Spoilers I finally exposed myself to The Animated Series

[cosmic mouse]

I rewatched this entire series earlier this year after having not seen any of the eps since ~1978 or so. I did used to watch this on Saturday mornings and it was as good as I recall it being when I was 7 years old. I truly love the animation style and the colors/design elements. The stories are solid, as others have said, and it does really feel like an extension of TOS, which I guess it is, but for some reason I never considered it quite this way, despite growing up on reruns of that series as well.

edit: also, posting this made me rethink TAS, which prompted me to look up M'Ress, which in turn made me realize that Caitians appear in ST: Into Darkness... huh? Maybe I need to rewatch ST:ID now.

 

[FormerLurker]

TAS was written on the same level as TOS, sex and violence aside. It was not written on the same level as Scooby-Doo.

Which is actually saying something, as Scooby-Doo was written more maturely than most of its contemporaries (it premiered in 1969). Indeed, when first conceived, Scooby-Doo was intended as a prime-time show, with more mature themes, but network and studio changes saw to it that it aired on Saturday mornings. As I recall, that last two prime-time cartoons of that era were Wait 'Til Your Father Gets Home and The Barkley's, maybe?

 

[Redfern]

I'm probably wrong, but I thought Scooby Doo was conceived as a direct result of ACT (Action for Children's Television) mandating Saturday morning animation tone down its violence. Cartoons like "Jonny Quest" (which DID start in primetime), "Space Ghost", "The Herculoids", etc. could no longer be made (and their reruns were later "edited for content"), so a "different approach" had to be considered. So we got a series where villains at worst scared away people to search for treasure or tie up someone until a lease ran out. Scooby was arguably inspired by the Hardy Boys and Nancy Drew young readers' mysteries while the characters were influenced by those from "Dobie Gillis" (Fred = Dobie, Shaggy = Maynard, etc.) but given a late 60s fashion sense.

I just never heard that particular anecdote, that Scooby was originally intended for evening broadcast.

 

[Christopher]

Which is actually saying something, as Scooby-Doo was written more maturely than most of its contemporaries (it premiered in 1969). Indeed, when first conceived, Scooby-Doo was intended as a prime-time show, with more mature themes, but network and studio changes saw to it that it aired on Saturday mornings. As I recall, that last two prime-time cartoons of that era were Wait 'Til Your Father Gets Home and The Barkley's, maybe?

I don't know where you're getting that from. According to Scoobypedia:

https://scoobydoo.wikia.com/wiki/Scooby-Doo_(franchise)#Creation_and_development

In 1968, Fred Silverman, executive in charge of children's programming for the CBS network, was looking for a show that would revitalize his Saturday morning line-up and please the watchdog groups at the same time.
...
The executives felt that the presentation artwork was far too frightening for young viewers, and, thinking the show would be the same, decided to pass on it.

Now without a centerpiece for the upcoming season's programming, Silverman turned to Ruby and Spears, who reworked the show to make it more comedic and less frightening.

So it was conceived from the start as a Saturday morning children's show, and as Redfern says, it was designed to be as nonviolent and kid-friendly as possible. And it sure as hell wasn't "maturely written" at any stage (at least, not until Scooby-Doo: Mystery Incorporated in 2010). It was very simple and formulaic, always the same basic plot structure and character schticks every week, just the gang running from ghosts and monsters and Shaggy & Scooby overeating and Velma losing her glasses and Fred building a trap and the monster being unmasked as some guy with a real estate scam and bemoaning the meddling kids.

Even when I was a kid in the '70s, I found Scooby-Doo and other Hanna-Barbera shows more simple-minded than Filmation's output. Even Filmation's comedies like Fat Albert and Gilligan usually tried to be socially relevant and educational, to tell stories where the characters learned something about how to be better people. Hanna-Barbera shows had no such thoughtfulness.

 

[seigezunt]

I'm glad people are enjoying TAS. It was what got me hooked on Trek first as a kid in it first run.

