TOS 3rd Season:Who's To Blame???

[Captain Tracy]

Very cool and very clear CHRISTOPHER, thank you again. This title of 'Showrunner' as the Honcho in the Writer's Room must be the 'Dream Job' for creative-types.

So let's see if I have this down yet, so after GR 'jumped ship' as it were, Gene Coon would then be the guy who not only approved sets, costumes, et al, and made sure everything meet the shooting schedule, but also had the 'Red Grease Pencil' to catch anything appearing on a script which did not jibe with continuity, premise, budget, capabilities, or simply disagreed with what he had for lunch that day,... and was ultimately responsible for the rocket launching from the pad on a regular and profitable basis. Yes? If so, sounds like an ulcer in the making to me! LOL!

I'd rather be in the Writer's Room LOL!

Interesting you brought up how the 'Room Driven' show was not the popular working model in mid-sixties Hollywood. That would explain the multiplicity of the variations in feels we experienced in Character, Dialog, Pace, and Presentation Styles ( I think you labeled this 'Voice'),...

You know, with such a new format as Star Trek was, and with all the premises being submitted from Freelancers, working out of their own heads from who-knows-where, and script assignments being given to premise writers who may only have had a cursory understanding of GR's vision for the show,... it is actually amazing that we recognized the recurring cast at all during the first 12 episodes!

And, although a 'committee' is usually a notoriously in-efficient organism, I do not see how a show like Star Trek could really be done any other way, unless written by one person,.. or a hive mentality, but I guess that is what the 'Writer's Room' is LOL!

 

[Christopher]

So let's see if I have this down yet, so after GR 'jumped ship' as it were, Gene Coon would then be the guy who not only approved sets, costumes, et al, and made sure everything meet the shooting schedule, but also had the 'Red Grease Pencil' to catch anything appearing on a script which did not jibe with continuity, premise, budget, capabilities, or simply disagreed with what he had for lunch that day,... and was ultimately responsible for the rocket launching from the pad on a regular and profitable basis. Yes?

No, because Coon left before the end of the second season, and because he was mainly a writing producer. I think the delineation between writing and logistical producers was less clear at the time than it's become today, so most of the stuff you're talking about would've technically been Roddenberry's purview in seasons 1-2, Fred Freiberger's in season 3. However, the person who probably deserves the most credit for the logistical side of things in all three seasons was Bob Justman. He was credited as Associate Producer in the first two seasons and Co-Producer in season 3, but he was pretty much the de facto line producer in the modern sense.

Interesting you brought up how the 'Room Driven' show was not the popular working model in mid-sixties Hollywood. That would explain the multiplicity of the variations in feels we experienced in Character, Dialog, Pace, and Presentation Styles ( I think you labeled this 'Voice'),...

Well, a lot of shows were still heavily driven by their head producers/writers (particularly something like The Twilight Zone, which was overwhelmingly the work of Rod Serling), but a writing staff was generally more like one or two producers and a story editor along with various freelancers, rather than the bigger permanent staffs we have today. The number of producers, executive producers, co-producers, associate producers, etc. has gone up enormously in the interim. Most shows in the '60s would have one executive producer, one producer, one associate producer, one story editor. These days a typical show has 6-8 writer-producers of various ranks and various line producers and such. Terra Nova has a mindboggling nineteen (although the majority of them are the kind of executive producers who just provide funding, and maybe only 6-7 are writers).

 

[jayrath]

A better question would be, "Whom to credit?" for the fine episodes that did make their way through, despite Desilu's merging with Paramount, deep slashes to the budget, an absent executive producer, and so on. Meanwhile, everyone was trying to figure out stories that would boost the ratings, so that the series wouldn't be cancelled. Even so, they never went for the lowest common denominator in the audience. Even when stories were bad, they weren't pandering.

Let's not go for simplistic blaming, people. And let's not generalize.

 

[Ssosmcin]

One of the most dramatic one which did do this was 'Voyage To The Bottom of The Sea', which, as I am sure 99% of you know, started out as a B&W cold-war para-military spy show, and then morphed right into a colorized 'Lost in Space' under the water

To be fair to Voyage, it wasn't quite that quick. The entire first season was very serious and, after a time, the episodes became very dry (pun intended) and even a bit dull. When they went to color, the whole show got a facelift. Full color, new costumes for the sailors, new revamped sets and sub model, and of course, the Flying Sub. The music was louder, the action quicker and overall, the series became lighter (the series went into their earlier 7 pm timeslot where they would remain for the rest of the run). It became, in essence, an underwater Man from UNCLE. About halfway into the season, spies were wearing thin on the series and the show became a lot more sci-fi oriented. Monsters and supernatural enemies also joined up in force. But overall, the second season of Voyage was really good fun with some excellent episodes and great performances.

