Pilot script for the TAS that (thankfully) never was...

[Nightowl1701]

The Roddenberry vault just posted the script for Filmation's original proposal for TAS. Their vision of the series would have had teenage cadets (basically not-too-bright kid clones of Our Heroes) going on adventures both on and off the Enterprise, with Kirk and Co. kept mainly in the background. Oh, and we'd have had a cute, furry, cuddly toy-store-friendly 'ship's mascot.' The writer for this script, Don Sandburg, was the producer of Bozo's Circus and The Banana Splits.

(From Dan Hauser's Guide to Animated Star Trek)

"No Space to Grow and No Place to Go"

Having read it, I can only repeat what I said on Facebook: We dodged a plasma torpedo.

 

[Gary Mitchell]

Mr. Speck?

 

[Warped9]

Geeezz....

 

[MANT!]

Yeppers, TAS almost became that crappy 70s kid dreck we all feared it could have been..Think of it, in all probability, that would have ended the franchise, period. No movies, no spin-offs, no TOS remastered No JJ Trek, no 2017 series. The show described above would have been the end.

Shudder..

 

[johnnybear]

Why do these execs always try to do prequels? They don't work and they're always nit picking for what to mention and when they get something wrong it not only upsets the fans but spoils the continuity of the show as well! I mean look at Enterprise!
JB

 

[Christopher]

Yeppers, TAS almost became that crappy 70s kid dreck we all feared it could have been..Think of it, in all probability, that would have ended the franchise, period. No movies, no spin-offs, no TOS remastered No JJ Trek, no 2017 series. The show described above would have been the end.

That's unlikely. Lots of TV franchises have had mediocre Saturday morning adaptations that didn't have a major impact on their subsequent history or prevent them from getting movie revivals/remakes, like Planet of the Apes, The Brady Bunch, and The Dukes of Hazzard. It wasn't TAS that led to interest in doing TMP, after all -- it was the enduring success of TOS in syndicated reruns. A forgettable kidvid spinoff wouldn't have hurt that any more than it did in any of the other cases.

Why do these execs always try to do prequels?

It wasn't a prequel. This version was developed in the late '60s as a companion piece of sorts to TOS, and would've featured the adult Enterprise crew teaching a group of teenage cadets, with each TOS character having his or her own young counterpart/protege. Although this version is different from the one Lou Scheimer and Andy Mangels mention in the book Lou Scheimer: Creating the Filmation Generation. According to that, the show would've been set on the training vessel Excalibur and the character names were different -- e.g. Spock's protege was a Vulcan boy named Steve, not Speck.

It's similar to how Filmation's My Favorite Martians gave all the original sitcom's main characters their own teenage counterparts (nephews/sons/etc.) and focused mainly on them, with the adult characters present but less central.

 

[Marsden]

Christopher, are you referring to Return to the Planet of the Apes? That was not an inferior adaptation, even though it didn't last long. The others you mention and many more were, however, but Apes and Star Trek seem to be rare exceptions that continued from the other versions.

As for the OP, well, doom and gloom aside, it might not have been as terrible as it seems but it's hard to see how. It is good that isn't the way they went.

 

[Christopher]

Christopher, are you referring to Return to the Planet of the Apes? That was not an inferior adaptation, even though it didn't last long. The others you mention and many more were, however, but Apes and Star Trek seem to be rare exceptions that continued from the other versions.

Well, such opinions are subjective, but I don't think the show was that highly regarded. It had some interesting ideas and a surprising amount of continuity, and it was progressive in featuring an African-American co-lead, but the animation and acting were pretty weak, and I don't think it had a good reputation at the time, even if nostalgia has been kind to it.

And it didn't continue from any prior version. Like the just-ended live-action series, it was an alternate take that drew on elements of previous versions but wasn't consistent with them. The movies and the live-action series both featured a pre-industrial ape culture, but the animated series' apes had technology equal to 20th-century Earth's aside from being backward in aviation.

