Fans, why no initial success?

[Nerys Myk]

In '66, "Mission Impossible" was the only other show to debut that one could label as a "drama." Of the remainder from the whole of the sixties, they had... "Flipper?" "Daniel Boone" and "Combat." "My Three Sons," I guess...

"Tarzan", "Iron Horse", "Daktari", "Felony Squad", "The Girl From U.N.C.L.E.", "The Rat Patrol", "Shane","The Road West", "Time Tunnel", and "T.H.E. Cat" were all dramas that debuted in 1966. "My Three Sons" was a comedy. 1967 debuts included, "Dragent '67" "Ironside", "Mannix" and "The Prisoner". 1968 gave us the aformentioned "Adam-12", "The Bold Ones", "It Takes A Thief", "Hawaii 5-0", "Land of the Giants" and the Mod Squad". 1969 had "Bracken's World" (IIRC it took over Star Trek's Time slot), Marcus Welby M.D." and "Then Came Bronson". So no shortage of New dramas in the late 60s.

I was alive and watched most of those shows.

 

[Brutal Strudel]

I haven't read the entire thread, but sometimes a show is simply ahaed of its time. I've heard it said that Trek might have done better had it come out after Apollo 11 and that is indeed possible. Trek was the forerunner of a new way of doing SF on tv and even at that, the example it set would have to wait two decades before another show came along that even remotely replicated it and that show was Star Trek. (Space: 1999 came closest up to that point. It was serious in tone and well-cast but the premise was so ludicrous it missed the mark.)

Please note, "ahead of its time" does not necessarliy mean "wonderful and fantastic just oh so great." I'm no fan of angsty shows about narcisistic brats but there's a huge market for such things, from Dawson's Creek to Gossip Girl. The first show of this type, My So-Called Life, was a critical darling but a ratings flop. It was ahead of its time and it made my skin crawl, even when I was in its target demographic.

 

[trevanian]

In '66, "Mission Impossible" was the only other show to debut that one could label as a "drama." Of the remainder from the whole of the sixties, they had... "Flipper?" "Daniel Boone" and "Combat." "My Three Sons," I guess...

"Tarzan", "Iron Horse", "Daktari", "Felony Squad", "The Girl From U.N.C.L.E.", "The Rat Patrol", "Shane","The Road West", "Time Tunnel", and "T.H.E. Cat" were all dramas that debuted in 1966. "My Three Sons" was a comedy. 1967 debuts included, "Dragent '67" "Ironside", "Mannix" and "The Prisoner". 1968 gave us the aformentioned "Adam-12", "The Bold Ones", "It Takes A Thief", "Hawaii 5-0", "Land of the Giants" and the Mod Squad". 1969 had "Bracken's World" (IIRC it took over Star Trek's Time slot), Marcus Welby M.D." and "Then Came Bronson". So no shortage of New dramas in the late 60s.

I was alive and watched most of those shows.

PRISONER may have aired in the UK in 67 (I though it was 68 myself), but it didn't air in the US till they needed a summer replacement on CBS for JACKIE GLEASON, so that would have been 68 or 69. It is interesting to note how many of the dramas you cite lasted less time than TREK.

Again, the huge numbers you had to capture to stay on a network back then compared to now pretty much meant 'appeals to everybody' or it is history.

 

[Warped9]

Star Trek wasn't exactly a forerunner in doing science fiction in a particular way. There were examples and signposts of SF being done in that way earlier in literature, in film and on television.

Yet Star Trek did it with greater consistency and with a recurring group of characters as opposed to a one-off SF novel, film or episodes within an anthology series like The Twilight Zone or The Outer Limits. Star Trek took many pre-existing ideas in terms of SF elements as well as approaches to storytelling and merged them into a cohesive whole in a way that was accessible for the broader mainstream audience.


I do find it interesting how different people can interpret events and times in such different ways, particularly among those who actually lived during those earlier times and those for whom the 1960s are something they can only know through historical accounts.

 

[Brutal Strudel]

Oh, there's no disputing that Trek didn't invent its tropes--it was essentially Forbidden Planet: The Series. But it was the first tv show to try to get an intelligent, adult audience to invest in an SF show where a regular cast of characters would face serious dramatic situations set in a continuing and evolving universe. Yes, TZ and TOL presented great SF stories but were one-offs and they never asked for the kind of investment that a non-anthology drama series did. Trek was the first, really, to do that.

 

[perigee]

I was alive and watched most of those shows.

Whoa - Nice one, Nerys! Once again, Wiki is insufficient. Did your source have a listing of the nominees for Nimoys category from '66-'68?

 

[Nerys Myk]

I was alive and watched most of those shows.

Whoa - Nice one, Nerys! Once again, Wiki is insufficient. Did your source have a listing of the nominees for Nimoys category from '66-'68?

In 1967 Nimoy was up against Eli Wallach and Leo G. Carroll.

In 1968 he was up against Milburne Stone, Joseph Campenella and Lawrence Dobkin.

In 1969 they combine the Drama and Comedy Supporting Acting awards and was was up against Werner Klemperer and Gregg Morris

 

[Noname Given]

I don't think anyone's yet mentioned one important factor: the televising of the July 1969 moon landing (just as the original series was wrapping up it's network run), which kindled the public's interest in space exploration and made the show seem more plausible and understandable to the average viewer. This I believe aided the syndication success of the series.

