One thing I found really weird is how they scheduled TV shows back then. Who would put an hour long show starting on the half hour? It seems like a really odd choice.
-Chris
Anyone receive "These Are The Voyages..." Season 2 yet?
- Thread starter CrazyMatt
- Start date
One thing I found really weird is how they scheduled TV shows back then. Who would put an hour long show starting on the half hour? It seems like a really odd choice.
-Chris
They worked best when they had other people around them to say no or here is a better idea. Lucas sucks as a director as we have seen with the prequels. He is an excellent editor and story guy. Gene happened to but a great team together for Star Trek from the start. He was just a bull in a china shop when it came to dealing with "the system".
It is going to be interesting to see what happens to Star Wars now that it is part of the system. It is now where Star Trek was in the 80s. Disney is going to light that franchise up like Spock flying the Galileo 7.
Star Trek needs to get back on TV. CBS has already let Star Wars walk in Trek's territory with The Clone Wars series and now REBELS. I did hear on one of TREK.FM podcasts that Paramount actually pays CBS not to do a series. That has to stop!
-Chris
Chris everyone is crossing your fingers that Star Wars will be a success; story-wise and character-wise.
I think of Star Trek were to return to television it would have to be cable. Network television seems to be too saturated and too competitive, that any new series will have to differentiate itself for the masses and not a niche audience for it to remain past the pilot or first couple of episodes. Even on cable there is competition, but more of an opportunity to differentiate itself. Trek will still have to be produced for the masses rather than a niche audience, and the writing be a bit more higher standard.
Makes sense to me. You hopefully get people so involved in your show they don't think to switch channels at the hour mark. If all the hour long shows line up on hour marks you can catch any of them at the beginning and have to leave none midstream. I believe this is why TBS always started their shows at 5 minutes past, so that the station breaks wouldn't line up in a way to encourage people to jump ship.
I think Roddenberry was good for a bit more than that. Not only did many of his rewrites greatly sharpen up the dialogue and give us many of the memorable moments we love today, but he often appeared to be the main one pushing to keep the focus on the characters over the scifi, and to have the stories actually mean something.
For some reason I always remembered it that the change to Fridays didn't happen until the third season, and that that was a big reason why Roddenberry got fed up and eventually left the show.
Hearing that it was actually in the second was a big surprise. I would have thought NBC would have given the show a bit more of a chance than that. But apparently, not so much.
Oh really? for example?
I believe Volume 3 is due out in August
I believe for the third season it was changed to Friday night at 10:00 PM.
A version of "A Piece of the Action" appeared in Roddenberry's original Trek pitch, so I think it and unsubtle parallel Earths were inevitable. That's not to say they couldn't have been executed better.Warped9 said:
I think, while we're re-examining the ratings situation the whole third season Friday night 10pm "death slot" concept maybe needs discussing as well.
All Star Trek needed to do was beat its competition, irrespective of what slot it was in. Someone must have genuinely felt 10pm Friday was its best chance of doing that - was there a weak spot in the other networks' 10pm Friday shows? Remember how much better TOS did when it was up against 'Tammy Grimes" in early Season 1?
You have to think that when it came to Star Trek, or any other TV show, that all anyone wanted was to see the thing make money, not deliberately sabotage it. If the network disliked Star Trek or any aspect of it, they would have had it changed with a phone call. Out of interest, does Volume 2 mention any NBC moves to change the creative staff over the ratings during season 2?
For what its worth, all the Trek series, when aired in "prime time" here in Australia really struggled. But when inevitably they were shifted to 10.30pm , despite protests, enough devoted fans tuned in, and TOS, TNG and DS9 all ran for years in this slot, suggesting it was beating the competition nicely.
cbspock - all shows in prime time here are scheduled to start on the :30, but usually it's closer to :40 - an attempt to get people to switch during ads as Maurice mentioned. And they wonder why nobody is watching TV here anymore!
All Star Trek needed to do was beat its competition, irrespective of what slot it was in. Someone must have genuinely felt 10pm Friday was its best chance of doing that - was there a weak spot in the other networks' 10pm Friday shows? Remember how much better TOS did when it was up against 'Tammy Grimes" in early Season 1?
You have to think that when it came to Star Trek, or any other TV show, that all anyone wanted was to see the thing make money, not deliberately sabotage it. If the network disliked Star Trek or any aspect of it, they would have had it changed with a phone call. Out of interest, does Volume 2 mention any NBC moves to change the creative staff over the ratings during season 2?
