Starship, the proposed 1970s Series

[Christopher]

I can't remember any prime time/live action space series in the early-mid 70s.

There was The Starlost in 1973-4, and the UK import Space: 1999 in '75-7. Britain had several of its own -- UFO, Moonbase 3, and of course Doctor Who, though that was in a mostly Earthbound phase in the early '70s.

The Six Million Dollar Man had occasional space-based episodes and often revolved around the space program in its early seasons, though it was mostly Earthbound.

 

[Doctor Jeffrey]

I should have said that I can't remember any AMERICAN prime time/live action space series in the early-mid 70s. And that still holds true.

STARLOST was Canadian, and had an interesting attempt at economic scenery using a new video based technology with camera motion capture and video green screen. It was a Douglas Trumble innovation, but he had to abandon it. While the show took place on a giant space ship, we rarely saw anything space related. The stories were mostly about finding new sections onboard, so it was more ship based than space based. The selling point to the producers and syndicators was this new technology that would allow for wide ranging "sets" that were really computers synchronized motion 3-D models.

I do remember one SIX MILLION DOLLAR MAN story that took place in space and he discovered that his bionics did not work properly in zero g. Do you remember any other episodes of that series that took place in space.

In America there were the live action Saturday morning series SPACE ACADEMY and JASON OF STAR COMMAND. They both represented leaps forward in video effects technology, although neither would be considered special by today's technology.

Given the dearth of American space based series at the time, plus the "lessons learned" approach of STARSHIP, plus the audience acceptance of economical STAR COMMAND video effects, plus the high ratings of TOS in syndication, network execs might have missed a very good opportunity with STARSHIP. And UFO did well for a while in syndication. More importantly, SPACE: 1999 hit with a big splash when it premiered. The stories were not very good and there were significant internal problems, so it was amazing that it lasted 3 seasons.

Thanks for reminding us of the British space based shows. They both initially garnered good audiences, which dropped off due to poor scripts and illogical series elements. That might have bedeviled STARSHIP, too, had it gone to series, but if STARSHIP really was a lessons learned series, then the mid-70s might have been just the right time for it to have succeeded. Thanks, Christopher, for mentioning the British shows. Good additions to the discussion.

 

[Harvey]

I remember THE TRIBUNES and also his 1967 pilot, POLICE STORY, that did get produced, but not bought. The latter has a character named Questor and DeForrest Kelly and Grace Lee Whitney were part of the team of 8 for that show, which was kind of a predecessor for THE TRIBUNES.

Police Story was made in 1965, during the same time as "Where No Man Has Gone Before." It's possible it was shown on television in 1967, or maybe someone just uploaded the wrong date to IMDb.

 

[Christopher]

STARLOST was Canadian, and had an interesting attempt at economic scenery using a new video based technology with camera motion capture and video green screen. It was a Douglas Trumble innovation, but he had to abandon it.

Yup, Magicam. They made it work on later productions, including Carl Sagan's Cosmos, in sequences like his walk-through of a miniature recreation of the Library of Alexandria.

In America there were the live action Saturday morning series SPACE ACADEMY and JASON OF STAR COMMAND. They both represented leaps forward in video effects technology, although neither would be considered special by today's technology.

Their effects were shot on film, not video. Space Academy used the same latent-image in-camera compositing technique used in Space: 1999, rewinding the film and making multiple exposures on the same negative, which looks great because there's no generational loss of image quality, but has the limitation that you can't overlap images without them appearing translucent. Jason went with more conventional bluescreen and traveling mattes like in Star Trek and Star Wars, which allowed for more dynamic and complicated action shots but at the cost of lower image quality and obvious matte lines. There was some pretty impressive stop-motion creature animation in a few episodes, though.

More importantly, SPACE: 1999 hit with a big splash when it premiered. The stories were not very good and there were significant internal problems, so it was amazing that it lasted 3 seasons.

Only two, actually. http://catacombs.space1999.net/main/epguide/ty.html

 

[Doctor Jeffrey]

Thanks, Harvey. I think you are right that IMDB had the wrong year for POLICE STORY. It makes much more sense that De Kelly and Grace Lee Whitney were in that pilot BEFORE Trek went to series. Also, I remember in the 70s reading that Kelly had made a police pilot before joining TOS.

Thanks, Christopher, for the information on JASON. I enjoyed that.

However, I should not have mentioned either JASON OF STAR COMMAND or SPACE ACADEMY. Both came about in the wake of STAR WARS, which established a new expectation for audiences and space based shows and movies. Neither JASON nor ACADEMY would have had any bearing on whether or not STARSHIP went to series nor on lowering the economics of a space based series. My fault.

True, SPACE; 1999 was only 2 seasons. They spent 3 calendar years in production, but the result was only 2 seasons. I should have stated it as such. Thanks for the catch.

