lost In Space, Get Smart, Hogan's Heroes, I Dream of Jeannie, Batman,That Girl, Family Affair, The Monkees, Mission Impossible, Man From Uncle, Dragnet
1968: The Andy Griffith Show, Mannix, Ironside, The Flying Nun, The Carol Burnett Show, Mission Impossible, That Girl, Family Affair, I Dream of Jeannie, Hogans Heroes, Get Smart, Green Acres, Gomer Pyle, Daniel Boone, Bewitched, Petticoat Junction, The Beverly Hillbillies, My Three Sons, The Monkees, Man From Uncle, Adam 12, Dragnet
I may have missed one or two there per season, but nothing on the whole.
Star Trek was scheduled to die trhe same year that Lost in Space did - just as in 1970, all of the Hillbilly shows were simultaniously axed, and later The Munsters and Addams Family were killed together. There was - and perhaps still is - a belief in the industry that genres have a lifespan. You notice the cop cycle creeping back in starting with the reboot of Dragnnet in '67...
But beyond that, "Star Trek" was an odd duck in the pond. Lost in Space, especially by this time, was undeniably a kiddy show - the Robot/kid/Dr.Smith trio was in play - and I've never known someone into the genre that would lump the two series together.
Which is bad for Star Trek.
All of the fantasy series running at the time were "fun" - I Dream of Jeannie, Bewitched, The Flying Nun; shows like Man From Uncle and Mission Impossible were riding the James Bond franchise coattails. Star Trek was every bit as weird as Lost in Space... but it wanted to be taken seriously. As seriously as Man from UNCLE and Mission Impossible, at least - and the only other "serious" shows running were the detective and cop shows. Mom and Dad were watching other things on the Philco - especially at ten at night, during the third season. "Star Trek" was a weird show. It is almost logical that it was cancelled. But the fanbase - as this BBS proves in post after post - is far from logical.
It will be difficult to spin this particular topic across the rest of the franchise in an equal sense - "Why did the ratings slide" is not the same question, since it was TOS that established the brand, and did so for the most part after its cancellation while it was not on the air first-run. TOS was oddball. And so are we.
I hate to go batshit in here, but lets have a look at the shows scheduled during these seasons:
1966: The Andy Griffith Show, My Three Sons, Walt Disney, Combat!, The Beverly Hillbillies, Petticoat Junction, The Lucy Show, Bewitched. Daniel Boone, Flipper, Gilligans Island, Gomer Pyle, Get Smart, Green Acres, Hogan's Heroes, I Dream of Jeannie, Lost In Space, Batman, Man From Uncle
1967: My Three Sons, The Andy Griffith Show, Walt Disney, The Beverly Hillbillies, The Lucy Show, Petticoat Junction, Daniel Boone, Bewitched, Gomer Pyle, Green Acres, Lost In Space, Get Smart, Hogan's Heroes, I Dream of Jeannie, Batman,That Girl, Family Affair, The Monkees, Mission Impossible, Man From Uncle, Dragnet
1968: The Andy Griffith Show, Mannix, Ironside, The Flying Nun, The Carol Burnett Show, Mission Impossible, That Girl, Family Affair, I Dream of Jeannie, Hogans Heroes, Get Smart, Green Acres, Gomer Pyle, Daniel Boone, Bewitched, Petticoat Junction, The Beverly Hillbillies, My Three Sons, The Monkees, Man From Uncle, Adam 12, Dragnet
I may have missed one or two there per season, but nothing on the whole.
Star Trek was scheduled to die trhe same year that Lost in Space did - just as in 1970, all of the Hillbilly shows were simultaniously axed, and later The Munsters and Addams Family were killed together. There was - and perhaps still is - a belief in the industry that genres have a lifespan. You notice the cop cycle creeping back in starting with the reboot of Dragnnet in '67...
