DC Fontana & Logan's Run

[Christopher]

Based on things as they are now, and given the proximity in the movie of the Dome City to Washington, DC, that would probably indicate Winchester, VA, or Martinsburg, WV, or possibly Harrisonburg, VA.

I'd be tempted to argue that the series is more likely set in Southern California judging from the look of the terrain and the use of locations like the Griffith Observatory. It is in a different reality from the movie, rebooting its events and setting them 45 years later, as well as making other major continuity changes. But the Washington, DC matte painting is used in the pilot episode when Logan and Jessica find the abandoned military base, so I guess it's fair to assume the City of Domes is meant to be close to there.

 

[Ssosmcin]

Well, it's not like they just accidentally ended up there. Both episodes make it clear that they choose to go back to the city and that it's a big deal to go back, and both episodes allow for a significant amount of travel time to get there.

Besides, the core trio are making a lot of stops, at every populated place they come to, pretty much. And they've probably been wandering around the map rather than following a straight line. So a straight, non-stop journey back to the City of Domes would take less time.


I'm surprised to hear that, because the things I've watched on Tubi usually put the commercials in at random, generally a few seconds into a new scene. Sometimes they align with an intended break, but not usually.

Although what I like about Tubi's presentation of ads is that little circle in the bottom corner that shows you how much time is left until the show resumes.

Oh, I totally get they weren't unintentionally returning, but it's kind of like making a drive across country to see the sights but every time you hit Pennsylvania, you turn around and return home to New York. They didn't seem to get very far and there's no indication they've been gone for a great deal of time.

But on the flip side, there's not much to say they haven't. I just know how I feel when I have to make a u-tern back home because I forgot something on for my trip. At least they're driving and not jogging like in Planet of the Apes...

As for the Tubi ad breaks, I've watched an episode or more each of Logan's Run, V, Naked City and the pilot movie of Man from Atlantis and only MFA had a few random breaks. The rest have been resting at the planned act breaks. Also, happily, unlike other streaming channels which rely mostly on Public Doman films and shows, they don't show the same ad over and over and over. If I tell you that I never need to see Lemu Emu and Doug ever frigging again...

 

[Christopher]

As for the Tubi ad breaks, I've watched an episode or more each of Logan's Run, V, Naked City and the pilot movie of Man from Atlantis and only MFA had a few random breaks. The rest have been resting at the planned act breaks. Also, happily, unlike other streaming channels which rely mostly on Public Doman films and shows, they don't show the same ad over and over and over. If I tell you that I never need to see Lemu Emu and Doug ever frigging again...

I guess maybe it's different on different shows. I haven't watched any of those on Tubi, though I'll be getting to MFA once I finish Starman. And most of the shows I have watched have random breaks, or a mix of properly timed and randomly inserted breaks.

And I definitely am getting the same ads over and over again. I was just thinking this morning, I wish they'd give me some warning so I can mute before listening to that guy in the glass-repair ad mispronounce "windshield" yet again.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

My wife gives me crap for watching...crap, but I'll frequently put on something substandard, shall we say, as background noise while I'm working. Right now, it's the Logan's Run series, where DC Fontana served as story editor.

I had thought that maybe I could raise my expectations a bit given Fontana's involvement. Sadly, this might be among the worst of 70s/80s genre TV, and the stories are all poor. Does anybody know the story behind this? Typically it's time and/or money, but I'm really surprised that the writer who penned some of Trek's best episodes would let the Logan's Run stuff get on the air.

ChallengerHK, I watched it first run, but was disappointed that the drama and risk of the film was nowhere to be found. Such is the case of many a serious film adapted for TV.

Typical of the entertainment business, they cannot let a success stand on its own; after the 1976 film was a hit, MGM initially wanted a sequel, and of course, that did not happen, eventually leading to the creation of this TV series. Inexplicably, MGM-TV tapped Ivan Goff and Ben Roberts--at the time, famous for developing Charlie's Angels for Spelling-Goldberg Productions--to bring Logan and Company to TV, and despite the contribution of writers such as D.C. Fontana, et al, this was just another in the long line of the man-on-the-run TV sub-genre.