It did get a lot of fanfare when it premiered in 1975 and registered a lot of disappointment because of illogical conception and poor stories. Yet, it managed to get enough audience in the first season for renewal.

My earlier point was that there are 3 indicators STARSHIP had greater potential for succeeding as a series than the 4 pilots, and that studio execs (not network execs) would likely have done better to have chosen STARSHIP over any of those other 4 to develop as a pilot. This in no way guarantees the STARSHIP would have been a successful series. It might have had the same 2 flaws as SPACE: 1999. And, there were at least 3 red flags. But, the 3 indicators that I mentioned in earlier posts were quite significant.

My earlier question was, why did the studios decide to produce the two Dylan Hunt pilots, SPECTRE and QUESTOR, and I think Christopher gave likely answers. But, unless there were concept problems in the full premise, the execs were misreading the general audience and misreading their profit potential.

 

[Christopher]

But, unless there were concept problems in the full premise, the execs were misreading the general audience and misreading their profit potential.

It's easy to criticize how professionals do their job if you've never actually had to do it yourself. It's easy to pretend in your head that your decisions would always work, but if you actually have to do a job in real life, you quickly learn how hard and complicated it actually is, how many obstacles and complications there are that the armchair quarterbacks have no inkling of.

 

[Maurice]

I suspect there's more to Questor than Roddenberry claimed. I actually have always had a really hard time imagining that GR, who was not exactly flush with cash in that era, would walk away from a series pickup and the $$$ that would come out of even a short-lived show. He needed the money and he needed the credit to show he was still relevant. DID it in fact get a pickup? Perhaps @Harvey and I should look at the trades and find out.

Networks didn't care about a show's success in syndication. The big audiences were in primetime where the advertising bucks could justify the licensing fees to make expensive shows. So Trek's relative success in syndication was no guarantee that a new space show could pull the numbers necessary to interest CBS, NBC or ABC. Heck, just to sell TNG directly into first-run syndication Paramount had to make some rather unusual deals re advertising.

 

[Doctor Jeffrey]

I've worked in professional theatre most of my life, wrote the original script for a successful feature film, wrote the script for a very long running Off-Broadway show that has had 4 national tours, and, while working in theatre, have worked with actors, directors and designers who also worked in film. I know about the decision makers from first hand experience and by talking directly with others who have had first hand experience with decision makers. I can tell you that in Equity theatre, film and television the big mistakes are often made by not correctly forecasting the profit margins. It is not a sin, but it happens often, and the good ones learn from those mistakes.

I never said anything close to claiming that anybody's decisions always work, including my own. I talked about probabilities and mentioned that even with the 3 indicators of STARSHIP being successful, there were also at least 3 read flags, and the possibility of other problems that we don't know about. None of this sounds remotely like "pretending that my decisions would always work."

It is the studio execs, not the network execs, who decide which properties will be made into pilots. Network execs decide which pilots to option and then order episodes to be produced by studios. In some cases the networks have owned their own studios, but the decision making still follows that pattern as the studios and the network division execs are semi-autonomous.

The earliest version of STAR TREK: PHASE 2 (which to be 6 MOWs per year) was prompted by the very high syndication ratings of TOS from 72-74. This told Paramount that there was more life in the Star Trek franchise, and they were certainly right. It was the studio, not network execs, who started early development on that concept. They then decided that a medium budget movie might be a better risk and would give them more control than a TV project. It was still the syndication ratings that were driving the Paramount (not network) desire to do more with Trek.

You are right, Maurice, that Paramount had to make some sweet deals to get TNG into first run syndication. But, TNG was a very high budget syndicated show. STARSHIP, on the other hand, seems to have been a lessons learned concept. (lessons learned from TOS. ST: Phase 2 version 1 was also a lessons learned concept). If STARSHIP really had been a lessons learned concept (as I suspect it was), then it would have been less expensive per episode than TOS had been. If the network ratings had been higher for STARSHIP in the 70s than TOS had been in the 60s, then the profit margin would have been higher. Add to that developments that might have made post production less expensive, plus avoiding expensive post production pitfalls (again, lessons learned) then the profit margin is even healthier.

However, while Paramount was relatively confident that there was more life in Trek by the syndication indicators, the networks might still have been highly cautious about going to series, and that is understandable. My point earlier was that the indicators at that time, and soon after, shows that there was potential for STARSHIP being a better bet for a series than the 4 pilots that were produced. Nobody is saying that anybody's decisions would always work, and I'm not criticizing any network execs because there was no STARSHIP pilot to purchase or to pass. I'm saying that the studio might have been more successful in launching a successful series had they produced a pilot for STARSHIP than for the other 4. I'm only talking about probabilities based on 3 indicators. And, I'm talking as somebody who has used indicators to create live theatre shows with healthy profit margins for the past 15 years.

