Other series like Trek & Twilight Zone

[A beaker full of death]

I love TOS and Twilight Zone Original series. I will watch each episode dozens of times. A few weak episode in each series, but not many. I really dislike the newer Trek and newer Twilight Zone series and never caught on as I seem attached to the originals. Do you know of any other series like Trek and Twilight Zone from that period I would enjoy? Thanks...

PS- Its rough and very difficult getting the younger generation to watch Trek and Twilight Zone as they find it boring and dull. Anyone had any luck getting people under 30 into these series?

Not sure what you mean by "like" TZ and TOS. If you mean quality shows from the 50s and 60s, then yes, there are many, which are often overlooked, like Have Gun Will Travel and the great Alfred Hitchcock Presents. If you mean science fiction shows, there are fewer.

As for getting young people to watch, intelligent people will eventually get tired of formulaic vacuous tv and look for something better.

 

[Robert Comsol]

And with these variables in mind it just seems too improbable to me that TPTB just happened to choose the "1701" without ever thinking of the movie that definitely influenced Roddenberry when creating Star Trek.

Well, Roddenberry drew a lot of inspiration from "Forbidden Planet". And chances are 9999:1, right?

Here is my pet theory:

Roddenberry: Matt, I think the registry number should be "1701", I got that from "Forbidden Planet", has a nice ring to it.
Jefferies: Gene, I had already come up with the same number but for quite different reasons than yours.

(they look at each other)

Bob

 

[Mario de Monti]

And with these variables in mind it just seems too improbable to me that TPTB just happened to choose the "1701" without ever thinking of the movie that definitely influenced Roddenberry when creating Star Trek.

Well, Roddenberry drew a lot of inspiration from "Forbidden Planet". And chances are 9999:1, right?

Only once they decided to go with a 4-digit registry. If you include 3-diigit and especially 5-digit numbers the odds become considerably lower than that.

Here is my pet theory:

Roddenberry: Matt, I think the registry number should be "1701", I got that from "Forbidden Planet", has a nice ring to it.
Jefferies: Gene, I had already come up with the same number but for quite different reasons than yours.

(they look at each other)

Bob

That sounds like an anecdote that would have been told over and over and OVER again at conventions - true or not

 

[Christopher]

That would be a mighty big coincidence, don´t you think? I get his official explantion that he excluded "6", "8" and "9" from the registry, because they would be hard to tell apart on the TVs of the day. But that still leaves more numbers than "1", "7" and "0". And furthermore there was the question, whether to have 3, 4, 5 or more digits in the registry to begin with - that too was an arbitrary decision. And with these variables in mind it just seems too improbable to me that TPTB just happened to choose the "1701" without ever thinking of the movie that definitely influenced Roddenberry when creating Star Trek.

Coincidences happen all the time. Audiences assume that if things in two works resemble each other, the only possible explanation is direct influence -- but creators know that even when you try to avoid similarity to other works, it's almost impossible not to end up with some coincidental resemblances. That's why it's so hard to sell a story -- because the odds are very likely that someone else has already sold a very similar story to the same people. And that's why fictional characters often have to have their names changed to avoid resemblance with real people (which is probably why "Julien Picard" ended up being Jean-Luc Picard). TV and movie studios pay researchers specifically to check whether things in a script accidentally resemble things from other works, because that happens a lot more often than you'd think. And they usually make a point of avoiding any resemblance that's too close.

So while similarities are sometimes the result of homage, it's not safe to assume that any given similarity must be an homage. Coincidence is just part of everyday life. Random chance means that any combination of things is possible, so combinations that seem to form patterns are just as likely to occur at random as ones that don't.

Okay, so the C57D enters orbit at 17:01. Is that the only number in the movie? No. Is it a recurring theme in the movie, a number specifically called attention to? No. It's a single throwaway reference. So why would someone interested in making a numerical homage to Forbidden Planet single out that particular number? No reason. We single it out only because we recognize it after the fact.

Now, I'm not saying it can't have been intentional. It's possible that Jefferies subconsciously remembered a recent viewing of the movie and so that number resonated with him, or something. But there's no compelling reason to rule out coincidence.

 

[Robert Comsol]

It's possible that Jefferies subconsciously remembered a recent viewing of the movie and so that number resonated with him, or something.

That would have been a case of cryptomnesia, then. Yet, I can't help but notice that the FP reference isolates the "17" (hours) from the "01" (minutes).

Matt Jefferies didn't just pick a 4 digit number but stated that the "17" stood for the Federation cruiser design series and "01" for the first ship of that series, the "first bird".