But beyond that, "Star Trek" was an odd duck in the pond. Lost in Space, especially by this time, was undeniably a kiddy show - the Robot/kid/Dr.Smith trio was in play - and I've never known someone into the genre that would lump the two series together.
Which is bad for Star Trek.
All of the fantasy series running at the time were "fun" - I Dream of Jeannie, Bewitched, The Flying Nun; shows like Man From Uncle and Mission Impossible were riding the James Bond franchise coattails. Star Trek was every bit as weird as Lost in Space... but it wanted to be taken seriously. As seriously as Man from UNCLE and Mission Impossible, at least - and the only other "serious" shows running were the detective and cop shows. Mom and Dad were watching other things on the Philco - especially at ten at night, during the third season. "Star Trek" was a weird show. It is almost logical that it was cancelled. But the fanbase - as this BBS proves in post after post - is far from logical.
It will be difficult to spin this particular topic across the rest of the franchise in an equal sense - "Why did the ratings slide" is not the same question, since it was TOS that established the brand, and did so for the most part after its cancellation while it was not on the air first-run. TOS was oddball. And so are we.
I don't think anyone's yet mentioned one important factor: the televising of the July 1969 moon landing (just as the original series was wrapping up it's network run), which kindled the public's interest in space exploration and made the show seem more plausible and understandable to the average viewer. This I believe aided the syndication success of the series.
Nice cherry-picking. The entire quotation reveals a rather different take.
This puts it in context.
The underlined and italicized FULL statement shows that Bewitched had more young adult viewers than Trek. More importantly, the advantage Trek had was at "the start of the show's run; ratings fell every season". Trek started with a marginal advantage in the "holy demographic" but could not hold it.
I love Trek (I like all of it, unlike many others at this BBS). But facts are facts. Trek's ratings were not very good overall (in a far less fractured broadcast world than today) and the vaunted "well, if only they checked demographics" argument is shot to pieces by the fact that A) demographics actually WERE analyzed--contrary to what many seem to think, B) those demographics revealed a far smaller advantage than the "true believers" think and C) that marginal advantage did not maintain itself over the show's run.
I wasn't the one making the original argument, I am just trying to clear up the misunderstanding of how the Nielsen demographics are measured. "Good demographcs" refers to the percentage not the absolute. Thus, "low ratings" (absolute) "larger percentage" (percentage = percentage) as I said above. Is the argument here that 37% of an audience (Bewitched) is a better demographic rating than 43% of an audience (Star Trek)? Because it's not. Demographic ratings don't deal in absolute numbers of people, they deal in percentages. If a show only had 10,000,000 total viewers back then but about 75% of them were 18-49 year olds, that would be considered a clear winner in demographics.
Last edited:
trevanian
Rear Admiral
In case I haven't repeated it lately, the moon landing KILLED public interest in space and science fiction, it didn't enhance it. I was 9 and couldn't believe how everybody was like, okay that is over, forget space, which is pretty much what happened.
And numbers killed TOS; the 20 million viewer numbers needed to make a hit network show in the 60s (and probably close to that inthe 80s for that matter) were far greater than any trek show ever pulled in. ModernTrek worked because it was in syndication; if trek had come back on a network in the 80s, it would have tanked (and not only that, it would have gotten cancelled before it got its sealegs, because you don't get three years to figure your show out on a network, like TNG and DS9 to a lesser degree needed.)
You're still missing the point. Trek had a marginally better "demographic" spread with its FIRST FOUR EPISODES. That lead evaporated over time and was not maintained long enough to be meaningful. Or was my statement:
not clear enough. You can try to spin it however you want--the facts are clear. Trek's supposed "demographic advantage" was ephemeral and never significant enough to matter re: cancellation.
And yet in the midst of all those horrible negative reviews and Trekker persecution, Leonard Nimoy won an Emmy for playing Spock.
That's a great point.
I'm afraid to think though where the episode quality levels would have been though by midway through a 4th season
Canning it after three probably helped keep its reputation intact.