Yes, Christopher, "It's easy to criticize how professionals do their job if you've never actually had to do it yourself. It's easy to pretend in your head that your decisions would always work, but if you actually have to do a job in real life." But, I AM a professional who has done my job successfully. I have not had to pretend in my decisions in the entertainment industry have worked, because I have seen them work for years. I actually have done the job in real life. Not in TV, but partly in film and extensively in theatre. All in the entertainment industry.

Maurice, I think you make a very good point about Questor and GR. I, for one, would greatly appreciate it if you found out more. I think you are on to something.

 

[Harvey]

Networks didn't care about a show's success in syndication. The big audiences were in primetime where the advertising bucks could justify the licensing fees to make expensive shows. So Trek's relative success in syndication was no guarantee that a new space show could pull the numbers necessary to interest CBS, NBC or ABC. Heck, just to sell TNG directly into first-run syndication Paramount had to make some rather unusual deals re advertising.

Something else worth noting about the television business in the 1970s. Produced from 1964-69, NBC owned a small piece of Star Trek, but in 1970, the fin-syn rules came into effect, which prevented networks from owning a piece of the shows they programmed. Star Trek's great performance in syndication would have been a potential incentive for studios to pursue more space-based science fiction, but syndication success would have been irrelevant to networks at that time. Broadcast networks in the '70s made their money selling advertising for first-run shows, not from ownership of those shows.

 

[Doctor Jeffrey]

Thanks, Harvey, that was part of my point: that the syndication success motivated Paramount, the studio, to pursue Trek for future projects. First, as a series of MOWs each year. Then, they switched to pursuing a mid-budget feature film. I suspect that one of the things they liked about the latter was not having to depend on a network. However, they were still interested in creating series, and Paramount had at least two of the three indicators that STARSHIP could have had a good profit margin in first run, and that would have been a good selling point to networks had Paramount created a STARSHIP pilot.

Thanks, Harvey, you make some very good points, which are also helpful to one of the points I was making.

 

[Maurice]

I've worked in professional theatre most of my life, wrote the original script for a successful feature film, wrote the script for a very long running Off-Broadway show that has had 4 national tours, and, while working in theatre, have worked with actors, directors and designers who also worked in film.

It's hard to be humble...

 

[Doctor Jeffrey]

There is something special that should be said about TOS in syndication in the first half of the 70s. Most syndicated shows either end their run after 8 cycles (or less), or see lower ratings after 8 cycles (or less). The Screen Actors Guild based their residuals schedule with the 8 cycles in mind (Yes, up until 1985 actors were only paid 4-6 times, depending on contract, per episode per market, but in exchange for the 4-6 payment limit the syndicators agreed to triple the amount of the residuals. This resulted in doubling the amounts paid to actors for the 85% of syndicated shows that did not cycle more than 8 times).

TOS went into syndication in 1969 and into wide syndication in 1970. From 1969 to 1970 the ratings for syndication rose steadily. In most markets the ratings for TOS were still rising after 15 cycles and remained steady after 16. This showed an increasing audience for Trek, and to a savvy network exec this would indicate an increasing audience for space series in general and Trek in particular. Oddly, the network that really embraced this was PBS! I received a flier sent to PBS donors in 1974 saying that due to the syndication popularity of STAR TREK, PBS was going to start broadcasting the FLASH GORDON serial! Their prediction was correct, and the ratings for FLASH GORDON on PBS grew so steadily that the flagship PBS station in New York, WNET Channel 13, chose to celebrate the United States Bicentennial by running a marathon of all FLASH GORDON episodes, hosted by Buster Crabbe, himself. It was one of their highest broadcasts of the year. PBS was getting higher ratings for FLASH GORDON (which did not cost them much to broadcast) then for many shows that they produced in their New York studios, for which there was a cost.

The rising ratings for TOS in syndication over at least 15 cycles was quite unusual. It probably would have been wise for one of the commercial networks to have taken advantage of this. If PBS could use the Trek syndication model to gain high ratings with a serial from the 1930s, then the commercial networks would like have done well with a fresh space based series.

 

[Doctor Jeffrey]

LOL, Maurice, I only mentioned some of my credentials because I was accused of imagining the entertainment industry and was told that I never had a professional decision making position in entertainment, and that I had never had to do the job myself. These were all false accusations, so I was justified in dispelling them. I was also greatly misquoted and maligned by somebody saying that I "imagine my decisions always being right", when I was talking about indicators and probabilities. I never said anything close to that.

Maurice, what would you do if you were falsely accused and misquoted in a public forum? Would you simply accept and agree with the falsifications? If you were accused of never having worked in your lifelong profession and industry, what would you have done other than give your credentials? I thought it was the fastest way to rebut false accusations and misquotation. What would you have done instead?

