How would the look of TOS have adapted to the 1970s?
- Thread starter JonnyQuest037
- Start date
If only Robert Wise had been a groovy dude like IndySolo. I lament that we never heard this in theaters. I weep, even. "Give me some skin, Spock, my brother!"
Sir "70s Rule" Rhosis
Sir "70s Rule" Rhosis
One has to remember that some of the counterculture styles weren't all that far removed, in the 70s, from trends that had colored that generation's youth. Long sideburns? They'd seen that on Rudolf Valentino films as kids, in period films starring Errol Flynn, and in the 50s on Elvis when that generation - the TOS generation - was in their 30s and late 20s. Big hair? Have you ever seen how big men's hair was in the 1930s and 1940s? Clark Gable's hair was as long as any Beatle moptop - it was just slicked down with lots of brylcreem. Wide collars? Zoot suits. Men's collars in the 30s and 40s, on suits and regular shirts, were huge. For truly "long hair"? Soe of the more open minded guys who were versed in history might have had the Founding Fathers in mind.
+1936+gable+lombard.png)
Note huge collars, 1945:
Same men (left, and center), 1973:
As far as hair length? These are servicemen in 1942. Their hair is much longer than what would've been considered "the norm" in say, 1962:
So, for that generation, while some stuff (the really long hair, jeans, design t-shirts, sneakers, pot) might have been out there, some of it was probably, in some subconscious way, familiar. Plus, you have to remember too, the generation of guys who lived through the Depression and WWII, they repressed their emotions. What better to 'let it all hang out', than to embrace new stuff?
Even LBJ, out of office, got in on it, 1972:
One has to remember that some of the counterculture styles weren't all that far removed, in the 70s, from trends that had colored that generation's youth. Long sideburns? They'd seen that on Rudolf Valentino films as kids, in period films starring Errol Flynn, and in the 50s on Elvis when that generation - the TOS generation - was in their 30s and late 20s. Big hair? Have you ever seen how big men's hair was in the 1930s and 1940s? Clark Gable's hair was as long as any Beatle moptop - it was just slicked down with lots of brylcreem. Wide collars? Zoot suits. Men's collars in the 30s and 40s, on suits and regular shirts, were huge. For truly "long hair"? Soe of the more open minded guys who were versed in history might have had the Founding Fathers in mind.
Note huge collars, 1945:
Same men (left, and center), 1973:
As far as hair length? These are servicemen in 1942. Their hair is much longer than what would've been considered "the norm" in say, 1962:
So, for that generation, while some stuff (the really long hair, jeans, design t-shirts, sneakers, pot) might have been out there, some of it was probably, in some subconscious way, familiar. Plus, you have to remember too, the generation of guys who lived through the Depression and WWII, they repressed their emotions. What better to 'let it all hang out', than to embrace new stuff?
Even LBJ, out of office, got in on it, 1972:
Good points and great pictures!
SpockboyI'll give you another - My grandfather in 1942 in the Army. Note how wide and large his collar was, and this is a military uniform. Not very far removed from 1970s collars.
Even the pant legs are a bit flared. Not as flared as full fledged Shaggy from Scooby Doo bellbottoms but still...
Even the pant legs are a bit flared. Not as flared as full fledged Shaggy from Scooby Doo bellbottoms but still...
I actually wish it had taken on a 70s aesthetic. 70s futurism - as shown in the Phase II concept art - was sleek and pretty to look at. Seeing longer sideburns on say, Kirk and McCoy, would've been cool. As it is, of all the post TOS uniforms, I prefer TMP's the best - and it's the closest to a '70s look we got.
You should check out enlisted sailor uniforms from the 1940s on. Many of them, especially the dress whites, have widely flared bellbottoms from the hip down. I once knew a woman that could wear her father's dress whites, because the flare of the bellbottoms could reach around her female hip structure.
The seventies was a great era on TV if not for clothes style! 
