1968 TREK movie?
- Thread starter RobertScorpio
- Start date
RobertScorpio
Pariah
oooohh..you're good. ONE LIFE TO LIVE use to kick ass..not so sure now since I stopped watching years ago. There were rumors that GH's Robert Scorpio (my name sake) was going to go there for awhile but it didn't happen...
Rob
What became the first season finale of George Reeve's Superman, filmed for the TV series in the 50s, ended up being released theatrically before the series even premiered.
^ If you're referring to "Superman vs. The Mole Men", that was always intended for theatrical release; the tv series came shortly afterward.
As for a theatrical Star Trek film in the 60's, there were thoughts of releasing "The Cage" theatrically, probably overseas, but Jeffery Hunter didn't want to come back and shoot additional scenes to pad it out to feature length.
As for a theatrical Star Trek film in the 60's, there were thoughts of releasing "The Cage" theatrically, probably overseas, but Jeffery Hunter didn't want to come back and shoot additional scenes to pad it out to feature length.
RobertScorpio
Pariah
See? I have never heard of this. That is a great tid-bit of trivia...
Rob
As Captain Robert April says, Superman and the Mole Men started out as a feature film, produced and released in 1951, the year before The Adventures of Superman came to television. It was essentially a "pilot" for the series, but was made for theatrical release because TV was still fairly new and a movie was a better way to showcase the character. So you have it backwards: it wasn't filmed for the series and then released theatrically, but was filmed and released theatrically and then later recut into the 2-part finale of the series' first season.
So it's similar to the original plan for the Adam West Batman movie, as I discussed in post #10. The idea for that was to make a feature film first and then do a TV series continuation of it.
RobertScorpio
Pariah
^Well, I found a George Reeves biography asserting that Superman and the Mole Men "debuted to strong box office in theaters." And the subsequent series was extremely popular.
RobertScorpio
Pariah
Cool...hey Chris, how did you like the Afflect/Brody Reeves movie? Hollywood Land I think? I saw it and thought it was pretty good...
Rob
Haven't seen it yet.
I rather liked it, especially after having read one of the books it was based on (I think the title is "Hollywood Babylon"). Plus, you get a bit of a double thrill out of it.
1) it's a Superman movie, and
2) Ben Affleck dies horribly.
I heartily recommend it.
1) it's a Superman movie, and
2) Ben Affleck dies horribly.
I heartily recommend it.
RobertScorpio
Pariah
I liked it too. Some of it was pretty controversal..do you think it happened like that? Or did it play fast and loose with what happened? (not wanting to spoil it for our friends here on the BBS)
Rob
I think they hit it pretty close to the mark. The bit with the kid showing up at a public appearance with his daddy's gun actually happened, and George had to talk the kid down, just as they showed. I bet he was glad he had a couple of swigs before going out after having to deal with that bit of insanity.
Dusty Ayres
Commodore
That was because Batman was wack, for the most part, as was the '66 movie.
^^Uhh, no. Regardless of your personal opinions, Batman was a hugely popular show for a time, and the movie was successful as well. The problem was that it was extremely expensive to produce because of all the special effects, elaborate fight sequences, and so forth. And ratings started to fall in the second season as the novelty wore off and people began to find the show repetitive.
In fact, after ABC cancelled it, NBC offered to pick the show up for a fourth season -- but only if the huge, expensive sets were still standing. Unfortunately, ABC had already had them bulldozed a week earlier. So in fact I wasn't entirely correct; Batman would have gotten a fourth season if not for bad timing.
^ And Star Trek might've gotten a fourth season on CBS if Nimoy hadn't already signed for Mission: Impossible.
One advantage Batman had was the twice-a-week timeslot, which meant by the end of the third season, they already had 120 episodes, nearly twice the number of episodes of a typical show of that age, so they were ready for strip syndication.
Again, why do you think the Enterprise was on a five year mission? Five seasons means around a hundred episodes, which is the magic number to ensure syndication in the rerun market. That's why whenever a show hits that one hundredth episode, there's a story on Entertainment Tonight about the party on the set, with the big sheet cake emblazoned with "Happy 100th Episode!" across the face.
When Star Trek went down after only seventy-nine episodes, more than a few folks among the cast and crew figured, "Well, that's it, we're dead," not knowing that the new owners, Gulf + Western, had already cut a deal to syndicate the show.
One advantage Batman had was the twice-a-week timeslot, which meant by the end of the third season, they already had 120 episodes, nearly twice the number of episodes of a typical show of that age, so they were ready for strip syndication.
Again, why do you think the Enterprise was on a five year mission? Five seasons means around a hundred episodes, which is the magic number to ensure syndication in the rerun market. That's why whenever a show hits that one hundredth episode, there's a story on Entertainment Tonight about the party on the set, with the big sheet cake emblazoned with "Happy 100th Episode!" across the face.
When Star Trek went down after only seventy-nine episodes, more than a few folks among the cast and crew figured, "Well, that's it, we're dead," not knowing that the new owners, Gulf + Western, had already cut a deal to syndicate the show.
RobertScorpio
Pariah
If the fourth season was going to be written/produced by those who did season three, then I'm glad it ended there. I know there are a few good season-3 episodes, but too many more "This way to Eden" or "Spock's Brain" quality episodes (yeah I know some of you like those episodes, but reality is reality) and TREK's season 4 would have, I think, killed TREK and torpedoed any movie series down the line...
Rob
We might've also gotten lucky, the displeasure over the direction Freddie Freiberger was taking the show could've been recognized and Gene Coon might've been coaxed back, or Bob Justman could've been promoted to producer in his own right, with the fourth season being a runaway success, leading to a fifth season that either wrapped everything up or a massive recasting with a new captain and crew on another five year mission.
Of course, this would've meant no feeling of mission interruptus, with no frustrated fanbase pestering the studio for the succeeding twenty-odd years demanding Star Trek's return. It would've all been said and done, with the franchise probably closing up shop no later than 1976, notwithstanding the success or failure of any spinoffs that might be attempted, like that "Harry Mudd, Space Pirate" idea they kicked around for about ten minutes. Maybe a few reunion tv movies over the next several years, but nowhere near the behemoth we have now.
So, yeah, even if a fourth season was a success, it probably would've been the beginning of the end for Star Trek.
Of course, this would've meant no feeling of mission interruptus, with no frustrated fanbase pestering the studio for the succeeding twenty-odd years demanding Star Trek's return. It would've all been said and done, with the franchise probably closing up shop no later than 1976, notwithstanding the success or failure of any spinoffs that might be attempted, like that "Harry Mudd, Space Pirate" idea they kicked around for about ten minutes. Maybe a few reunion tv movies over the next several years, but nowhere near the behemoth we have now.
So, yeah, even if a fourth season was a success, it probably would've been the beginning of the end for Star Trek.
Similar threads