In case I haven't repeated it lately, the moon landing KILLED public interest in space and science fiction, it didn't enhance it. I was 9 and couldn't believe how everybody was like, okay that is over, forget space, which is pretty much what happened.

And numbers killed TOS; the 20 million viewer numbers needed to make a hit network show in the 60s (and probably close to that inthe 80s for that matter) were far greater than any trek show ever pulled in. ModernTrek worked because it was in syndication; if trek had come back on a network in the 80s, it would have tanked (and not only that, it would have gotten cancelled before it got its sealegs, because you don't get three years to figure your show out on a network, like TNG and DS9 to a lesser degree needed.)

But, remember: The first Moon landing occured just AFTER the Network run of Star Trek. Were that a factor, that should have translated to LOWER syndication ratings when in fact (with regard to syndication); the oppisite happened. UNTIL the Apollo 11 moon landing; EVERYONE worldwide was keenly interested in the space race; and whether the USSR would be the first to the moon (and it wasn't until after we landed we found out just how far off the Russian attempt was).

But, the point is: Even if 'disinterist in manned spacefligt' occured after Apollo 11; that should have had little effect of the first run network ratings; and more of a negative effect of the national syndication ratings, which (as history shows), it didn't.

 

[perigee]

1969[/URL] they combine the Drama and Comedy Supporting Acting awards and was was up against Werner Klemperer and Gregg Morris

Nice! Disheartening, though. The IMF was no match for a boob Nazi.

 

[ToddPence]

Among the dramas debuting in 1967 was a show called "Judd For the Defense" which I believe was one of Trek's competition shows for Friday nights. I've never seen this show, but it must have been a good one as it garnered two writer's guild awards.

 

[Campe]

Indeed I read somewhere (can't recall where) some years ago that if TOS' ratings were applied to today's TV market it would considered quite successful.

Sorry to take this off-topic a bit but I can't let this slide. What you're suggesting is a pure case of apples and oranges. A 21st century audience is far more fragmented than a 1960s audience. You had three, maybe four choices for programming in the 60s. Now, we have hundreds of channels (oddly with nothing on), home video and video games. Its easy to say that if TOS' ratings from 1969 were applied to a 2009 market that it would be considered successful, but there is no way any program would pull those kind of numbers today, particularly sci-fi. Hate to say it, but if Star Trek premiered in 2006 as opposed to 1966 (obviously with budget, FX and stories updated to appease a modern audience), the show would never have made it out of the first season.

 

[Nerys Myk]

1969[/URL] they combine the Drama and Comedy Supporting Acting awards and was was up against Werner Klemperer and Gregg Morris

Nice! Disheartening, though. The IMF was no match for a boob Nazi.

I'm Hogan's Heroes fan and I enjoyed Klemperer's Klink. While he was a German, Klink was no Nazi. Klemperer, who's family was Jewish and escaped from Nazi Germany, insisted that Klink be played as a fool.

 

[Noname Given]

1969[/URL] they combine the Drama and Comedy Supporting Acting awards and was was up against Werner Klemperer and Gregg Morris

Nice! Disheartening, though. The IMF was no match for a boob Nazi.

I'm Hogan's Heroes fan and I enjoyed Klemperer's Klink. While he was a German, Klink was no Nazi. Klemperer, who's family was Jewish and escaped from Nazi Germany, insisted that Klink be played as a fool.

Klink? nah. Sgt. Schultz owned - "I know nuth-ink!...NUTH-INK!"

 

[Ryan Thomas Riddle]

Star Trek wasn't exactly a forerunner in doing science fiction in a particular way. There were examples and signposts of SF being done in that way earlier in literature, in film and on television.

Yet Star Trek did it with greater consistency and with a recurring group of characters as opposed to a one-off SF novel, film or episodes within an anthology series like The Twilight Zone or The Outer Limits. Star Trek took many pre-existing ideas in terms of SF elements as well as approaches to storytelling and merged them into a cohesive whole in a way that was accessible for the broader mainstream audience.


I do find it interesting how different people can interpret events and times in such different ways, particularly among those who actually lived during those earlier times and those for whom the 1960s are something they can only know through historical accounts.

Oh, there's no disputing that Trek didn't invent its tropes--it was essentially Forbidden Planet: The Series. But it was the first tv show to try to get an intelligent, adult audience to invest in an SF show where a regular cast of characters would face serious dramatic situations set in a continuing and evolving universe. Yes, TZ and TOL presented great SF stories but were one-offs and they never asked for the kind of investment that a non-anthology drama series did. Trek was the first, really, to do that.

Moreover, Star Trek did all those things with a more adventurous flare than the anthology shows.

 

[Maurice]

And yet in the midst of all those horrible negative reviews and Trekker persecution, Leonard Nimoy won an Emmy for playing Spock.

Just because a player is on a losing team doesn't mean people don't notice if he's constantly hitting home runs. And Emmy's aren't People's Choice Awards or given by audiences. The voters are peers, actors vote for fellow actors, etc. Critics and mainstream audiences didn't dig Star Trek, but Nimoy's peers clearly recognized the fine work he was doing.