Season three, however, was a nightmare. Everything got weird, not even Lost in Space silly, because LIS actually became a comedy and Jonathan Harris's performances reflected that. Everyone on Voyage played it all straight. I hate to use the term, but it really just got campy with everyone taking the stupidest threats far too seriously.

Season four tried to improve, but it didn't really, and the series petered out. It, ironically, mirrored the evolution of Man from UNCLE.

Sorry I derailed a bit, but I love Voyage. It's my favorite show after Trek and its first two seasons were really great.

 

[Captain Tracy]

SSOSMCIN -

Ooopps! Oh, I didn't mean to unfairly slam VTTBOTS , I was just tossed it up as an illustrative example of a show which started out in one 'VOICE', as CHRISTOPHER says, and then after the 1st season, found a very different VOICE indeed.

Although the juxtaposition was very dramatic, VTTBOTTS, once it founds its new 'Voice', did not suffer the mild schizophrenia that TOS was intermittently afflicted with.

You are of course correct in your assessment of VTTBOTTS; I was just generalizing to avoid becoming diffuse with my examples while stating my question.

Sorry about that mate, my apologies to Admiral Nelson and the entire crew of S.S.N.R. Seaview.

Carry-on. LOL!


JAYRATH -

Correct you are about focusing on the positive rather than the negative,.... however human-nature being what it is,....

Although when a thing breaks down, in order to ascertain the possible causation(s), one must, by default, look for the potential 'villains'.

I would say you are also quite correct in that in the 3rd season, TOS TRIED to present not just quality material, but moreover, as you say, shows which might boost its ratings.

However, where I am most puzzled, and I will refer back to my earlier example (generalized as it may be, as they had their own 'stinkers' too) of 'The Twilight Zone' being able to deliver potent shows based around two characters sitting in a luncheonette counter, or two characters (or three with the interloper cameo) playing pool.


CHRISTOPHER-

That's actually very illuminating what you are relating regarding SERLING; as I then have to infer that, although the writers were always properly credited - and there were MANY - the production model on that show would still be STERLING putting in many late nights, possibly alone, shaping the scripts into shooting drafts through his control, reflecting his vision for how his show was 'Voiced'.

If that was the case, that's says a hell of a lot about SERLING as a writer, a TV producer, and a man.

 

[Christopher]

Well, since TZ was an anthology show, Serling probably didn't do too much rewriting of the other authors' scripts. You can definitely hear the different writers' distinct voices in their respective episodes. And certainly Charles Beaumont and Richard Matheson deserve full credit as two of the three most prolific writers for the show, even though -- and this is what illuminates the difference between '60s TV and modern TV -- they were never officially on its staff. But Serling wrote far more episodes than anyone else.

 

[Captain Robert April]

Star Trek was billed as an action/adventure show, so while having Kirk and some superintelligent alien demigod debating morals around a pool table might make for some great drama, it wouldn't even be in the same ballpark as "action/adventure", thus making some folks, like the studio execs at Paramount (who were already hopelessly confused to begin with), rather irate.

As a wise man once said, when you're walking on eggshells, don't hop.

 

[Captain Tracy]

CAPT APRIL,

Good point, however, wasn't the premise of TREK constructed and billed as a dramatic format, and it was through the 'morphing' process became Action/Adventure by default????

 

[Christopher]

I think TOS was always primarily a drama, albeit with a fair amount of action included. Even in the third season, there were episodes driven more by personal conflict and drama than action -- like "Requiem for Methuselah," where the only bits of action were a couple of brief fakeout robot attacks and a tacked-on fistfight at the end.

 

[Captain Tracy]

CHRISTOPHER - I think you are 100% correct - you would probably know better than I - but I thought GR's sold TREK as a DRAMA to the Network, and had it in his outline as such 'with forays into other genres'; such as Action/Adventure, Mystery, and so forth ????

 

[Christopher]

Didn't I just say it was always primarily a drama?

Although in fact, what he said on page 1 of the series pitch was:

STAR TREK is. . .

A one-hour dramatic television series.

Action - adventure -science fiction.

So he was saying it was both drama and action-adventure. On page 3 he uses the term "action-adventure-drama" to describe it.

But that was just the sales pitch. He then went on to make a pilot that, although containing several action set pieces, was regarded "too cerebral" by the network. Whatever he pitched, his priority was drama.

 

[Captain Tracy]

Actually you said, you Thought it was, not being definite.