Their best option would have been to make a sequel TV movie with a healthy budget (possible, since they recycled so much from the film), and wrap up the entire post-City matter / answering any questions left by the film. To this end, Marvel Comics--after their 5-issue adaptation of the film--tried to address such issues (anarchy among people forced to think for themselves, Sandmen plotting against Logan, etc.), but the comic was cancelled after the publication of issue #7 (July, 1977).

Ways the TV series differs from the book and the 1976 film: no Lifeclocks. While they were central to the plot of the books and films ( to the extent of being a physical representation of the Thinker's control over citizens), the film rendered them powerless once outside of the City, so in the end--with the series being an off-road chase series--there was no reason to use the Lifeclocks.

The best episodes are any that make any references to the film (though they are not in the same continuity) such as the pilot, and "Carousel", where Logan is shot with some sort of dart that erases his memories of life as a runner, willingly returns to the City, and if memory serves, will face Carousel as his parting gift.

Unintentional CBS/late 70s TV fantasy cross-pollination: Randy Powell (Francis) appeared on The Amazing Spider-Man's two-parter, "The Deadly Dust" (as a classmate of Peter Parker) while Spider-Man himself--Nicholas Hammond--guest starred on this series' "The Judas Goat" as a Sandman surgically altered to appear to be one of Jessica's friends...

Regarding the main title music: instead of using any of Goldsmith's excellent, memorable motifs composed for the film (or modified, if necessary), they tapped Laurence Rosenthal to work way out of his element and deliver some wild, silly synthesizer-laced piece that did not support the series concept at all.

Despite its short life, the TV series did have some sort of following, enough to earn the following coverage in popular magazines of the day:

Look-in (1971-1994) was a weekly UK publication in association with ITV and its local and imported TV series aimed at younger viewers. The Logan's Run TV series inspired an original, serialized comic feature (black and white), which was collected in a hardback annual.

Next...

Circus #168 (November 10, 1977). The once famous music industry magazine covered nearly all popular movies and TV during its run (1966-2006), and yes, the Logan's Run TV series grabbed a cover, with a fairly in-depth behind the scenes article on the show, which--at the time--might have seemed promising, but...

Dynamite #43 (December, 1977). Dynamite was a popular monthly kid's media/education magazine published by Scholastic, Inc. from 1974 - 1992, and was distributed for free in U.S. public schools. Jenette Khan created the magazine two years before joining DC Comics as its publisher, (and playing a significant role in the DC rebirth starting at the end of the 70s, after the infamous "implosion") that would shake/change the mainstream comic book industry. More than the 1976 movie, the TV version of Logan's Run was thought to be somewhat kid-friendly, hence its coverage in a monthly aimed at elementary school-aged kids.

Finally,...

Starlog #9 (October, 1977) and #13 (May, 1978). Of course, Starlog was not going to miss out on the series. with issues eagerly announcing its production, to a cover story (below). Not long after the series' debut, the usually lightweight magazine did have more than a few unkind words dedicated to the series' perceived problems, and by the time CBS cancelled the series in the Spring of '78, Starlog was there to offer their postmortem and a details-free episode guide.

There were other magazines with coverage of the show, but none of it was ever glowing. It received its best treatment after the preview of the pilot, where the many differences between it and the movie were noted, but some reviewers thought that would not matter...if the series was solid. By now, you know the rest.

On the merchandising end, Mego (the toy company famous for their 8-inch action figures of everything from DC & Marvel characters, Star Trek and Planet of the Apes, among other properties) obtained the rights to develop a line of 9-inch action figure line based on the TV series, creating prototypes of Logan, Rem and Francis. Obviously, the line would not see the inside of Mego's Hong Kong factories when the TV series suffered an early death, but some Sandman costumes were produced and in a strange turn, ended up used on unrelated, Barbie-like dolls.

 

[Ssosmcin]

And I definitely am getting the same ads over and over again. I was just thinking this morning, I wish they'd give me some warning so I can mute before listening to that guy in the glass-repair ad mispronounce "windshield" yet again.

Oh I get the same ads but not like on some other streamers where it's 5 Liberty Mutual Ads in a row in the same break. But, yeah, I'll def get Limu and Doug 4 times an hour, Flo from Progressive, then Microsoft, etc. But usually one per break.

 

[FormerLurker]

The body language of Gregory Harrison and Randy Powell on the Dynamite cover is striking. Harrison is pure boilerplate generic hero, and Powell is daring you to give him shit.

