What if TOS was like TMP?

[Crewman47]

Just thinking earlier but if the budget had been different what if TOS had started off in 1966 with the same or similar visuals and FX (in a 60's take of them of course) as what we got in TMP even down to the way the characters were would it still have been watched and accepted by the same fans or would it have attracted different types of fans?

How do you think you would have felt if you saw that way if watching it for the first time?

 

[Shazam!]

That's what TOS was isn't it?

 

[Hambone]

It wouldn't have sold many color TV's for RCA.

 

[Nerys Myk]

They called it "The Cage".

 

[plynch]

They called it "The Cage".

Yup. Too "cerebral" for NBC, in spite of a fight with a giant. So TMP was one more chance for GR to do Trek more how he had wanted. Too bad they went so overbudget on it.

 

[Basil]

Fans, I don't know, but it would've been an even bigger yawn for mass audiences than TMP. People liked the technicolor look in those days, and some of us still do.

 

[SonicRanger]

They called it "The Cage".

Exactly what I was going to say. It was like TMP before it became like TOS.

 

[TigerOfDarkness]

There are a lot of parallels, but The Cage was a much better episode (IMHO) though.

 

[Bones]

1/ Star Trek was one of the most expensive series at the time. They had plenty of budget and did the best they could given the technology at the time, and the money they had to spend.

2/ The technology from the 50's thru the 60's were capable of creating great special effects (check out Forbidden Planet and 2001: A Space Odyssey). These were done on movie budgets. It isn't realistic to expect a television show to have this level of funding.

3/ Most televisions at the time had significantly poorer resolution than today. People would not have been able to discern and appreciate significantly improved special effects.


3/ In TMP the characterizations are way off. Kirk was a dork. He is certainly not the inspiring "Risk is our business" leader from TOS. Spock was unusally grating and rude in his interactions with the crew. In TOS he was logical, generally unemotional, and sometimes brief with the crew, but never callous and overtly rude.

So in other words:

The studio could have spent a lot of extra $$$ on special effects the audience would not have been able to appreciate. This does not make sense from a business perspective.

The characterizations of Our Heros were significantly off in TMP. For this reason I doubt Star Trek would have been appreciated by the fan base who came to know and love TOS.

 

[Hambone]

3/ In TMP the characterizations are way off. Kirk was a dork. He is certainly not the inspiring "Risk is our business" leader from TOS. Spock was unusally grating and rude in his interactions with the crew. In TOS he was logical, generally unemotional, and sometimes brief with the crew, but never callous and overtly rude.

I think the idea here is, Our Heroes had been away from their jobs so long that they were out of practice. Kirk had been behind the desk and Spock had been off on Vulcan trying to purge his emotions, and it took them a while (about 2-1/2 hours ) to get "back in the saddle". By the end of the movie, Kirk is sure of himself again and Spock's no longer a dick.

 

[Brutal Strudel]

They called it "The Cage".

You took the words right out of my keyboard!

 

[Brutal Strudel]

3/ In TMP the characterizations are way off. Kirk was a dork. He is certainly not the inspiring "Risk is our business" leader from TOS. Spock was unusally grating and rude in his interactions with the crew. In TOS he was logical, generally unemotional, and sometimes brief with the crew, but never callous and overtly rude.

I think the idea here is, Our Heroes had been away from their jobs so long that they were out of practice. Kirk had been behind the desk and Spock had been off on Vulcan trying to purge his emotions, and it took them a while (about 2-1/2 hours ) to get "back in the saddle". By the end of the movie, Kirk is sure of himself again and Spock's no longer a dick.

What's that thing Ellison likes to quote about the human heart in conflict with itself? That's what we see in TMP--the human, Vulcan and machine heart in conflict with itself. The major players in TMP--Kirk, Spock, Decker and especially Vejur--are simultaneously drawn to and running from the very thing he/it needs most. Kirk accepted promotion when he's known since "The Naked Time" that there can never be a life for him without the Enterprise, Spock tries to purge his human half when the two most important relationships in his life--his "true loves"--were his mother and Kirk (Edith pegged it, Spock--no getting away), Decker ran from the woman he loved more than anything in the universe and tried to make himself into a copy of his father and his benefactor (Kirk again) and Vejur "knows" all along that it is the "simple feeling" of carbon units it needs to become complete--of all the people on the bridge, it takes the most sensual and pointedly leaves her tricorder (the sudden silence and return to regular light, punctuated by the clatter of the tricorder as it falls to the deck is one of my favorite moments in all of Trek). In the end, they all accept who they are and what they need.

 

[Bones]

3/ In TMP the characterizations are way off. Kirk was a dork. He is certainly not the inspiring "Risk is our business" leader from TOS. Spock was unusally grating and rude in his interactions with the crew. In TOS he was logical, generally unemotional, and sometimes brief with the crew, but never callous and overtly rude.

I think the idea here is, Our Heroes had been away from their jobs so long that they were out of practice. Kirk had been behind the desk and Spock had been off on Vulcan trying to purge his emotions, and it took them a while (about 2-1/2 hours ) to get "back in the saddle". By the end of the movie, Kirk is sure of himself again and Spock's no longer a dick.