Bob

 

[Mudd]

Forbidden Planet is one of the best science fiction movies ever. It's actually better than Star Trek, but there's a lot less of it.

Whether the "1701" thing is coincidence or not, it's clear that GR himself lifted a tremendous amount of stuff from FP, including most of the plot set-up and elements of "The Cage" itself.

 

[Robert Comsol]

I agree that FP is great for having been one of the first Hollywood films trying to take science fiction seriously (and I think the deliberate allusions Roddenberry incorporated into Star Trek were meant to express: This is what Star Trek is aiming for, too) and that "even in space man is still the ultimate enemy" added to its greatness.

However, it is painfully obvious that the captain J.J. Abrams is not the hero character, but the doctor. Leslie Nielsen portrays the most hesitant and undecided spacecraft captain I've ever seen.

Even the screenplay writer made fun of the figure, when he had Morbius state, that a captain didn't require a high IQ but just a loud voice to issue orders.

A good thing, then, that Roddenberry molded a different kind of captain.

Bob

 

[Mario de Monti]

So while similarities are sometimes the result of homage, it's not safe to assume that any given similarity must be an homage. Coincidence is just part of everyday life. Random chance means that any combination of things is possible, so combinations that seem to form patterns are just as likely to occur at random as ones that don't.

Generally speaking I agree with you here. But we´re not talking about a mere similarity or resemblence from an obscure movie Roddenberry/Jefferies may or may not have seen. We´re talking about an exact number taken directly from the SF movie that Roddenberry drew his inspiration from. What about the deceleration chamber in FP? Is it also just coincidence it looks almost exactly like the Enterprise´s transporter?

Okay, so the C57D enters orbit at 17:01. Is that the only number in the movie? No. Is it a recurring theme in the movie, a number specifically called attention to? No. It's a single throwaway reference. So why would someone interested in making a numerical homage to Forbidden Planet single out that particular number? No reason. We single it out only because we recognize it after the fact.

If you wanted to make a numerical homage to FP, why not choose the "1701"?

 

[Mudd]

However, it is painfully obvious that the captain J.J. Abrams [sic] is not the hero character, but the doctor. Leslie Nielsen portrays the most hesitant and undecided spacecraft captain I've ever seen...

A good thing, then, that Roddenberry molded a different kind of captain.

J.J. Adams is the viewpoint character and hero in FP; the protagonist GR created in "The Cage" is one of the most passive and dramatically inert characters imaginable and probably yet another reason for the network to reject the pilot.

Peeples and Shatner did a somewhat better job of creating James Kirk.

 

[Christopher]

Generally speaking I agree with you here. But we´re not talking about a mere similarity or resemblence from an obscure movie Roddenberry/Jefferies may or may not have seen. We´re talking about an exact number taken directly from the SF movie that Roddenberry drew his inspiration from.

Yes, and that's exactly why it's a coincidence -- because it looks to us like there's a connection. But the point is that there doesn't have to be. The human brain is a pattern-recognition machine, so we expect to find meaning and connections everywhere we look. So we expect every similarity to be intentional. But many of them are not. Similarity alone does not prove intent.

First off, this wasn't the only movie Roddenberry was influenced by, just one of them. Second, Roddenberry didn't come up with the number, Jefferies did. The more people are involved and the more works they're referencing, the more the variables multiply and the more likely it becomes that coincidences will occur. You're drawing a pattern out of the data because you expect it to be there, and that's how we mislead ourselves into seeing meaning where it doesn't exist. That's why it's important to approach a hypothesis skeptically, to try to disprove it and only give it credence if it withstands the attempt. Our brains are trying to trick us all the time, and so we have to examine our own assumptions and beliefs just as critically as we need to approach the claims that other people try to sell us.

What about the deceleration chamber in FP? Is it also just coincidence it looks almost exactly like the Enterprise´s transporter?

Non sequitur. A specific argument and a general argument are two separate things. I'm not saying nothing in Trek was an homage to FP; I'm saying there's no compelling proof that this single specific thing was an homage. I've already granted that it's possible that it could be an homage like certain other things were, but establishing that something is possible does not prove that it is true.

If you wanted to make a numerical homage to FP, why not choose the "1701"?

That's a meaningless question. Again, I'm not saying it's impossible, I'm saying it's not proven. Besides, it's circular reasoning to start with an "if" statement that includes the very thing you want to prove.

 

[Mario de Monti]

Generally speaking I agree with you here. But we´re not talking about a mere similarity or resemblence from an obscure movie Roddenberry/Jefferies may or may not have seen. We´re talking about an exact number taken directly from the SF movie that Roddenberry drew his inspiration from.