 

[Christopher]

The body language of Gregory Harrison and Randy Powell on the Dynamite cover is striking. Harrison is pure boilerplate generic hero, and Powell is daring you to give him shit.

Pretty reflective of their performances on the show. Harrison and Heather Menzies were both pretty bland, and though Donald Moffat was the MVP of the series, Randy Powell was effective as Francis, who had more complexity than the others because of his divided feelings about Logan.

Powell was also the only cast member who looked anything like their character's original portrayer. For Jessica, they went for someone who looked like Farrah Fawcett, who'd skyrocketed to fame after her bit part in the movie, rather than Jenny Agutter. I wonder if that's why they cast a brunette Logan, to balance out the blonde Jessica.

I remember Dynamite from when I was a kid. It's conceivable that I had that issue, though I don't remember if I did.

 

[ChallengerHK]

ChallengerHK, I watched it first run, but was disappointed that the drama and risk of the film was nowhere to be found. Such is the case of many a serious film adapted for TV.

I get all that. To an extent. I watched all this stuff first run; I would've been about 16 at the time, and I was hungry for any sf on TV. As I matured and learned more about literature, my tastes became somewhat more...let's say refined. I still watch this stuff, as I said, but now I watch it the same way I watch Plan 9 or Prehistoric Planet. That is to say, I know it's not Shakespeare, or Faulkner, but it's amusing, every now and then I get a good laugh, and on rare occasion I find a little gem in it.

I think I've said this up front, but to clarify my position, I had hoped for some more gem-like qualities in LR, and I'm just not seeing it. My expectations were high because of Fontana. Over the years she's developed a reputation as something of a "take no nonsense broad" who met the boys of their playing field and beat them at their own game. I knew the effects would be crap, and aside from Donald Moffat I knew the talent was not going to be Emmy-level. I knew the sets would be dodgy, and the less said about the hideous hovermobile (which later shows up in the video for Quiet Riot's "The Wild and the Young", BTW) the better. But I had really hoped to see storytelling that was a cut above. A lot of comments above are that many people find certain episodes to be worthy; I've finished watching the series (a lot of evening hours for work lately) and I'm still not seeing it. The kindest thing I can say is that there were episodes which had perhaps a solid idea, and with LOTS of work could have become something.

All in all, I have to wonder if Fontana's reputation was, like Roddenberry's, largely self-made. The alternatives are that there was just zero time and zero budget for developing quality stories, and the job of the story editor was more like "make sure it fits the time requirement", or that she took the job for the money, knowing that she wouldn't be able to accomplish much.

 

[XCV330]

Over the years she's developed a reputation as something of a "take no nonsense broad" who met the boys of their playing field and beat them at their own game. I knew the effects would be crap, and aside from Donald Moffat I knew the talent was not going to be Emmy-level. I knew the sets would be dodgy, and the less said about the hideous hovermobile (which later shows up in the video for Quiet Riot's "The Wild and the Young", BTW) the better.

I never realized that until now. The landmaster from Damnation Alley is in that video too.

the better looking driveable car (one of them, anyway) from LR is in that Tom Petty video "You Got Lucky"

 

[Christopher]

All in all, I have to wonder if Fontana's reputation was, like Roddenberry's, largely self-made. The alternatives are that there was just zero time and zero budget for developing quality stories, and the job of the story editor was more like "make sure it fits the time requirement", or that she took the job for the money, knowing that she wouldn't be able to accomplish much.

I do think Fontana had her weaknesses; for instance, for one of the more successful female writers of the era, her work could be surprisingly un-progressive in its gender values. (One episode of The Fantastic Journey that she wrote was a battle-of-the-sexes story in which female slaves overthrew their male enslavers, and the resolution was that the women were useless without their men and they ended up freeing them when they promised to be nicer, which is horrifying in retrospect because it's exactly like abuse victims believing their abusers when they say it won't happen again.)

But keep in mind that story editors in TV do not have free rein to do whatever they want. They answer to the show's producers and executive producers, and the producers answer to the network execs whose "notes" effectively have force of law. As I mentioned, the perception of science fiction by network execs in that era was that it was lowbrow B-movie stuff for kids. Heck, TV in general in those days tended to aim for the lowest common denominator as often as not, and shows that aspired to sophistication were under a lot of pressure to dumb things down, because the network suits had no faith in their audience's intelligence and didn't want to scare them off with anything thought-provoking or challenging.