As for other cartoon spinoffs of live-action shows, most of them were purportedly continuations, even if they changed some details or went off on bizarre tangents that the live-action shows ignored. For instance, The Fonz and the Happy Days Gang were meant to be the same characters from the prime-time show with the same personal histories; they just happened to meet "a future chick named Cupcake" and get swept away in her time machine. And The New Adventures of Gilligan picked up pretty much where the live-action show left off, with the only major format change being that Gilligan's baby-chimp sidekick was a regular character (though such a chimp did appear in at least one live-action episode) and that Gilligan was more often the lone innocent who was immune to the others' flaws and vices, rather than the bumbler who screwed up their rescues (but there were live-action episodes like that as well). And the infamous '80s revival Gilligan's Planet was itself a continuation and sequel to the previous animated series.

As for the OP, well, doom and gloom aside, it might not have been as terrible as it seems but it's hard to see how. It is good that isn't the way they went.

Well, the intention was different with this idea. It was meant to be a show for young children that would be a counterpart to the live-action show for adults. It was conceived at a time when TOS was still on the air, so it wouldn't have made sense to try to duplicate TOS exactly; instead, the idea was to offer something complementary, geared for a younger audience. But TAS came along after TOS was gone, and so it was designed to be a direct continuation, the first (?) Saturday morning cartoon specifically made for an adult audience (although still suitable for children).

 

[Mudd]

Didn't DS9 shoot this script with Brian Keith guest-starring?

Anyway, other than the kids it's hard to tell this script apart from a lot of what TAS did.

 

[Marsden]

Well, such opinions are subjective, but I don't think the show was that highly regarded. It had some interesting ideas and a surprising amount of continuity, and it was progressive in featuring an African-American co-lead, but the animation and acting were pretty weak, and I don't think it had a good reputation at the time, even if nostalgia has been kind to it.

Indeed, the animation and acting are not highly regarded, but it seemed an earnest attempt at a continuation, even as the tv show the year before. I don't think it would have had a good reputation as I doubt any short cartoon series would have, but I remember watching it, I would like to pick up the dvds, and I remember it being a serious and good adaptation, like I think TAS is a good adaptation (for frame of reference of what I think is good).
The Happy Days Gang or Gilligan's continuations are based on sit coms, so silliness is not necessarily a bad thing, but the Apes had no cuteness, no kids, no sidekicks, wasn't very cartoony, and was a bit more in like with the original book than the movies and shows and had characters from the previous movies and the show integrated into it's setting. The movies had the apes riding horses and a bit technologically backward as the budget wouldn't allow more, but the book had them with vehicles and other more industrialized technology and the animated series brought that aspect back. The apes even had an airplane in at least one episode. Something like a P-40, but I can't recall if it was Ape built or a Human relic they refurbished for use.

I'm just wondering how the heck many astronauts ended up in the far future, Taylor and his crew, then Brent and his crew, then the world exploded, but it didn't, and then Virdon and Burke showed up, then Hudson and his crew in the animated version, all in that future time within a lifetime of each other as Dr. Zaius is always there.

Maybe this should be in the planet of the apes thread.

 

[Christopher]

Indeed, the animation and acting are not highly regarded, but it seemed an earnest attempt at a continuation, even as the tv show the year before.

I'm not saying that it wasn't, because that's not the subject here. MANT! suggested that a poorly received animated spinoff could destroy a franchise's future hopes of revival, and my point was that it wouldn't. So what's at issue is merely the reception the show got from the public, regardless of whether that reception was deserved.

I'm just wondering how the heck many astronauts ended up in the far future, Taylor and his crew, then Brent and his crew, then the world exploded, but it didn't, and then Virdon and Burke showed up, then Hudson and his crew in the animated version, all in that future time within a lifetime of each other as Dr. Zaius is always there.