JB
JB
The problem with a thread like this is that there are a LOT of things to consider about going into the 1970s... and the obvious question of 'if they show had gotten a couple of more seasons for 1970-1973' as opposed to a 'new' show in the mid 1970s (ala Phase II). Let's look at the first case, though.
The first, obvious question, would have to be 'who's in charge of it?' Gene was fired by this point, and Fred was on thin ice. If Fred had been allowed to continue and without season three's infighting, would the show have improved? It definitely would have been less experimental. Of course there's the question of who remains as writers and who they would bring in? Sci-Fi was starting to enter its nihilist phase, and that may have started to be more dominant from the new writing talent.
Second, we would have lost Nichols and Takei, at least as regulars. Both wanted to move on with their careers and were the two most vocal about Gene's departure. Dee was also looking at retirement, so it's iffy if we would even have McCoy. While, admittedly, Sulu and Uhura not being on the bridge may not have been that drastic, can you imagine a season or two without Bones?
The third VERY big issue, which everyone tends to forget, is that the US Congress was being VERY strict about 'action/adventure' content and apply more and more pressure to 'comics code' television. Even though they never actually passed new FCC regulations on the subject, the political pressure was immense. There's a REASON a lot of shows changed their stories and how they approached them. Star Trek would have surely been a victim of this as well. This is also why so many 1970s shows, sci-fi or not, moved into camp VERY quickly. They weren't ALLOWED to handle themselves in a serious and mature way. This wouldn't change until syndication dominated sci-fi starting in the 1980s.
The look and musical queues would change, but an ongoing show would keep a lot of its existing catalog. So, no, we wouldn't suddenly get everyone in late 1970s skin-tight pajamas, but more and more of that look would slip in, particularly for aliens, guests, and civilian clothes. We were ALREADY getting some of that in season three, after all. I would be FAR more worried about new and repaired sets looking more and more like cheap BBC productions of the time.
1971 was indeed a very dramatic year for the changes in television, and I don't think that TOS would have weathered that storm particularly well. Someone brought up Mission: Impossible for comparison and I think that would be fair, since many of the same people were involved. Compare a season 1 episode of that show with a season 5 episode, and that's probably along the lines of what we're looking at.
The first, obvious question, would have to be 'who's in charge of it?' Gene was fired by this point, and Fred was on thin ice. If Fred had been allowed to continue and without season three's infighting, would the show have improved? It definitely would have been less experimental. Of course there's the question of who remains as writers and who they would bring in? Sci-Fi was starting to enter its nihilist phase, and that may have started to be more dominant from the new writing talent.
Second, we would have lost Nichols and Takei, at least as regulars. Both wanted to move on with their careers and were the two most vocal about Gene's departure. Dee was also looking at retirement, so it's iffy if we would even have McCoy. While, admittedly, Sulu and Uhura not being on the bridge may not have been that drastic, can you imagine a season or two without Bones?
The third VERY big issue, which everyone tends to forget, is that the US Congress was being VERY strict about 'action/adventure' content and apply more and more pressure to 'comics code' television. Even though they never actually passed new FCC regulations on the subject, the political pressure was immense. There's a REASON a lot of shows changed their stories and how they approached them. Star Trek would have surely been a victim of this as well. This is also why so many 1970s shows, sci-fi or not, moved into camp VERY quickly. They weren't ALLOWED to handle themselves in a serious and mature way. This wouldn't change until syndication dominated sci-fi starting in the 1980s.
The look and musical queues would change, but an ongoing show would keep a lot of its existing catalog. So, no, we wouldn't suddenly get everyone in late 1970s skin-tight pajamas, but more and more of that look would slip in, particularly for aliens, guests, and civilian clothes. We were ALREADY getting some of that in season three, after all. I would be FAR more worried about new and repaired sets looking more and more like cheap BBC productions of the time.
1971 was indeed a very dramatic year for the changes in television, and I don't think that TOS would have weathered that storm particularly well. Someone brought up Mission: Impossible for comparison and I think that would be fair, since many of the same people were involved. Compare a season 1 episode of that show with a season 5 episode, and that's probably along the lines of what we're looking at.