 

[FormerLurker]

I don't know where you're getting that from. According to Scoobypedia:

In 1968, Fred Silverman, executive in charge of children's programming for the CBS network, was looking for a show that would revitalize his Saturday morning line-up and please the watchdog groups at the same time.
...
The executives felt that the presentation artwork was far too frightening for young viewers, and, thinking the show would be the same, decided to pass on it.

Now without a centerpiece for the upcoming season's programming, Silverman turned to Ruby and Spears, who reworked the show to make it more comedic and less frightening.

So it was conceived from the start as a Saturday morning children's show, and as Redfern says, it was designed to be as nonviolent and kid-friendly as possible. And it sure as hell wasn't "maturely written" at any stage (at least, not until Scooby-Doo: Mystery Incorporated in 2010). It was very simple and formulaic, always the same basic plot structure and character schticks every week, just the gang running from ghosts and monsters and Shaggy & Scooby overeating and Velma losing her glasses and Fred building a trap and the monster being unmasked as some guy with a real estate scam and bemoaning the meddling kids.

Well, I have this tome about HB animation (who Ruby and Spears worked for at the time) that quotes Iwao Takamoto, the creator of Scooby Doo, as saying he initially developed it for primetime, but Silverman (making one of those changes I mentioned) decided it needed to be on Saturday mornings.
I need to find the book, but when I do, I can quote passages from it if you like.

Oh, it was an official release from HB, so it's not some hatchetjob by an outsider. I have similar books about Disney and Warner Animation.

 

[Christopher]

Even if that's what it was originally conceived to be, that's not what it ever actually was in its complete, aired form, so it really doesn't count as an adult-skewing show. Many shows change radically from the first pitch to the final, picked-up version. Only what actually gets on the air is relevant.

 

[Redfern]

You have quotable sources, Lurker? Well, I'm willing to concede and admit I was mistaken. Sounds like a case where it was intended as one thing and then co-opted and reworked (re-imagined, whatever) by Silverman to meet new guidelines.

Plus, as we all know, Wiki entries can be "edited" by laypersons (unless "locked down") leading to potential misinformation.

 

[FormerLurker]

You have quotable sources, Lurker? Well, I'm willing to concede and admit I was mistaken. Sounds like a case where it was intended as one thing and then co-opted and reworked (re-imagined, whatever) by Silverman to meet new guidelines.

Plus, as we all know, Wiki entries can be "edited" by laypersons (unless "locked down") leading to potential misinformation.

I have it somewhere in a pile. I'm in the middle of decluttering my house, and it's somewhere near the bottom, I think.

As far as what the original intent was, Iwao Takamoto conceived the show to appeal to a young adult audience in early primetime. Fred Silverman may have indeed intended it to be "different approach" type series, with less violence and simpler stories and more humor. His decision to put it on Saturday mornings was probably a part of that intent.

Of note for Christopher, one of the changes Ruby and Spears brought is the addition of Scooby Doo. It was originally just the four human characters, similar to Clue Club without Woofer and Tweeter, and the addition necessitated a name change. I need to find that book, as it has hard facts in it, while I sound like a Wikipedia speculator.

 

[Christopher]

Of note for Christopher, one of the changes Ruby and Spears brought is the addition of Scooby Doo. It was originally just the four human characters, similar to Clue Club without Woofer and Tweeter, and the addition necessitated a name change. I need to find that book, as it has hard facts in it, while I sound like a Wikipedia speculator.

Again, what does it matter what the show was originally conceived to be? What you said in post #82 was "Scooby-Doo was written more maturely than most of its contemporaries (it premiered in 1969)." That is simply untrue. At the point you're talking about, it did not actually exist as a show, just a pitch for one, and it wasn't named Scooby-Doo yet -- as you just admitted, that character wasn't even created until after it was decided to make it a kids' show. The actual scripts that were written for the television show Scooby-Doo, Where Are You?, the episodes that aired on television in 1969-70, were never written more maturely than other Saturday morning shows. You're conflating the initial idea with the end result, and that's misleading.

 

[BoredShipCapt'n]

Which is actually saying something, as Scooby-Doo was written more maturely than most of its contemporaries (it premiered in 1969). Indeed, when first conceived, Scooby-Doo was intended as a prime-time show, with more mature themes, but network and studio changes saw to it that it aired on Saturday mornings. As I recall, that last two prime-time cartoons of that era were Wait 'Til Your Father Gets Home and The Barkley's, maybe?