I think the OP was wondering how TOS would have fared if the characters behaved like they did in TMP. I agree that they spend the first 2 1/2 being hours out of practice (and about 5 1/2 minutes behaving like we'd been accustomed to in TOS).

 

[EEE]

In TMP the characterizations are way off. Kirk was a dork.

Superheroes are never "dorks." They may appear to be, but never are "dorks." (it's in the TV rulebook, the rule number escapes me at the moment, as I lent the rulebook out)

Spock was unusally grating and rude in his interactions with the crew. In TOS he was logical, generally unemotional, and sometimes brief with the crew, but never callous and overtly rude.

Bet McCoy would have a differing opinion.

 

[Chrisisall]

Just thinking earlier but if the budget had been different what if TOS had started off in 1966 with the same or similar visuals and FX (in a 60's take of them of course) as what we got in TMP

Crewman, you are obviously too young to remember, but back in the day, TOS had state-of-the-art optical FX that truly outstripped all other TV of the period (save for the practical model work by LB Abbott in Irwin Allen shows).
It was the network that killed it; slashed budget & alienating Roddenberry resulted in a lackluster 3rd season- that in combination with stories too complex for American audiences in need of simplistic good vs. bad storytelling.
Trek was just too far ahead of it's time. Once the Vietnam war was done, syndication introduced it to a new, younger & brighter audience that yearned for questions, not just answers. We wanted to think, not just react.
That time is upon us again, hence the resurgence.

 

[Vance]

Chris, the network didn't kill it, as it were, in the sense you were talking about... unfortunately the show was killed for a lot of 'behind the scenes' reasons, with Roddenberry's own antics finally having him 'accepting resignation'. (A point driven home recently by a lot of NBC and Desilu's records coming out.)

Trek had gotten a huge first-run budget but only got second-tier ratings. They weren't as bad as believed, but they didn't warrant the budget, or, more imporantly, all the other 'producer-related' issues going on. They tried to 'revive' the show a bit for third season, but the blood was so bad already with staff members that the network gave up and let the show go.

Interesting note, the first batch of S4 episodes were written and some pre-production work was done... probably one of the bigger questions out there should be 'what if S4 had actually gotten made?'

 

[Chrisisall]

Trek had gotten a huge first-run budget but only got second-tier ratings. They weren't as bad as believed, but they didn't warrant the budget, or, more imporantly, all the other 'producer-related' issues going on.

So, lack of foresight as to what they had & what they could capitalize on later was a good reason to antagonize the peeps who ran the series? I just love shooting MYSELF in the financial foot, why shouldn't "suits" in a company share the same lack of vision?

They tried to 'revive' the show a bit for third season, but the blood was so bad already with staff members that the network gave up and let the show go.

Bad blood only comes with BS Nazi-control over creative content IMO.

Interesting note, the first batch of S4 episodes were written and some pre-production work was done...

I'm actually completely unaware of that- do you have a link to such stuff? If so, I'd be really thankful (this last seentance is snark-free).

 

[RobertScorpio]

They called it "The Cage".

You took the words right out of my keyboard!

Yep..I totally agree. And, I for one, am glad they didn't continue on in the 'mood' of the Cage. Leonard Nimoy has often said that Shatner did bring the energy to the show that it was missing. Pike, who was more like Picard if you think about it, would have been too much like Spock; two brains on one bridge isn't good.

Kirk, the wild cowboy, Spock the logical vulcan..THAT was why it worked.

Rob

 

[Chrisisall]

Kirk, the wild cowboy, Spock the logical vulcan..THAT was why it worked.

Rodenberry wasn't a God, he, like so many creative types, needed excess within control. The Cage was great, but not for a series. Just like Ridley Scott needed the studio to "make" him soften Blade Runner with a narration, Gene needed to be coerced into balancing his characters.
The only failure of TMP is that he brought his brash young hero down too many pegs in the interest of making him more "human." Kirk had enough human weaknesses without making him an obsessive idiot. Don't get me wrong, I love TMP, but I have to overlook key moments to enjoy it fully.
"And I intend to keep her?" is one of them.

 

[Warped9]

Just thinking earlier but if the budget had been different what if TOS had started off in 1966 with the same or similar visuals and FX (in a 60's take of them of course) as what we got in TMP even down to the way the characters were would it still have been watched and accepted by the same fans or would it have attracted different types of fans?

How do you think you would have felt if you saw that way if watching it for the first time?

The problem is you're talking about two different periods with different aesthetic perpectives. Even if TOS had magically had access to feature film resources it still wouldn't have looked like TMP. Mind you I don't think it's that hard to envision what it could have looked like--I do it in my mind's eye all the time when I watch TOS. I think it would have looked much like it did only more fully finished and more detailed. Right off the E filming miniature would have been finished on both sides and more detail for dressing the sets would have been possible. Although I don't think it's necessary I understand that GR and MJ initially had some sort of lighting effect in mind for the nacelles when the ship was in warp--perhaps that would have been possible with more time and resources at hand.