Impact of the Series During its Run

[Vance]

You have to keep in mind, Star Trek's actual ratings were respectable, and indeed many shows with worse ratings were kept even at the time. The problem was that Star Trek was a problem show. From the perspective of the studio and network, Star Trek was a pain in the ass that wasn't quite worth the trouble, particularly as it went on and some of the scandals were more than just embarassing, but potentially (if not outright) criminal.

But there really was a lot of excitement and acclaim at its time for such an unusual show. TV Guide featured it heavily, for instance. And it won many awards. But, after the first two years of all the issues, NBC and Desilu were sick of it. They honestly wanted to be rid of the show, or - more specifically - some of the people working on it. Roddenberry's replacement allowed for a third season, but Fred couldn't salvage the damaged egos and relationships that were left (which showed on screen at times) and the show was ignamously killed by buring it in the worst possible time-slots.

 

[Christopher]

You have to keep in mind, Star Trek's actual ratings were respectable, and indeed many shows with worse ratings were kept even at the time. The problem was that Star Trek was a problem show. From the perspective of the studio and network, Star Trek was a pain in the ass that wasn't quite worth the trouble, particularly as it went on and some of the scandals were more than just embarassing, but potentially (if not outright) criminal.

But there really was a lot of excitement and acclaim at its time for such an unusual show. TV Guide featured it heavily, for instance. And it won many awards. But, after the first two years of all the issues, NBC and Desilu were sick of it. They honestly wanted to be rid of the show, or - more specifically - some of the people working on it. Roddenberry's replacement allowed for a third season, but Fred couldn't salvage the damaged egos and relationships that were left (which showed on screen at times) and the show was ignamously killed by buring it in the worst possible time-slots.

That's not the way Inside Star Trek or any other book I've read has characterized it. What scandals are you talking about? There were Roddenberry's various affairs, but that was pretty much accepted behavior for male executives back then.

My understanding is this: ST got critical acclaim and was actually quite well-liked by the network executives; Roddenberry's claims that the network hated it were just propaganda to make him look like the heroic underdog battling an establishment that didn't "get it." The execs didn't much like Roddenberry as a result of his confrontational attitude, but they liked having such a classy and intelligent show on their network. The problem was, it was expensive to make, and its ratings (based on the limited measurement systems they had at the time) were consistently too low to justify that expense. They kept it around far longer than they otherwise would because of its critical respectability and because it was the main reason people were buying color televisions (a technology patented by NBC's parent company RCA); Roddenberry's claims of million-person letter-writing campaigns were exaggerated by a couple of orders of magnitude and weren't as decisive as fan mythology would have it. They wanted the show on their network and tried their best to keep it around, but ultimately it just cost them too much money.

Although they later discovered that it had had the ideal demographics for them, once demographics began to be assessed. If they'd known that at the time, they probably would've kept it on the air, though maybe without Roddenberry.

 

[Vance]

That's not the way Inside Star Trek or any other book I've read has characterized it. What scandals are you talking about? There were Roddenberry's various affairs, but that was pretty much accepted behavior for male executives back then.

Not quite.. at least not the way he did them. Most executives doing that were smart enough to use some amount of discretion. As for the details, most of them have come out in the past ten years or so, particularly as NBC has been releasing studio documents into the archives.

From what's gathered, the networks LIKED the show, as I said, it was doing respectably, and was garnering the audience, but they were sick of the production staff. Remember, Roddenberry wasn't the only person who 'graciously left' the show after second season, and this wasn't a coincidence.

Fred's interviews (and I apologize, I never could spell his last name right) were pretty telling, though he obviously held little ill will for his time on Star Trek. He describes an all but morale-destroyed cast and crew, a rediculous deadline for the first batch of episodes brought on by numerous contract disputes, and loss of the budget due to much of it being mysteriously already missing, and so on.

One good story came from Shatner about the 'star of the show' argument, where Roddenberry had promised Nimoy 'equal billing' as co-star for season three (among other things). This wasn't in Nimoy's contract, and Shatner, of course, was incensed to hear about the promise. Shatner had to drag Roddenberry in front of Desilu and demanded to settle the issue of who the star was.

Even with how Trek was recieved, and that it was moving color TVs, "Fire them all" was uttered more than once by Desilu, a fact never really lost on Shatner or Nimoy, who knew the end was coming before anyone else.

Although they later discovered that it had had the ideal demographics for them, once demographics began to be assessed. If they'd known that at the time, they probably would've kept it on the air, though maybe without Roddenberry.

If they had used demographics the way we do now, they may have seriously pumped effort into the show that, by the time of season three, they just didn't want to do. Roddenberry still wouldn't have been brought in, and I would guarantee that both Majel and Nichols would have been booted as well.