In any event, again, thanks for the well supported answer.

 

[diankra]

It's the showrunner who defines a show's identity and direction, who makes all the final decisions about the stories and rewrites all the scripts to give them a consistent voice and style. So naturally, if a showrunner leaves and is replaced, the voice of the show will change, just as if a role is recast with a different actor. TOS's third season changed because Roddenberry wasn't supervising the writing anymore, and most of the producers and story editors from earlier seasons were no longer on staff.

And TOS changed noticeably over seasons 1 & 2 as the three showrunners came and went.
Gene Roddenberry's first 16 episodes have a very different feel to the 13 at the end of season 1 and 16-odd in season 2 that Gene Coon produced (for a start, it's in Coon's episodes that the Enterprise moves from feeling like a vessel of 400-odd people with an onboard community to one with a bridge crew of seven, a guest star and some redshirts).
Coon's episodes, IMHO, do a much better job of balancing the serious SF concepts with accessible space adventure than Roddenberry's, which is why so many of the usual suspects on Top 10 lists come from his era.
Then at the tail end of season 2, John Meredyth Lucas takes the series is a far more pulp SF direction (Planet of the Nazis! Planet of the gangsters! Planet Rome!), but one that's generally immense fun. And then we get season 3, with all its outside problems... which raises a question - Chris, you mentioned that John Meredyth Lucas wasn't asked back. Anyone ever hear why?

 

[Captain Robert April]

Lucas was the line producer when the Paramount merger finally took full effect. It's possible he saw the writing on the wall regarding what it was going to be like dealing with the new pinheads in charge of the place.

 

[plynch]

When Lucas took over in S2, wouldn't his eps already have been in the pipeline so to speak? I suspect Justman/Coon are pretty darned responsible for S2. Someone more knowledgable about the timeline from story approval to filming, chime in.

 

[diankra]

When Lucas took over in S2, wouldn't his eps already have been in the pipeline so to speak? I suspect Justman/Coon are pretty darned responsible for S2. Someone more knowledgable about the timeline from story approval to filming, chime in.

Not necessarily, given that NBC had only picked up the show with a guarantee of 16 episodes: a budget conscious producer wouldn't have wasted money on stuff he might not have been able to produce (and ISTR that the Solow/Justman book explains with memos how NBC were so late on picking up the back half of season two that they almost had to shut down production for a week for lack of useable scripts. As it was, the pick up was so late they lost one of the 'staff' directors who'd alternated on the first half of season two, as he'd taken another job, which was a great loss).
But yes, there would be stuff in the cupboard. It's noticeable that Lucas's time includes a lot of scripts (like The Omega Glory) or concepts (like Bread and Circuses*) that had been around since the start of season one, but had never been produced until now... saving money (or time?) by using stuff that was already half paid for? Perhaps...

*Sorry, correction: Bread and Circuses was actually produced by Gene Coon, but held back until almost season's end. I have a vague feeling that it might have been pre-empted from its original airdate by sport or news.

 

[plynch]

Thanks.

I like S3 just a bit over S2 - as I probably explained upstream - because of S2's becoming a bit too ordinary (planet of the week) and and too much purported comedy. I first read here that FF ditched the "comedy," and I am grateful.

 

[Captain Tracy]

PLYNCH - It's interesting what you say about leaning more towards an appreciation of S3 over that of S2 and your reasoning behind your feelings.

Surprisingly, I too am finding that I - perhaps as I grow ever older - am beginning to appreciate S3 more and more - mentally by-passing the well-documented not-so-great-elements - and at the same time, find less and less impressiveness with those S2 shows I once though as 'must watch' material,... and for the exact same reasons you cite.

When watching many of the 'worst of S3', I find myself focusing more on the writers intentions, concepts, and imagination,... and that makes some of those 'classic stinkers' really enjoyable!

Anyway, I really appreciated your post, as you summed up so well, what I have been feeling of late.

Thanks.

 

[plynch]

I appreciate also the weirdness of S3: Empath, Spectre, Truth, even Eden; S2 has kind of an ordinariness-rut. Thanks for your feedback.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

I appreciate also the weirdness of S3: Empath, Spectre, Truth, even Eden; S2 has kind of an ordinariness-rut. Thanks for your feedback.

This is a good point.

I think the good episodes of S2 are - well - really, really good; most of my favorites come from S2. Most of the rest of my favorites come from S1, and only a few come from S3.

But you are definitely right that the weirdness of S3 counts for something original, is the best word I can come up with right now. This makes these episodes more interesting than the by-the-numbers bore-fests of S2.