For what its worth, all the Trek series, when aired in "prime time" here in Australia really struggled. But when inevitably they were shifted to 10.30pm , despite protests, enough devoted fans tuned in, and TOS, TNG and DS9 all ran for years in this slot, suggesting it was beating the competition nicely.
cbspock - all shows in prime time here are scheduled to start on the :30, but usually it's closer to :40 - an attempt to get people to switch during ads as Maurice mentioned. And they wonder why nobody is watching TV here anymore!
There is no mention of NBC trying to force anyone out. And the situation with television was indeed different then than it is now.
Friday evening was a time many people, young and old, went out. To deliberately put a show in that timeslot was generally considered a vote of non-confidence. There was no home video hardware to record a show if you weren't home. You watch it at its designated time or you missed out until or if it was rerun.
Cushman is basically making the argument that NBC was basing their opinions of the ratings on too small a sample and not getting all the information. The how was reaching the desitered youth, 20-30 and 30-40 audiences. It was reaching students and kids and also appealed to viewers in scientific, educational and technical fields. It was reaching the very people the show was targeted for. Affiliates didn't always follw NBC's lead and could air the episodes at other times during the week where the show did better.
And on top of all this NBC pretty much stopped promoting the show after the first season. They were either notriously cheap and/or they were setting the show up to fail.
My question is how badly did Roddenberry rub some people the wrong way? After the first season Cushman mentions that Harlan Ellisan seemed to be trying to turn some of the science fiction community against Roddenberry. NBC execs were annoyed with Roddenberry. It certainly wouldn't be the first time, or the last, that bruised feelings influenced business decisions. And it's been documented that shows with decent ratings could still get cancelled while shows with lacklustre ratings could be kept alive.
We'll have to wait for Volume 3 for Cushman to lay it all out (in his opinion) as to why NBC really wanted the show gone.
Friday evening was a time many people, young and old, went out. To deliberately put a show in that timeslot was generally considered a vote of non-confidence. There was no home video hardware to record a show if you weren't home. You watch it at its designated time or you missed out until or if it was rerun.
Cushman is basically making the argument that NBC was basing their opinions of the ratings on too small a sample and not getting all the information. The how was reaching the desitered youth, 20-30 and 30-40 audiences. It was reaching students and kids and also appealed to viewers in scientific, educational and technical fields. It was reaching the very people the show was targeted for. Affiliates didn't always follw NBC's lead and could air the episodes at other times during the week where the show did better.
And on top of all this NBC pretty much stopped promoting the show after the first season. They were either notriously cheap and/or they were setting the show up to fail.
My question is how badly did Roddenberry rub some people the wrong way? After the first season Cushman mentions that Harlan Ellisan seemed to be trying to turn some of the science fiction community against Roddenberry. NBC execs were annoyed with Roddenberry. It certainly wouldn't be the first time, or the last, that bruised feelings influenced business decisions. And it's been documented that shows with decent ratings could still get cancelled while shows with lacklustre ratings could be kept alive.
We'll have to wait for Volume 3 for Cushman to lay it all out (in his opinion) as to why NBC really wanted the show gone.
If NBC didn't promote the series on air during season two or three, then what's this? A fan creation?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VpFVbaGpv9A
It's an interesting notion to suggest that NBC didn't promote the series in seasons two or three, but it strikes me as a hard thing to prove. Without knowing how other series were promoted by NBC (and other networks) during the same era, it's hard to say much of anything with authority.
Also, while the Friday night at 10pm time slot was a bad one, I think it's a little simplistic to dismiss the whole night as a bad one for network ratings. After all, the dreaded Gomer Pyle, U.S.M.C. was the #3 show on television during the 1967-68 network season, and it aired on Friday night at 8:30 (opposite Star Trek).
The broadcast season before (66-67), Tarzan had been a success (#27) on Friday nights at 7:30, and Hogan's Heroes had done even better in the 8:30 timeslot (#17).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VpFVbaGpv9A
It's an interesting notion to suggest that NBC didn't promote the series in seasons two or three, but it strikes me as a hard thing to prove. Without knowing how other series were promoted by NBC (and other networks) during the same era, it's hard to say much of anything with authority.
Also, while the Friday night at 10pm time slot was a bad one, I think it's a little simplistic to dismiss the whole night as a bad one for network ratings. After all, the dreaded Gomer Pyle, U.S.M.C. was the #3 show on television during the 1967-68 network season, and it aired on Friday night at 8:30 (opposite Star Trek).
The broadcast season before (66-67), Tarzan had been a success (#27) on Friday nights at 7:30, and Hogan's Heroes had done even better in the 8:30 timeslot (#17).
Today it really doesn't matter with DVR's I don't even remember in the 70s or 80s hour long shows starting on the half hour. It just seems odd.