He won an Emmy, did he? How about pulling up a reference on that win. That must have been in the Abramsverse. Put your facts where your sarcasm is, Hober - show us what you've got...
If you mean nominated, in the category of "Outstanding Continued Performance By an Actor in a Supporting Role in a Series," he was nominated and lost, three times.
In 1966, Eli Wallach won, for a single episode Xerox Special - "The Poppy Is Also a Flower." There was no series winner that year. Wallach was not in a continuing series as such - he was in an episode of a playhouse-type TV anthology.
In 1967, his bid was lost to Milburn Stone, "Doc Adams" on Gunsmoke
In 1968, the dramatic and comedy supporting roles were combined. Nimoy lost to the bravura performance of Werner Klemperer, in his turn as Colonel Klink. "Ho - Gannnn!" The award separated into two categories again - drama and comedy - the following year.
Still, obviously, to lose to Colonel Klink in a curiously combined award and to Eli Wallach in a category ordinarily reserved for ongoing series actors is a great honor, and proves conclusively that TOS was the highest honored TV show in the history of TV.
Last edited:
Yes, I did indeed mean nominated. Doesn't exactly jibe with the idea some in this thread seem to have that Trek was so new and different that it and fans were ostricized.
Hober, no insult intended, but were you Around to observe the period of the late sixties-late seventies? Some of us were - and we know what went on. I know I earned some schoolyard bruises for being a "Star Trek Freak." I know a lot of others who did too.
Amazing, this Abramsuniverse - things that did happen really didn't, and things that didn't happen actually did.
The whole thing has nothing to do with "New and Different." It has to do with Weird. Odd. Unusual. Pre-Goth/Vampire/Cos-play America in the sixties and seventies was not a time you want to experience if you're not normal. Or white. Or a "N*****lover." Or a "Hippie." The nail that stood up pretty much got hammered down. Have a look at "Adam-12" if you want to see what the mold was supposed to look like.
"Star Wars" relieved some pressure - but then, the initial generation were aging off into maturity. We only got the "Get A Life" Shatner SNL mold at that point. If that happened in this new timeline...
You keep bring up Abrams. What's with the obsession? Is that what you really want to talk about?
And yet, back at a time you say Trek was less mainstreamed, a Star Trek actor got an emmy nomination, something that never happened with the modern Trek series. (Not that much of the acting quality warranted it, mind you, but Patrick Stewart should have at least gotten a nod the year TNG was nominated for a drama emmy.) Television doesn't get any more mainstreamed than the emmies.
Oh, he didn't win? He only got nominated three times? Well, that's different, then...
There you go with your "new timeline" thing again.
I'm sorry - was there an answer about whether you were alive in the late sixties? Early seventies? Mid-seventies?
Late seventies?
Are you channeling Criswell? Did Cavemen really ride dinosaurs, and bop women on the head to marry them? From where is your expertise on this time period?
While we wait on that one, this could be useful; not to knock Nimoy, but the late sixties weren't real big on drama. I wish I could find an actual list of the nominees for those years, because Nimoy got gypped two out of the three after nomination. In both 66 and 68, the Emmy for his category was bent backwards to avoid him. (Not neccessarily for that reason, but still - for no apparent reason, the 68 supporting male award was combined for drama and comedy? What the hell...?)
In '66, "Mission Impossible" was the only other show to debut that one could label as a "drama." Of the remainder from the whole of the sixties, they had... "Flipper?" "Daniel Boone" and "Combat." "My Three Sons," I guess...
Sixties, no. Seventies, yes. Do I win something?
And this is a coherent response to my pointing out Nimoy was nominated for Trek? Hell, I can't find a coherent point in this passage at all. I pointed out Nimoy's nomination. Are you saying that didn't happen?
You also forgot to bring up Abrams.
Flipper deserved an acting emmy. Much better than that phoney baloney Mr. Ed.
Similar threads
- Locked