Aside from Taylor and Brent, those were all in different continuities. Heck, even Taylor and Brent were technically in different continuities, because the original movie's premise was that the crew had simply been in suspended animation for 2000 years, and then the sequel retconned it into a time warp. But both TV series were alternate continuities from the films. In the live-action series, the humans of the future could talk, while they were mute in the movie. And the date given in the series was centuries removed from the one in the movies.

 

[Marsden]

I'm not saying that it wasn't, because that's not the subject here. MANT! suggested that a poorly received animated spinoff could destroy a franchise's future hopes of revival, and my point was that it wouldn't. So what's at issue is merely the reception the show got from the public, regardless of whether that reception was deserved.

Oh, very well.

You're correct regarding public reception, I don't think most people even remember it.

 

[hbquikcomjamesl]

Reads like an old Gold Key ST comic book. (And as I recall, Hanna-Barbera's Sealab 2020 was closer to ST in general look and feel than this is.)

I wonder if there was a part written specifically for Pamelyn Ferdin.

But a gnuff is a gnuff. I need to get to work.

 

[Christopher]

I wonder if there was a part written specifically for Pamelyn Ferdin.

This isn't dated, but it would presumably have been written around 1969, which is when the "cadet crew" idea was under development. So Ferdin would've been only a year older than she was in "And the Children Shall Lead." It was around the same time that she voiced Lucy in her first couple of Peanuts specials, but other than that, she wasn't known for voice work at the time.

 

[Kor]

That was awful.

The message had the subtlety of a sledge hammer. And the dialog was mediocre. And there wasn't much dramatic tension to speak of. Also, I got creepy vibes from the Old Man. And Is Speck supposed to be a Vulcan? He sure doesn't talk like one.

There are some interesting hand-written notes, especially the one on page 12.

Kor

 

[Redfern]

In a way, we eventually got this series anyway. Doesn't "Space Academy" ring any bells?

 

[Christopher]

In a way, we eventually got this series anyway. Doesn't "Space Academy" ring any bells?

I would assume that's what hbquickcomjamesl was referring to when he mentioned Pamelyn Ferdin.

 

[hbquikcomjamesl]

Actually, I never saw "Space Academy"; Pamelyn Ferdin (I'd forgotten she was one of the kids in "And the Children Shall Lead") has an acting resume as long as your arm, mostly in her childhood, including a great deal of voice work and children's shows. She was Lucy in a number of Peanuts specials (and in the first theatrical Peanuts film), and she was in the cast of "Sealab 2020." And at least as a child star, she had one of the most recognizable voices in the industry.

 

[johnnybear]

Christopher, are you referring to Return to the Planet of the Apes? That was not an inferior adaptation, even though it didn't last long. The others you mention and many more were, however, but Apes and Star Trek seem to be rare exceptions that continued from the other versions.

As for the OP, well, doom and gloom aside, it might not have been as terrible as it seems but it's hard to see how. It is good that isn't the way they went.

The cartoon Apes lasted but one season of thirteen episodes while the live action series went to fourteen shows!
JB

 

[Christopher]

Actually, I never saw "Space Academy"; Pamelyn Ferdin (I'd forgotten she was one of the kids in "And the Children Shall Lead") has an acting resume as long as your arm, mostly in her childhood, including a great deal of voice work and children's shows. She was Lucy in a number of Peanuts specials (and in the first theatrical Peanuts film), and she was in the cast of "Sealab 2020." And at least as a child star, she had one of the most recognizable voices in the industry.

True, but as I said, her voice career had only just begun in 1969, which was when this version of an animated Trek was apparently developed. So at the time, I doubt they would've seen her as a go-to name. At the time, they probably would've just gone with Jane Webb, who did virtually all of their female voices in the late '60s and early '70s. (She was both Betty and Veronica in The Archies, and both Ginger and Mary Ann in The New Adventures of Gilligan.) As far as I can tell, they didn't start using actual child actors until c. 1972-3, when the child stars of The Brady Bunch played their characters in The Brady Kids, and when Lou Scheimer's children Erika and Lane began doing uncredited voice work in that and Lassie's Rescue Rangers.