In answer to your question, no, DS9 did the reverse story; instead of getting him to let others come to his habitable moon, they had to get him to leave because they needed to make the moon uninhabitable for some reason(which I don't remember).
Pilot script for the TAS that (thankfully) never was...
- Thread starter Nightowl1701
- Start date
In answer to your question, no, DS9 did the reverse story; instead of getting him to let others come to his habitable moon, they had to get him to leave because they needed to make the moon uninhabitable for some reason(which I don't remember).
To tap its core as a geothermal power source.
Yes, and now that I think about it, I remember reading that Lee Mendelson and Charles Schulz were bucking what was then the industry standard practice when they insisted on real children to voice A Charlie Brown Christmas (long before Ferdin became involved).
Now you're making me fervently wish this had been greenlighted.
I guess I always chose to see these as later astronauts, after Taylor, from the present's perspective, who arrived much earlier than Taylor did, during the intermediate era before human devolved to the point of losing their speech. It's the only way I can care. I hate reboots.
The movie itself was a "reboot" of the original novel, changing a great deal about it. So you can like an adaptation but are somehow incapable of liking an adaptation of an adaptation?
I have zero "loyalty" to the novel. I'm not sure I like it. It's a different story, even a different planet.
I love worldbuilding, and stretching a fictional world out as much as possible. If the 1974 POTA series were overpoweringly good on its own, fine, but it's not. It gains breadth and depth as a glimpse into another POTA era, though. As reboot, it competes with the films and loses. And I hate reboots.
Having the humans speak wasn't some fresh take that made for a great new alternate version of POTA. It was an easy way out, and made the show more ordinary.
I love worldbuilding, and stretching a fictional world out as much as possible. If the 1974 POTA series were overpoweringly good on its own, fine, but it's not. It gains breadth and depth as a glimpse into another POTA era, though. As reboot, it competes with the films and loses. And I hate reboots.
Having the humans speak wasn't some fresh take that made for a great new alternate version of POTA. It was an easy way out, and made the show more ordinary.
^But then you're not saying you hate reboots, just that you don't like the specific ones that don't add anything worthwhile. So why not just say you don't like poor reboots, instead of damning the entire category as if they were all the same?
Anyway, I wouldn't call the POTA TV series a reboot. As an industry term, "reboot" means an attempt to revive a dormant media franchise and make it profitable again. Tim Burton's abomination and the far superior Rise/Dawn of the POTA are reboots. The TV series came along just one year after the last feature film in the original series, so it's not like the franchise was dormant at the time. I'd call the TV series more of an adaptation or offshoot. Yes, it changed some details from the movie series, but virtually every TV adaptation of a movie does that to some degree. And all the movie sequels altered continuity from the previous films as well, since none of the first four films was made with a sequel in mind.
Anyway, I wouldn't call the POTA TV series a reboot. As an industry term, "reboot" means an attempt to revive a dormant media franchise and make it profitable again. Tim Burton's abomination and the far superior Rise/Dawn of the POTA are reboots. The TV series came along just one year after the last feature film in the original series, so it's not like the franchise was dormant at the time. I'd call the TV series more of an adaptation or offshoot. Yes, it changed some details from the movie series, but virtually every TV adaptation of a movie does that to some degree. And all the movie sequels altered continuity from the previous films as well, since none of the first four films was made with a sequel in mind.
As soon as Cornelius and Zira came to the 20th century, the timeline was altered. By the time the 5th movie ended, who knows what kind of world Taylor, Landon and Dodge would have encountered? While the years get screwed up as early as Beneath, the TV series could be seen as a continuation of the movie series, loosely following the events of Battle. Humans were still speaking at the end of that film and a fragile peace was created. The human/ape relations were much worse in the TV series, but not nearly as bad as the original film. With a little forgiveness in certain spots, I can see the TV series fitting in nicely.
Yeah, sure, if you squint and ignore a few details. Which is necessary for buying the conceit that the films fit together at all. (Seriously, how the hell did Cornelius and Zira get Brent's space capsule launched without an industrial civilization to build the launch stages, gantry, mission control center, fuel refineries, etc. and without the thousands of skilled and educated people necessary to create and operate them all?)
I think Escape from... is the second-best film of the original five (the first film is the best, of course). Sure, the setup makes no sense at all, but it's a good satire.
This is basically what we got in germany at first. The first german dub changed TAS in a way that it consisted mainly of everybody making stupid and random jokes.
A fascinating look at what might have been. Imagine how subsequent Treks would have been altered by the concept of pre-teen Starfleet cadets...
Or it could have been more like has been said upthread: a barely recalled blip on the radar. TAS as is has also gone ignored for many years and still dismissed by some.
That's the whole thing. The films were nonsensical in that regard, so accepting the TV series is no greater leap. Hell, Battle could have been a TV movie pilot for all of the cheapness of the production. "Hey look, there was a nuclear war between films, but instead of showing that, let's have 10 minutes of flashbacks." It was so small in scale and the non-mutant humans were so well fed. However, the films themselves were quite enjoyable in spite of the lapses in story logic.
Granted, I have a nostalgic soft spot for them.
Not to derail the thread too much, but to answer your question:
- In Return to the Planet of the Apes, there was another U.S. astronaut named Colonel Ronald Brent who was encountered by that series' heroes. This Brent's ship was launched in the year 2109. He had no relation to the ill-fated John Brent from Beneath the Planet of the Apes.
- In "Escape from Tomorrow," the pilot of the 1974 live action TV series, Urko--reading a report about Virdon & Burke's ship--says, "Another ship, Zauis? Its hard to believe!" Later in the same episode, Zaius tells Virdon and Burke that there were other astronauts, but he had them killed. To date, there's no information on what country that doomed expedition called home, or its year of departure.
- Let's not forget "Jonesy," part of Virdon and Burke's crew who died on impact (off camera) in the pilot.
It's not about "accepting." Continuity is not a value judgment. It doesn't make a story better if it's part of a larger continuity, and it doesn't make it worse if it isn't. It's just a matter of being accurate in describing the content of a story. If two stories can only be reconciled if certain contradictory details are ignored, then pointing that out is merely about getting the facts straight. Whether you choose to treat them as consistent anyway is an individual preference. When discussing the facts of a series for a general audience, I prefer to be more objective.