I remember The Barkleys as a Saturday morning show, and this is confirmed by Hal Erickson's Television Cartoon Shows: An Illustrated Encyclopedia. But Wait Till Your Father Gets Home was indeed prime time.

 

[Noname Given]

As I recall, that last two prime-time cartoons of that era were Wait 'Til Your Father Gets Home and The Barkley's, maybe?

There was also "The Roman Holidays" that was also done in the vein of "The Flintstones" and "The Jetsons" that they tried in a Prime Time spot for a period:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Roman_Holidays

 

[FormerLurker]

Thank you, Noname. That's the one I was thinking of, not The Barkleys.

 

[Redfern]

...which prompted me to look up M'Ress, which in turn made me realize that Caitians appear in ST: Into Darkness... huh?

M'Ress: "Uh...that ain't no Caitian I ever saw, Cosmic Mouse!"

Not trying to start a debate. I just saw it as an opportunity to post a silly render moderately on topic.

 

[cosmic mouse]

M'Ress: "Uh...that ain't no Caitian I ever saw, Cosmic Mouse!"

Not trying to start a debate. I just saw it as an opportunity to posy a silly render moderately on topic.

I agree, it doesn't look at all like a Caitian, but it's identified as one on the Memory Alpha page...

 

[Christopher]

I agree, it doesn't look at all like a Caitian, but it's identified as one on the Memory Alpha page...

Maybe an immigrant -- Caitian by nationality rather than species. Trek is too prone to assume those have to be the same thing.

 

[CRM-114]

Yeah... For all its superficiality, the first season of Buck Rogers did a great job for its era of portraying women as equals and strong characters (with a few exceptions like Dorothy Stratten in "Cruise Ship to the Stars"), but the second season was often disturbingly misogynistic, marginalizing and objectifying Wilma and never giving another female Seeker crew member more than a single line, except for the nurse in "Mark of the Saurian."

The sad thing about season 2 is that its first and last episodes are both terrific, smart science fiction stories better than anything else in the entire series, and there's some halfway decent stuff in the second and second-last episodes, but the rest of the season is even dumber than the first. The first season was unambitious fluff, but it didn't take itself seriously, so it was reasonably fun. But the second season took itself very seriously, which made the dumbness stand out even more.

Here's the thing, though (quoting from my blog): I realized a while back that Buck Rogers season 2 was the closest thing in real life to the series within the movie Galaxy Quest. Within the film’s reality, the Galaxy Quest series ran from 1979-82, while Buck Rogers ran from 1979-81. Both GQ and BR S2 were Star Trek-like starship adventure series with a macho male lead whose actor tended to hog the spotlight (Taggart/Buck), his stoic alien warrior best friend who’s the last survivor of a slaughtered people (Dr. Lazarus/Hawk), and a somewhat marginalized token female lead/love interest with a vaguely defined shipboard role (Tawny/Wilma). Meanwhile, Laredo, the child prodigy navigator of the Protector, has always strongly reminded me of Gary Coleman’s Hieronymous Fox from Buck season 1. Everyone assumes that Galaxy Quest is just a Star Trek parody, and to a large extent it obviously is; but if it isn’t deliberately based on Buck Rogers as well, then it’s a staggering coincidence, given the sheer number of strong parallels.

All I know is I need to start watching Buck Rogers.

 

[Skipper]

All I know is I need to start watching Buck Rogers.

Begin with the tv pilot, not the theatrical movie.

 

[Christopher]

Begin with the tv pilot, not the theatrical movie.

Yes, definitely.

 

[Therin of Andor]

posting this made me rethink TAS, which prompted me to look up M'Ress, which in turn made me realize that Caitians appear in ST: Into Darkness... huh? Maybe I need to rewatch ST:ID now.

The twins were scripted as Caitians, and the Makeup Dept designed an array of furry and scaly appliance pieces, not knowing what designs might work best on the unclad women in the scene. In the end, they are more humanoid with tails. The face, shoulder and ear appliances are not very felinoid.