The other half of the question is "What about a new show in the 1970s" which obviously leads us into the very-romanticized Star Trek: Phase II. A lot of people look at the "Star Trek that Almost Was" and dream about how incredible and awesome it would have been, if only things had worked out differently in order to get it on the air. I won't go into too many specifics about the show, as they'll well-documented, but to put it in short form, this was Gene's attempt to get a show back on the air using the only property with which he had had success.
And, right there, there's the first problem. Phase II couldn't come about precisely because Gene was in charge of it. This wasn't the hungry and even somewhat conservative Gene of the 1960s, this was a Gene that bought his own hype and had become fairly radicalized. The show was delayed for years due to his conflicts with all the powers that be, ranging from his insistence on attacking Christianity, declaring the US on the wrong side of the Cold War, and numerous other writing issues that would have gotten a lot of people fired from NBC at the time.
Remember, this was the era of nearly-direct government control of prime-time and the 'height' of 'safe' television. It wasn't just that Gene was clearly going too far for an American audience, but that he was doing so at a time where shows like Dukes of Hazard were being carefully monitored to be 'family friendly'. TV was at its height of content regulation, and syndication wasn't yet seen as a viable option.
So for Phase II to go anywhere, someone OTHER than Gene would have to be in charge of it, and that's a huge open question. A Quinn Martin production, anyone?
Visually we already have a lot of clues about Phase II, which basically resulted in dragging out all the Star Trek stuff out of storage and cleaning up and repairing as needed. So if you're thinking of basically the TOS Enterprise sets with a few bits of Space 1999 in there, you wouldn't be that far off. Fashions, once you're away from the uniforms, would likely be a more subdued form of what we were already seeing on television at that time, but not by much. If it was on Mannix, that's the look you'll see on Phase II. And, yes, that likely includes hair-styles, particularly for younger characters.
Even the Enterprise wouldn't be the one we think it would be. One thing not commonly discussed was that the Phase II Enterprise model was actually REJECTED for filming. It wasn't built well and was difficult to move and light. The new FX people have almost no idea what to do with it, as techniques had moved on compared to how it was constructed. A new model was already commissioned for Phase II, but the project was changed before work could begin.
This, of course, leaves the stars. Shatner and Nimoy had already moved on in their careers and weren't that interested in being the stars of Trek again. Both would reprise their roles in LIMITED appearances, giving us a new captain and first officer for Trek. Plans were made to include Dee, but he was looking at retirement. Would people have accepted Trek in 1975-1976 without Kirk, Bones, and Spock being on the bridge?
Again, there are a lot of variables here, but there are reasons why things worked out the way that they did for Star Trek. Any discussion of 'what could have been' has to include the real history of just exactly why they didn't.
And, right there, there's the first problem. Phase II couldn't come about precisely because Gene was in charge of it. This wasn't the hungry and even somewhat conservative Gene of the 1960s, this was a Gene that bought his own hype and had become fairly radicalized. The show was delayed for years due to his conflicts with all the powers that be, ranging from his insistence on attacking Christianity, declaring the US on the wrong side of the Cold War, and numerous other writing issues that would have gotten a lot of people fired from NBC at the time.
Remember, this was the era of nearly-direct government control of prime-time and the 'height' of 'safe' television. It wasn't just that Gene was clearly going too far for an American audience, but that he was doing so at a time where shows like Dukes of Hazard were being carefully monitored to be 'family friendly'. TV was at its height of content regulation, and syndication wasn't yet seen as a viable option.
So for Phase II to go anywhere, someone OTHER than Gene would have to be in charge of it, and that's a huge open question. A Quinn Martin production, anyone?