So don't blame Fontana. Like anyone else, she had to fight an uphill battle against all those pressures and try to get some shred of intelligence or substance on the screen despite all the forces trying to strip it all away from the scripts.

 

[ChallengerHK]

It's called - "Making a living". If she doesn't sell scripts, she doesn't eat.

Thing is she wasn't selling scripts, at least for the most part. She was buying scripts, and then at least in theory bringing them up to a minimum standard of quality.

 

[ZapBrannigan]

I think brilliance is as rare in real life as it is common among fictional characters. It's very rare. So it seems reasonable to me that D.C. Fontana was an ordinary writer with limitations aplenty, and the generous hype of Star Trek billowing her sails.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

I get all that. To an extent. I watched all this stuff first run; I would've been about 16 at the time, and I was hungry for any sf on TV. As I matured and learned more about literature, my tastes became somewhat more...let's say refined. I still watch this stuff, as I said, but now I watch it the same way I watch Plan 9 or Prehistoric Planet. That is to say, I know it's not Shakespeare, or Faulkner, but it's amusing, every now and then I get a good laugh, and on rare occasion I find a little gem in it.

That "little gem" is about all one will find in the Logan's Run TV series; turning a film concept (with a clear ending) into a man-on-the-run adventure series already robbed it of the focus on the ills and nightmare of fighting against a programmed, hedonistic society ritualizing death. It was "find Sanctuary? No?...well, let's move on to the next conflict of the week!" The novel sequels best served the concept (as one would expect, considering Nolan penning both), but its often dark and/or brutal themes were never going to be explored on a TV series largely targeting teenagers.

I think I've said this up front, but to clarify my position, I had hoped for some more gem-like qualities in LR, and I'm just not seeing it. My expectations were high because of Fontana. Over the years she's developed a reputation as something of a "take no nonsense broad" who met the boys of their playing field and beat them at their own game. I knew the effects would be crap, and aside from Donald Moffat I knew the talent was not going to be Emmy-level. I knew the sets would be dodgy, and the less said about the hideous hovermobile (which later shows up in the video for Quiet Riot's "The Wild and the Young", BTW) the better. But I had really hoped to see storytelling that was a cut above. A lot of comments above are that many people find certain episodes to be worthy; I've finished watching the series (a lot of evening hours for work lately) and I'm still not seeing it. The kindest thing I can say is that there were episodes which had perhaps a solid idea, and with LOTS of work could have become something.

From what I've read about the development of the TV series, every writer's hands were tied by the directives of Goff and Roberts, who knew next to nothing about the novel source and only paid little attention to the message of the film (and only answering to CBS' demands). Fontana--no matter the reputation she built on Star Trek--was not going to have free reign over so cobbled together a production.

All in all, I have to wonder if Fontana's reputation was, like Roddenberry's, largely self-made. The alternatives are that there was just zero time and zero budget for developing quality stories, and the job of the story editor was more like "make sure it fits the time requirement", or that she took the job for the money, knowing that she wouldn't be able to accomplish much.

Fontana's contribution to both Stat Trek and the Filmation series were solid and, in some cases, so important that it helped define and build the series into a post-NBC phenomenon. But again, that reputation and talent have limits when it comes to dealing with producers (Goff and Roberts), a production studio (MGM Television) and a network, all with their own goals for what was a popular property, and that would not allow any writer to assert themselves. In the end, they're hired hands to "do" or see the door.

 

[ChallengerHK]

From what I've read about the development of the TV series, every writer's hands were tied by the directives of Goff and Roberts,

I think that's the information I was looking for: Who made the decision or decisions that resulted in what we saw?

That "little gem" is about all one will find in the Logan's Run TV series; turning a film concept (with a clear ending) into a man-on-the-run adventure series already robbed it of the focus

I enjoy the film, and I rewatch it on occasion. That said, there are great "man on the run" shows, and even if the producers chose to follow that approach, they could still have told great stories. I've already references Route 66, which I had never even seen until just a few years ago, and it blew me away. The Fugitive is of similar quality. Honestly, I think even The Incredible Hulk has something to be said for it. Man on the run can be done very well, and I don't think LR even tried to touch on the potential of that subgenre.