Yes, and that's exactly why it's a coincidence -- because it looks to us like there's a connection. But the point is that there doesn't have to be. The human brain is a pattern-recognition machine, so we expect to find meaning and connections everywhere we look. So we expect every similarity to be intentional. But many of them are not. Similarity alone does not prove intent.

So basically what you´re saying is, that because it so obviously looks like the "1701" was taken directly from Forbidden Planet it means that it wasn´t? And that rather than with direct influence you´d go with a 1 in 10,000 chance?

Second, Roddenberry didn't come up with the number, Jefferies did.

IIRC, Jefferies said that he patterned the Enterprise´s registry after that of his own airplane: NC-17740. Not all that similar, wouldn´t you agree? I´d still go with the homage to FP.

If you wanted to make a numerical homage to FP, why not choose the "1701"?

That's a meaningless question. Again, I'm not saying it's impossible, I'm saying it's not proven. Besides, it's circular reasoning to start with an "if" statement that includes the very thing you want to prove.

Please don´t quote me out of context. I was merely responding to your comment "So why would someone interested in making a numerical homage to Forbidden Planet single out that particular number? No reason." And in that regard I merely wanted to point out that if you want to make such a numerical homage to the movie, you have to choose one of the numbers that are in it! And there is no reason, why not to choose the "1701".

Mario

PS: Maybe we should refrain from further derailing this thread

 

[Mudd]

It seems a little odd to me that Jefferies would insert an homage to FP in the registration number when there's so little evidence of influence in the visual design of the series. That much of Trek is taken from the movie is pretty obvious, but it's all in the premise and narrative - Jefferies and Theiss and Chang are far less derivative than Roddenberry. "The Cage" plays and sounds like FP, but doesn't really look like it (except, maybe, those Talosian doorways. )

 

[Melakon]

I think the 1701 is just a coincidence. I've owned Forbidden Planet for about 30 years, and the number being there never caught my attention. It's fairly obvious that Roddenberry was inspired by some things in the film though. I also see influence from This Island Earth.

 

[Christopher]

So basically what you´re saying is, that because it so obviously looks like the "1701" was taken directly from Forbidden Planet it means that it wasn´t?

Of course not. I'm saying that it doesn't prove it was. I've told you over and over, I concede that it's possible, but possibility is not certainty.

Even if this were likely, it's still not proven. If there were some documented source in which Matt Jefferies actually said that he was paying homage to FP, then it would be legitimate to report it as a fact. But since it's only a conjecture based on the similarity, the most we can honestly say is that it might be true. Belief is not proof.

PS: Maybe we should refrain from further derailing this thread

Exactly what I was going to say. This has become circular.

 

[1001001]

Moving this to SFF, since this is a general discussion about Sci-Fi shows, not TOS Specific.

 

[Mr. Adventure]

I'm going to make an odd recommendation: Space: 1999, one of Gerry Anderson's live-action shows.

Space 1999 came to mind for me as well when thinking of recommendations.

 

[ManOnTheWave]

Has no one mentioned Night Gallery?

 

[Galileo7]

I'm going to make an odd recommendation: Space: 1999, one of Gerry Anderson's live-action shows.

Space 1999 came to mind for me as well when thinking of recommendations.

Definitely, Space:1999.

 

[Mario de Monti]

PS: Maybe we should refrain from further derailing this thread

Exactly what I was going to say. This has become circular.

Yes it has. Sometimes I can be stubborn No hard feelings I hope.

I'm going to make an odd recommendation: Space: 1999, one of Gerry Anderson's live-action shows.

Space 1999 came to mind for me as well when thinking of recommendations.

Definitely, Space:1999.

I also enjoy that show a lot. Well, the first season at least because after that it became somehow ... strange. Besides the great look and production value, Space: 1999 also featured quite a few interesting guest stars like Joan Collins, Christopher Lee, Peter Cushing, Julian Glover and David Prowse - thinking of Star Wars anyone?

 

[Christopher]

I also enjoy that show a lot. Well, the first season at least because after that it became somehow ... strange.

The first season was plenty strange, but often in a surreal and philosophical and interesting way. The second was generally just random and rather silly, though occasionally interesting.

But then there were atrocities like "All That Glisters." For the last few minutes of that episode and some moments after, I couldn't tell whether the noise I was compulsively making was laughter or sobbing.

Besides the great look and production value, Space: 1999 also featured quite a few interesting guest stars like Joan Collins, Christopher Lee, Peter Cushing, Julian Glover and David Prowse - thinking of Star Wars anyone?

And Brian Blessed, Sarah Douglas, Bernard Cribbins, and others. Plus a couple of episodes were written by Doctor Who writers.