Visually we already have a lot of clues about Phase II, which basically resulted in dragging out all the Star Trek stuff out of storage and cleaning up and repairing as needed. So if you're thinking of basically the TOS Enterprise sets with a few bits of Space 1999 in there, you wouldn't be that far off. Fashions, once you're away from the uniforms, would likely be a more subdued form of what we were already seeing on television at that time, but not by much. If it was on Mannix, that's the look you'll see on Phase II. And, yes, that likely includes hair-styles, particularly for younger characters.
Even the Enterprise wouldn't be the one we think it would be. One thing not commonly discussed was that the Phase II Enterprise model was actually REJECTED for filming. It wasn't built well and was difficult to move and light. The new FX people have almost no idea what to do with it, as techniques had moved on compared to how it was constructed. A new model was already commissioned for Phase II, but the project was changed before work could begin.
This, of course, leaves the stars. Shatner and Nimoy had already moved on in their careers and weren't that interested in being the stars of Trek again. Both would reprise their roles in LIMITED appearances, giving us a new captain and first officer for Trek. Plans were made to include Dee, but he was looking at retirement. Would people have accepted Trek in 1975-1976 without Kirk, Bones, and Spock being on the bridge?
Again, there are a lot of variables here, but there are reasons why things worked out the way that they did for Star Trek. Any discussion of 'what could have been' has to include the real history of just exactly why they didn't.
What is the source for all this information? While Roddenberry was mostly inactive as executive producer, I don't recall anything about him being fired. Likewise the cast - if Takei or Nichols departed, it would probably be because of budget expenses, not Roddenberry's presence.
Herb Solow and Rod Roddenberry, and Gene himself at times. And Gene was "Hollywood Fired" twice from Star Trek. To paraphrase "The only way there will be a third season is if you're not around for it." Thus he was "asked to resign." Gene had burnt many, many bridges by that point, and more than a few 'higher ups' felt that Star Trek wasn't worth the trouble anymore. It wasn't even about ratings or money at that point, it was about how toxic the production had become.
There's a REASON none of his other shows got to production, regardless of their quality.
As for Fred, a lot of people blamed him for the failures of season 3, despite how toxic production had already become, and how.. shall we say.. unenthused most of the principals were by this point.
The same sort of thing happened with Phase II and then TMP. Hell, even in TNG the 'powers that be' again were ready to fire him.. and would have.. if nature hadn't intervened. (You'll note that season two starts to change TNG heavily, as Gene was in too poor health to micro-manage it.)
Takei and Nichols were leaving to pursue their careers elsewhere. Takei wanted to break into movies and Nichols wanted to return to the stage. Gene had convinced them to stay on as day players, but it's unlikely that they would have continued beyond season 4 with an entirely new production crew.
( I also really didn't mean to kill this thread with those posts... holy cow!)
There's a REASON none of his other shows got to production, regardless of their quality.
As for Fred, a lot of people blamed him for the failures of season 3, despite how toxic production had already become, and how.. shall we say.. unenthused most of the principals were by this point.
The same sort of thing happened with Phase II and then TMP. Hell, even in TNG the 'powers that be' again were ready to fire him.. and would have.. if nature hadn't intervened. (You'll note that season two starts to change TNG heavily, as Gene was in too poor health to micro-manage it.)
Takei and Nichols were leaving to pursue their careers elsewhere. Takei wanted to break into movies and Nichols wanted to return to the stage. Gene had convinced them to stay on as day players, but it's unlikely that they would have continued beyond season 4 with an entirely new production crew.
( I also really didn't mean to kill this thread with those posts... holy cow!)
No uncertain terms...
If Gene had insisted on staying on Star Trek, season three would not have been made. The only way season three would be made is if Gene had no part of it. So he 'chose' to resign to allow the production to continue.
Call it what you want, Warped, he was shown the door.
If Gene had insisted on staying on Star Trek, season three would not have been made. The only way season three would be made is if Gene had no part of it. So he 'chose' to resign to allow the production to continue.
Call it what you want, Warped, he was shown the door.
No. I don't ever recall reading that or interpreting it that way. I don't know where you get that.
Similar threads