 

[Christopher]

Man on the run can be done very well, and I don't think LR even tried to touch on the potential of that subgenre.

If anything, it was the last of a specific sub-subgenre that somehow came into vogue in the '70s, the format of characters wandering the post-apocalypse and encountering various strange civilizations week after week. It began with Gene Roddenberry's Genesis II pilot movie in 1973, which MGM took two other stabs at when it failed, the retooled Planet Earth and the Strange New World pilot that was made without Roddenberry's involvement. There was also the short-lived Planet of the Apes TV series in 1974, Filmation's Ark II on Saturday mornings in 1976, and then Logan's Run. The networks really seemed to want to get that genre off the ground, but without success. And not just in the US -- Canada's The Starlost in '73-4 had the same format within the habitat domes of a generational starship.

But Planet of the Apes and Logan's Run were the only ones following the Fugitive-style format with the heroes fleeing a pursuit. Roddenberry's intent with G2/PE was to emulate the Star Trek format, a science fiction premise that allowed anthology-like storytelling by bringing the characters into a different exotic, imaginative culture every week. It's the same principle as the Fugitive format, which was also designed to emulate anthology storytelling by putting a main character in a different role and helping different people with their problems each week, but without the excuse of pursuit.

After all, the perception of standalone vs. serial storytelling back then was the reverse of today. The classiest shows in the early days of TV were the anthologies like Playhouse 90, putting on a different play every week by acclaimed playwrights, while serialization was the stuff of soap operas and kids' adventure series and was thus considered a cheesy, inferior format. And since reruns were less common and there was no home video, there was no guarantee of seeing every episode, so each one had to be complete within itself. So even shows that had continuing casts tried to be as anthology-like as possible. They could've just done straight-up anthologies, but the advantage of a continuing cast was that you could build audience loyalty; plus there were presumably financial and logistical advantages to having a steady cast under contract instead of having to recruit new stars every week.

 

[Maurice]

I think it's undeniable that Fontana's popular rep is almost solely built on the basis of her Trek contributions and her few other small forays into what passed for SF television in the 70s. To really take her temperature as a writer you'd have to watch episodes of the westerns and crime dramas et al that she wrote for, which was the bulk of her career.

When @Harvey and I lunched with her in summer 2019 she told us about a series concept she was pitching, but I'll need more coffee to jog my memory.

 

[Ssosmcin]

That "little gem" is about all one will find in the Logan's Run TV series; turning a film concept (with a clear ending)

There was an intention to film a sequel which obviously never happened. The story wasn't over, there was plenty to say after the citizens found themselves outside. The Marvel Comic postulated that after the initial euphoria, the populace lapsed into panic. Suddenly a massive thunderstorm sent them into a frenzy since they never experienced nature before.

The TV series could be telling the TV version of the same story as the film, just taking a lot longer to get to Logan's return and taking down of the society.

into a man-on-the-run adventure series already robbed it of the focus on the ills and nightmare of fighting against a programmed, hedonistic society ritualizing death. It was "find Sanctuary? No?...well, let's move on to the next conflict of the week!" The novel sequels best served the concept (as one would expect, considering Nolan penning both), but its often dark and/or brutal themes were never going to be explored on a TV series largely targeting teenagers.

In the expansion of the pilot to 2 hours, they added the Elders, who drafted Francis into service by offering him a seat on the counsel. My mom had the opinion that it was a shitty bargain. "Why would he want to just sit there with a bunch of old men?" An ongoing series should have aimed higher and tackled the impact of learning that everything you were told was a lie. That there was life and freedom beyond the domes. For that reason, Logan and Jessica needed to be hunted but every sandman they sent out would begin to see through the lies of the system. Once they could move about, breathe without difficulty, not die of radiation sickness and run into dozens of other cultures. they should all start to join Logan's cause. So instead of just sending out Francis with random sandmen, it should have been an elite group of the same three or four dudes. The problem with having a counsel of old men is that it takes away from the computer control. They glossed over that part in the pilot, only using the numbers in the names in passing. Even Carousel is less sinister than in the film. It like they had the guns and the uniforms and that was good enough.

I loved Rem but he was the easy way out. Making Logan and Jessica more interesting, watching them learn and grow over time and even have a legit relationship would have been nice. Also it would be great if they got their clothing dirty one time.

