Has Fred Freiberger been misblamed for Season 3 over the years?

[plynch]

And what exactly happened to two fed scientists? Did Gem not feel like saving them? Has she grown, through knowing our specific intrepid Three?

That was the idea. Gem learned self-sacrifice from their example. I guess Linke and Ozaba weren't as selflessly devoted to each other as Kirk, Spock, and McCoy were. She probably tried to help them, but wasn't able to overcome her self-preservation instinct enough to risk her life for it. Also, the Vians hadn't yet had Kirk come along to give them a good scolding, so they probably took their tortures too far, as they almost did with McCoy.

Pretty plausible. Another thing I like: Kirk doesn't go on and on. Makes the point. Vian still has some humanity it resonates with. Reminds me of the great scene in Jedi where Luke gets through to Darth as David Prowse turns his head just slightly. You can really imagine him going, "hmmm."

 

[Hober Mallow]

David Gerrold suggested that Roddenberry didn't like the comedy Coon was injecting into the series in an interview with the Mission Log podcast. He also claims that the serious tone in the third season was as much Roddenberry's choice as it was Freiberger's (although he also says that Freiberger didn't like 'The Trouble with Tribbles,' because he thought Star Trek wasn't a comedy). But, of course, Gerrold and Roddenberry had quite the falling out in the late '80s, so it's worth taking this with a grain of salt.

Is there anyone Roddenberry didn't have a falling out with at some point?

 

[Harvey]

That depends who you ask. Justman, for all his differences over Star Trek: The Next Generation, seemed to remain friends with Roddenberry until his death.

Nonetheless, Roddenberry certainly had many friendships that ended tumultuously.

Who knows if it's true, but Gerrold describes (second-hand, I believe) a time when someone found Roddenberry weeping alone in his office, wondering why all his friends had left him.

 

[MikeH92467]

I just watched the Empath. I felt like it was S1 in some ways: space is scary and weird. The episode is quirky, much like several other S3 eps. Not the rut of S2 parallel-planet-of-the-week.

I have learned earlier on the bbs that Mr. F was responsible for eliminating humor. Good! And yes, the "Chee-koov" style interludes with comedy-music cues seem gone. The Empath, however, ends with a Vulcan-dig-gag scene on the bridge, a trope I had apparently misnamed the Gene Coon Chuckle Scene earlier.

I like S3 fine though I admit its faults.

Very much agreed. The step away from somewhat forced humour was a welcome change in my book. I can only imagine what we might have had with this approach yet with the more consistent writing control of the previous seasons' better efforts.

"And The Children Shall Lead" is, in my view, TOS' nadir. Yet even in it I can see the core of a genuinely chilling creep out episode if only with some rewriting and smarter thinking of the ideas. And there are other 3rd season episodes that could have also benefit immeasurably from some sharper rewriting from a more seasoned eye.

I agree that "And The Children Shall Lead" could have potentially been a great episode or even a movie. They just did everything wrong. The children were too obviously obnoxious. The fears of the crew were badly done (in particular Uhura and Sulu). Kirk looked weak and ineffective.

But I agree that the idea was good.

That's been my thought about the season 3 clunkers all along. Seasons 1 and 2 had the safety net of a cohesive team of re-writers who knew what they wanted and what the show was really about. If you want to diss Freiberger you have to come up with some way to dismiss the really good episodes while blaming him for the bad ones and I don't think life is ever quite that simple.

As far as the Starlost is concerned I remember that it was quite dreadful although the germ of the idea was very workable. I also remember that one episode that involved the devolution of the main computer was very good. One standout episode in a series full of dreck doesn't say much, although I will say that it shows there was unrealized potential.

 

[ToddPence]

Just rewatched the end of the Empath. Very cool. Kirk dresses down the keepers. Main one looks like Kirk has gotten through to him. We read into his acting what we will. He fixes McCoy. Picks up Gem in his arms and says, "Farewell." They shrink away. You still don't know for sure Gem passed the test. And what exactly happened to two fed scientists? Did Gem not feel like saving them? Has she grown, through knowing our specific intrepid Three?

A question: you have a crazy powerful race gonna save one planet's worth of people. Wouldna the Enterprise like, stick around and watch that happen? But the editing and dialog sure imply they're just off to their next appointment. After, of course, making fun of Vulcans.

And what about the other planets in the system with sentinent life? Will they also get a chance to have a representative of theirs tested for self-sacrificing qualities? Or have they all already been tested and found wanting?
And why assume that every native of Gem's world has the same noble qualities that she has?