-Chris
They worked best when they had other people around them to say no or here is a better idea. Lucas sucks as a director as we have seen with the prequels. He is an excellent editor and story guy. Gene happened to but a great team together for Star Trek from the start. He was just a bull in a china shop when it came to dealing with "the system".
It is going to be interesting to see what happens to Star Wars now that it is part of the system. It is now where Star Trek was in the 80s. Disney is going to light that franchise up like Spock flying the Galileo 7.
Star Trek needs to get back on TV. CBS has already let Star Wars walk in Trek's territory with The Clone Wars series and now REBELS. I did hear on one of TREK.FM podcasts that Paramount actually pays CBS not to do a series. That has to stop!
-Chris
Chris everyone is crossing your fingers that Star Wars will be a success; story-wise and character-wise.
I think of Star Trek were to return to television it would have to be cable. Network television seems to be too saturated and too competitive, that any new series will have to differentiate itself for the masses and not a niche audience for it to remain past the pilot or first couple of episodes. Even on cable there is competition, but more of an opportunity to differentiate itself. Trek will still have to be produced for the masses rather than a niche audience, and the writing be a bit more higher standard.
I agree if Trek comes back it needs to do something new and different. I think it has to be more like DS9 with a continuing story. It should probably even have more than one ship / crew to follow. I would even settle for an animated series on the level of Clone Wars, some of those episodes rival the story telling in the movies. I can't wait for REBELS to start.
-Chris
It was said in volume 1 that Gene could take a bad script and make it good, he could also take a great script and make it good. From my reading of volume 1, and half of vol 2 so far it is Gene Coon and DC Fontana that made a lot of the contributions to Trek that we still remember today. Nimoy also made contributions to the character of Spock. The show really is an amalgamation of everyone's contribution from writing to performances.
-Chris
I think the rational for that being a bad time-slot was that adults and young adults were out on Friday nights and the youger folks that would watch Gomer Pyle and Tarzan would be in bed by then or at least not be able to stay up until 11:00 to watch the entire show. Back in the late 60's this was a horrible time for a show to be on. Not so much anymore (I believe that the new Battlestar Galactica had that exact time slot and it was a huge success).
Oh, I agree about Friday at 10pm being a bad time slot. My comments were in reference to the show's second season timeslot -- Friday at 8:30pm -- which Warped9 referred to as a "bad timeslot" (and, I assume, Cushman makes the same argument?).
Also, Cushman's point that Star Trek was the highest rated NBC show on Fridays in the 1967-68 season needs a little context. The other NBC shows on that night were:
7:30-8:30pm: Tarzan (such a flop in its second season that it was cancelled, despite being a top thirty hit in its first year)
8:30-9:30pm: Star Trek
9:30-10:00pm: The Accidental Family (such a flop it was cancelled mid-season); Hollywood Squares (a daytime show at the time which was moved to prime time to fill this vacated time slot for the rest of this season only).
10:00-11:00pm: The Bell Telephone Hour / Actuality Specials / NBC News Reports / American Profile (with the exception of the news, of course, all of these shows ended their lives in this broadcast season)
The other networks had shows that succeeded (or were at least renewed) on this night from 67-68. NBC, on the other hand, had a failure of a line-up. Only Star Trek would be brought back for another season.
Also, Cushman's point that Star Trek was the highest rated NBC show on Fridays in the 1967-68 season needs a little context. The other NBC shows on that night were:
7:30-8:30pm: Tarzan (such a flop in its second season that it was cancelled, despite being a top thirty hit in its first year)
8:30-9:30pm: Star Trek
9:30-10:00pm: The Accidental Family (such a flop it was cancelled mid-season); Hollywood Squares (a daytime show at the time which was moved to prime time to fill this vacated time slot for the rest of this season only).
10:00-11:00pm: The Bell Telephone Hour / Actuality Specials / NBC News Reports / American Profile (with the exception of the news, of course, all of these shows ended their lives in this broadcast season)
The other networks had shows that succeeded (or were at least renewed) on this night from 67-68. NBC, on the other hand, had a failure of a line-up. Only Star Trek would be brought back for another season.
No doubt it was an inconvenient time slot for viewers, and from GR's point of view it possibly lacked prestige, but isn't the name of the game just to beat your competitor in the slot you are given? In a concentrated market, its all about maximising revenue on a timeslot by timeslot basis.
From reading these memos over the years, my impression was that NBC always thought they had something special with Star Trek, and were proud of it. The struggle seemed to be finding a place for it.
I could see a decision being made to put TOS on late Fridays on the basis that it had a very loyal fanbase who would put up with the poor timeslot and tune in anyway.
But I am just guessing. If someone with knowledge of US TV programming tactics and the criteria for "success" knows more, please jump in.
Similar threads