Gregory Harrison was an okay actor but Heather Menzies was, well, a little less skilled - or just didn't have great material to work with. She was beautiful and had a sweetness about her, though.

 

[Christopher]

The TV series could be telling the TV version of the same story as the film, just taking a lot longer to get to Logan's return and taking down of the society.

As I said, most TV series back then didn't have finales they were working toward, just open-ended premises that would continue until they were cancelled. If the show had gone on, they would have presumably done more plots about the resistance in the City, but the status quo would never have actually changed.

In the expansion of the pilot to 2 hours, they added the Elders, who drafted Francis into service by offering him a seat on the counsel. My mom had the opinion that it was a shitty bargain. "Why would he want to just sit there with a bunch of old men?" An ongoing series should have aimed higher and tackled the impact of learning that everything you were told was a lie. That there was life and freedom beyond the domes.

That's a key difference between the movie and series versions of Francis. In the movie, Francis sincerely believes he's doing the right thing and Logan is inexplicably a traitor. The show's Francis knows he's upholding a lie, but he does it anyway. It's established later on that he thinks the system they have is still better than the chaos they'd have without it, but at least initially, he seems far more hypocritical than his movie counterpart.

For that reason, Logan and Jessica needed to be hunted but every sandman they sent out would begin to see through the lies of the system. Once they could move about, breathe without difficulty, not die of radiation sickness and run into dozens of other cultures. they should all start to join Logan's cause.

Yup. I wondered about that myself. All these dozens of Sandmen going out and being shown that everything they've been told is a lie, and not one of them decides to rebel? It just wasn't thought through.

The problem with having a counsel of old men is that it takes away from the computer control.

It's also a complete reversal from the premise of the original novel. The novel was a conservative allegory denouncing the youth movements of the '60s, positing a scenario where the young rebels had successfully overthrown the old order, but the hedonistic society they'd created was dysfunctional and bound to collapse because they'd killed off everyone with enough maturity and experience to keep society running and plan for the future. The movie ditched the generational-conflict aspect altogether and had the "death at 30" thing just be a population control measure in the finite environment of the dome. But the series had a clique of old white men secretly running things and screwing everyone else over for their own power and gain (in other words, just like real life), the opposite of the novel's "young people are the problem" message.

I loved Rem but he was the easy way out. Making Logan and Jessica more interesting, watching them learn and grow over time and even have a legit relationship would have been nice.

Hear, hear. Lead characters in those days were often designed to be bland and generic, but it's particularly a letdown here. Logan is basically an ex-Gestapo man, someone who made a career out of murdering people for questioning the state and only recently renounced it, yet he's never forced to confront his past evils and is just a generic clean-cut hero. And Jessica is supposed to be this intrepid resistance leader, a firebrand standing up against oppression, but she's hardly ever portrayed that way (except to an extent in "Fear Factor") and is just the generic pretty girl.

Also it would be great if they got their clothing dirty one time.

Also a good point. In the movie, their city outfits were in ruins after a couple of days outside, but these guys' clothes are some kind of magic, stain-resistant, indestructible material.

Gregory Harrison was an okay actor but Heather Menzies was, well, a little less skilled - or just didn't have great material to work with.

I found them both about equally lacking in talent or depth.

 

[FormerLurker]

Powell was also the only cast member who looked anything like their character's original portrayer. For Jessica, they went for someone who looked like Farrah Fawcett, who'd skyrocketed to fame after her bit part in the movie, rather than Jenny Agutter. I wonder if that's why they cast a brunette Logan, to balance out the blonde Jessica.

I've said this before, and feel compelled to repeat it here. Gregory Harrison looked like Richard Jordan, and Randy Powell, despite the dark hair, looked like MIchael York. I firmly believe that the casting director had never seen the film, and either had no character description notes, or didn't read them, and cast them both to look like who the casting director thought they should be.

This follows with the idea that Heather Menzies was cast for her resemblance to Farrah Fawcett, when Farrah didn't play Jessica. The casting director didn't know which actor had originally played which role, and just cast who they thought fit the series bible's descriptions, rather than who looked like the characters the original actors actually played.

 

[Maurice]

They cast the actors they tested who they think are best for the role and can be had, they rarely cared who looks like whom in a movie. And everyone wants to put their own stamp on something, which is why details change.