 

[Zaku]

And why assume that every native of Gem's world has the same noble qualities that she has?

Ehi, in Star Trek universe you can safely judge a whole race or culture by one person! (Arena docet!)

 

[Christopher]

I think the idea was that Gem's example proved her people were at least capable of learning self-sacrifice for the good of others -- which I suppose might be a necessary trait if they were to survive a rough transplantation process and the building of a new society, since many individuals would have to make sacrifices for the good of the whole in such a situation.

 

[Ssosmcin]

And what about the other planets in the system with sentinent life? Will they also get a chance to have a representative of theirs tested for self-sacrificing qualities? Or have they all already been tested and found wanting?

Maybe the others talked too much.

 

[Redfern]

Getting back to 1999, but not to diss it. While I could never buy into the nature of how the moon got flung into deep space, it made for some very evocative imagery. But how do you retain that "look" and yet have some "sliver" of plausibility in the overall concept? I've suggested the following in a few other threads and forums.

Don't have a conventional explosion tear the moon from its orbit. As stated by others earlier, that just won't work. Instead, have it be some sort of warp/jump/hyperdrive what have you kind of experiment gone horribly wrong. Yeah, yeah, I know, that DeviantArt piece with the space station set in 2099 presents the same basic idea. All I can say is that you will just have to trust me when I claim I considered a similar idea years BEFORE reading that piece. (No, I'm not claiming that artist used my idea. It's just one of those instances independent parallel thinking.) Chief difference, in my scenario, it's not just a space station that suffers the accident, but like the original concept, it's the whole freakin' moon.

Either the accident is caused by human technology and error, or, since the series was influenced considerably by Kubrick's iconic film "2001", take it that one step further and have it be alien technology humans have found upon the moon. Maybe that's the reason for the base, to analyze the artifacts, and somehow we "stupid apes" manage to activate it without being able to control it. The best the Alphans can do to is to notice certain patterns that serve as warnings when the thing starts up and shuts down, thus giving them the opportunity to explore using their own comparatively limited technology like the Eagles.

Eh, don't mind me; I'm just rambling.

Sincerely,

Bill

 

[Harvey]

Stargate: Universe managed to find a way to make the premise at least plausible (there's no silly moon explosion, and the ship goes into hyperdrive between star systems, but slows down when something is of interest -- which isn't that different than '99, except it comes with an explanation). Somehow, though, SGU it also imported all the empty mysticism, petty bickering, and parodic self-seriousness that has crippled what I've seen of '99's first season so far.

 

[Galileo7]

Year two of Space: 1999 was noticeably worse than year one, mainly due to the scripts. I'm not sure who exactly gets the blame for that, either, but it has to be traceable to some of the top people responsible, because it couldn't really happen by accident. That would include in Freiberger.

Yeah, you could say that being worse than year one was no easy task!

Space: 1999 was shit from the concept alone (the moon would not float away from Earth, it would crash into Earth) and was not that well-acted, no matter what Johnny Byrne or John Kenneth Muir think. Hopefully, if the proposed remake by ITV Studios gets off of the ground, the concept of the moon flying through space is replaced by a space station (or L-5 habitat) doing the same thing, as shown in some artwork somebody did:

Space: 2099 / S1E2 - Any Chance of Rescue?

Space: 2099 / S1E2 - Any Chance of Rescue? (5)

... None of which invalidates my point. The show, by some feat, managing to get worse in year two only supports it, assuming of course that one believes it actually did get worse.

Agree. Freiberger was a factor in both cases.

 

[Galileo7]

Well, despite the negative comments upthread, Space: 1999 series 1 is the greatest space opera type show ever made. What's interesting in the context of this thread is the way that Star Trek season 3 is perceived as going much serious than the previous seasons - whereas one of the "flaws" Freiberger identified in Space: 1999 was its lack of humour, which is why it went in the opposite direction to Trek, injecting lots of appalling jokes and humour into the show. Despite all that, I'm also going to speak up for Freiberger, because he was in exactly the same situation as he was in Trek: an executive producer (Roddenberry in the one case, Gerry Anderson in the other) who basically washed his hands of the whole show, and let Freiberger get on with it.

Agree.

 

[Andrew_Kearley]

Getting back to 1999, but not to diss it. While I could never buy into the nature of how the moon got flung into deep space, it made for some very evocative imagery.