 

[Maurice]

Who here "falsely accused" you of anything?

 

[Harvey]

There is something special that should be said about TOS in syndication in the first half of the 70s. Most syndicated shows either end their run after 8 cycles (or less), or see lower ratings after 8 cycles (or less). The Screen Actors Guild based their residuals schedule with the 8 cycles in mind (Yes, up until 1985 actors were only paid 4-6 times, depending on contract, per episode per market, but in exchange for the 4-6 payment limit the syndicators agreed to triple the amount of the residuals. This resulted in doubling the amounts paid to actors for the 85% of syndicated shows that did not cycle more than 8 times).

On Star Trek, the actors were paid for the first five reruns. Shatner earned 20% of his original salary each time a rerun played; the rest of the cast received SAG Scale for reruns or "SAG Scale plus 10%." But after five reruns, the actors, including Shatner, earned nothing else. (Shatner earned other money through a small ownership percentage of the show, although thanks to Hollywood accounting, this did not pay out any money until legal action in the 1980s.)

I don't know anything about the syndicators agreeing to "triple the amount of the residuals." I'm fairly confident Desilu and then Paramount paid out the residuals that were contractually owed through the first five reruns, and not a cent more. (I know DeForest Kelley had to push the studio later on, to get the last of the residual payments owed to him).

 

[Doctor Jeffrey]

Not you, Maurice. I've always enjoyed your messages.

This is what was said to me here, this afternoon:

"It's easy to criticize how professionals do their job if you've never actually had to do it yourself. It's easy to pretend in your head that your decisions would always work, but if you actually have to do a job in real life, you quickly learn how hard and complicated it actually is, how many obstacles and complications there are that the armchair quarterbacks have no inkling of."

Not only did this clearly state that I have no experience in the entertainment industry, but I pretend in my head that my decisions would always work. I never said anything about anybody's decisions always working.

 

[Maurice]

Not you, Maurice. I've always enjoyed your messages.

This is what was said to me here, this afternoon:

"It's easy to criticize how professionals do their job if you've never actually had to do it yourself. It's easy to pretend in your head that your decisions would always work, but if you actually have to do a job in real life, you quickly learn how hard and complicated it actually is, how many obstacles and complications there are that the armchair quarterbacks have no inkling of."

Not only did this clearly state that I have no experience in the entertainment industry, but I pretend in my head that my decisions would always work. I never said anything about anybody's decisions always working.

Oh, that's just Christopher giving you a dose of Extra Strength KnowItAll. He does that to everyone. Don't take it personally.

 

[Doctor Jeffrey]

Harvey, in 1953 SAG negotiated residuals with studios and syndicators. The original offer from the syndicators was $5 per episode per market for actors in half hour series and $8 per episode per market for actors in hourlong series. SAG countered and raised the amount to $15 for half hour and $25 for hourlong. Before the syndicators could balk, SAG said that the limit would be 5 episodes for residuals. In some cases it was 4 or 6, depending upon the front end offers. Of course those amounts, $15 and $25, have gone up over the years. The syndicators happily signed because they could then run a series in perpetuity, but only pay the actors for 5 cycles (or in some cases 4 or 6). Up until around 1980 85% of syndicated shows only cycled 8 times or less. In the original deal, an actor in a half hour show would have made a total of $40 per episode per market for a series that cycled no more than 8 times. In the modified deal, that same actor made $75 per episode per market. Double that money that that actor made. This was not a good deal for actors in shows that syndicated for decades (like TOS), but was a VERY good deal for the 85% whose shows cycled 8 time or less.

What I was describing, Harvey, was the deal made for ALL actors in the 50s, 60s, 70s and early 80s. Around 1985 the residuals were changed to perpetuity due to continued cycling though cable. Shows that had passed into history were resuscitated on cable outlets, and this changed the situation drastically.

My point was that as of the mid 70s 85% of syndicated shows had only cycled 8 times, and those that continued beyond 8 cycles usually peaked in ratings. TOS continued to climb in ratings for at least 15 cycles in most markets, and this was a strong indicator in an increasingly large audience for Trek in particular, and probably for space series in general. The PBS model supports the latter assessment. My further point was that this probably showed a missed opportunity for first run network space based shows, and there would likely have been a good profit margin for a commercial network to have optioned such a show, if it had a good premise and good scripts (which was not the case with SPACE: 1999).

 

[Doctor Jeffrey]

Thanks, Maurice, you are a good egg. I did not mean to come on strong, and I rarely present my credentials, but I have learned never to sit back and accept false accusations and misrepresentations. Nothing good ever happens when I do.

Actually, I like Christopher. He has a good passion for Trek and I've enjoyed most of his posts, but I don't accept false accusations from any one.

 

[Maurice]

I still don't think he "accused" you of anything. I think he just assumed you don't know what he's Googled.