I can understand how the concept of Space: 1999 bothers people, and from a purely scientific perspective it would bother me too. What I find most interesting in the story is the fact that the characters know that what's happened to them is impossible - they talk about their survival as a miracle. So the show really foregrounds its implausibility, and I think I admire that more than them trying to wrap it up in a bundle of technobabble. As the series goes on, we discover that there's a whole different story going on - it's suggested that higher powers are protecting and guiding the Moon, and that the Alphans are basically fulfilling a new specific destiny. So the flaws in the science, I believe, are accounted for in the text. But also, I don't think the show is hard sf at all - I think it's telling a tale more akin to an anicent myth, with a lost tribe cast adrift into the unknown, seeking a new destiny - and in that regard, the plausibility of it all shouldn't matter that much. Otherwise, one might as well nitpick the scientific accuracy of the Greek myths. I also think that science, as it's presented in popular sci-fi shows, is only really there to serve the needs of the story. And I'd ignore the inaccuracis of Space: 1999 as much as I ignore those of Star Trek or Doctor Who, as long as the story gets told.

 

[LMFAOschwarz]

I think the idea was that Gem's example proved her people were at least capable of learning self-sacrifice for the good of others -- which I suppose might be a necessary trait if they were to survive a rough transplantation process and the building of a new society, since many individuals would have to make sacrifices for the good of the whole in such a situation.

It's an interesting thought...just what would a relocated planetary society be like? Imagine a story of the Enterprise visiting one. For that matter, envision an episode where the entire population, like Gem, is a mute!

 

[plynch]

I think the idea was that Gem's example proved her people were at least capable of learning self-sacrifice for the good of others -- which I suppose might be a necessary trait if they were to survive a rough transplantation process and the building of a new society, since many individuals would have to make sacrifices for the good of the whole in such a situation.

It's an interesting thought...just what would a relocated planetary society be like? Imagine a story of the Enterprise visiting one. For that matter, envision an episode where the entire population, like Gem, is a mute!

The more I think about this episode the more I like it. That is rare at age 48, having been a fan since my brain turned on. I think I should try novels so I can have new adventures with my ol pals.

 

[Hober Mallow]

...one might as well nitpick the scientific accuracy of the Greek myths.

When the ancient Greeks were telling their myths, most of the stories were scientifically accurate as far as anyone knew.

 

[Christopher]

When the ancient Greeks were telling their myths, most of the stories were scientifically accurate as far as anyone knew.

Actually the Classical-period Greeks had very advanced science for their day, yet they still created plays and artworks based on their myths. Maybe the first tellers of the myths used them as attempts to understand the cosmology and workings of the universe, but the myths were still being told by Greeks at a point when Greek science had moved beyond them. By that time they were understood as allegories and symbols.

 

[trevanian]

I think the idea was that Gem's example proved her people were at least capable of learning self-sacrifice for the good of others -- which I suppose might be a necessary trait if they were to survive a rough transplantation process and the building of a new society, since many individuals would have to make sacrifices for the good of the whole in such a situation.

It's an interesting thought...just what would a relocated planetary society be like?

Didn't TNG screw this idea up with the Paul Sorvino episode? (never got through all of it, so I'm really not sure, but TNG left heavy prints all over a lot of good ideas with godawful execution, like pissing away the dyson sphere in the Scotty episode and totally blowing the space pollution angle. I think quantum alter-realities might be about the only sf angle TNG didn't totally crash on.

 

[SpHeRe31459]

I think the idea was that Gem's example proved her people were at least capable of learning self-sacrifice for the good of others -- which I suppose might be a necessary trait if they were to survive a rough transplantation process and the building of a new society, since many individuals would have to make sacrifices for the good of the whole in such a situation.

It's an interesting thought...just what would a relocated planetary society be like?

Didn't TNG screw this idea up with the Paul Sorvino episode? (never got through all of it, so I'm really not sure, but TNG left heavy prints all over a lot of good ideas with godawful execution,

Yep, it's awful.

like pissing away the dyson sphere in the Scotty episode

Yep, as pitched originally they wanted it to a 2-parter with more about the Dyson's Sphere since it was one heckuva unique find. But that was pooh-pooh'ed somewhere up the chain.
Can't remember where I heard that, from a commentary/doc with the new TNG BD sets I think. Maybe the writer's roundtable doc?

 

[Zaku]

I read somewhere that the Andersons were saddened by the fact that everyone is ready to nitpick the science of the show (ignoring the stories they wanted to tell) and in meantime "Star Trek" has a "free pass" for all its inaccuracies...

Edit. Wikipedia tells me that the quote is from this book: "Destination: Moonbase Alpha, Telos Publications, 2010"