• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

TAS... Sigh

I don't agree with you on this - for me, TAS clearly has the feel of a kids show. Personally, I don't believe a children's TV show has to be populated by "teen sidekicks" or "cute alien pets" to qualify as such.

Everything's relative. Compared to the other Saturday morning cartoons of the era, TAS was far more "adult." Yes, compared to what we have today, it feels more juvenile -- but then, so does TOS compared to something like DS9 or Caprica. I'm speaking here of the intentions, not the results. It's a factual error to claim the creators of TAS intended it to be aimed specifically at children, because there are documented statements refuting that assumption. Yes, it was designed to be safe for children, to avoid deadly violence and love scenes and what little profanity was allowed in prime-time TV, but aside from that, its writers and producers were told to treat it no differently than they'd treat a TOS assignment.


320x240.jpg

If that image is meant as "evidence" that TAS was somehow more juvenile in focus, let me remind you that Spock's pet sehlat was first referenced in "Journey to Babel." D. C. Fontana wrote both episodes. She was simply taking advantage of TAS's greater visual freedom to depict something that she was only able to suggest verbally in TOS.

Indeed, it's a poorly chosen example, since I-chaya's death in "Yesteryear" is one of the things that marks that episode as considerably more adult than most Saturday morning TV of the time. Even acknowledging the concept of death has generally been a no-no on children's TV (which is why so many cartoon villains only use synonyms like "Destroy them!" or "Annihilate them!" -- even the word is generally forbidden). But "Yesteryear" is loaded with references to death: alternate Spock's death at age 7, his mother's death in a shuttle crash, I-chaya's death. Plenty of other TAS episodes freely acknowledge the risk of death even if they don't depict it. "The Pirates of Orion" even mentioned suicide bombings, hardly a kid-friendly concept. Note paticularly "The Slaver Weapon" -- the only time in Filmation's entire canon prior to 1987's Bravestarr in which sentient beings actually die in the course of an episode. "The Slaver Weapon" was very faithfully adapted from Larry Niven's Known Space novella "The Soft Weapon," which was definitely not written for children.

And yes, TAS occasionally has some silly premises, but no worse than TOS had. The crew shrinking to tiny size is no more ludicrous than Flint shrinking the Enterprise to a tabletop model. A giant Spock clone is no sillier than a giant Apollo. Megas-tu is no sillier than Sylvia and Korob. The ship's computer playing practical jokes isn't much sillier than the ship's computer flirting with Kirk and calling him "dear." "The Counter-Clock Incident" is pretty stupid and incoherent in its portrayal of a negative universe, but then, so is "The Alternative Factor."
 
I don't agree with you on this - for me, TAS clearly has the feel of a kids show. Personally, I don't believe a children's TV show has to be populated by "teen sidekicks" or "cute alien pets" to qualify as such.

Everything's relative. Compared to the other Saturday morning cartoons of the era, TAS was far more "adult." Yes, compared to what we have today, it feels more juvenile -- but then, so does TOS compared to something like DS9 or Caprica. I'm speaking here of the intentions, not the results. It's a factual error to claim the creators of TAS intended it to be aimed specifically at children, because there are documented statements refuting that assumption. Yes, it was designed to be safe for children, to avoid deadly violence and love scenes and what little profanity was allowed in prime-time TV, but aside from that, its writers and producers were told to treat it no differently than they'd treat a TOS assignment.



If that image is meant as "evidence" that TAS was somehow more juvenile in focus, let me remind you that Spock's pet sehlat was first referenced in "Journey to Babel." D. C. Fontana wrote both episodes. She was simply taking advantage of TAS's greater visual freedom to depict something that she was only able to suggest verbally in TOS.

Indeed, it's a poorly chosen example, since I-chaya's death in "Yesteryear" is one of the things that marks that episode as considerably more adult than most Saturday morning TV of the time. Even acknowledging the concept of death has generally been a no-no on children's TV (which is why so many cartoon villains only use synonyms like "Destroy them!" or "Annihilate them!" -- even the word is generally forbidden). But "Yesteryear" is loaded with references to death: alternate Spock's death at age 7, his mother's death in a shuttle crash, I-chaya's death. Plenty of other TAS episodes freely acknowledge the risk of death even if they don't depict it. "The Pirates of Orion" even mentioned suicide bombings, hardly a kid-friendly concept. Note paticularly "The Slaver Weapon" -- the only time in Filmation's entire canon prior to 1987's Bravestarr in which sentient beings actually die in the course of an episode. "The Slaver Weapon" was very faithfully adapted from Larry Niven's Known Space novella "The Soft Weapon," which was definitely not written for children.

And yes, TAS occasionally has some silly premises, but no worse than TOS had. The crew shrinking to tiny size is no more ludicrous than Flint shrinking the Enterprise to a tabletop model. A giant Spock clone is no sillier than a giant Apollo. Megas-tu is no sillier than Sylvia and Korob. The ship's computer playing practical jokes isn't much sillier than the ship's computer flirting with Kirk and calling him "dear." "The Counter-Clock Incident" is pretty stupid and incoherent in its portrayal of a negative universe, but then, so is "The Alternative Factor."
I disagree with you on a few points. TOS does not feel in anyway "more juvenile" in comparison to DS9 or Caprica for me - not at all. I don't agree with your opinion the image I posted was "a poorly chosen example" - while I believe you're right in your analysis of Yesteryear - I do feel the actual rendering of the Sehlat is designed to appeal to chilldren, as was the characterisation and execution of young Spock.

Thank you for setting me straight about the writers directive (of which I genuinely wasn't aware) and my factual error.

I love TAS, but I see a show aimed at children when I watch it - you don't share that opinion, ces't la vie.
 
It's not an opinion, it's a documented fact that the creators of the show did not aim it solely at children. Yes, it's made to be accessible for children, and of course the designs were done by a studio whose other output was directed at children so they're going to reflect a similar sensibility. But it was a family show, one intended for audiences of all ages. Children were included in its target audience, but they were not the sole target audience. It was aimed just as much at the adults who had loved TOS.
 
^Yep. Like I said, it's all relative. Even prime-time shows of the '60s or '70s seem less "adult" than their counterparts today because there was tighter censorship and less acknowledgment of adult themes. Heck, on TOS, they had to fight to use "hell" as a curse word, and they weren't allowed to show open-mouthed kisses or female bellybuttons. So yeah, TAS had tighter restrictions on sex, violence, and language than TOS did, but TOS had tighter restrictions on those things than modern shows do.
 
It's not an opinion, it's a documented fact that the creators of the show did not aim it solely at children.

Yes, I'll thank you once more - as I did in my antecedent post...

LOKAI of CHERON said:
Thank you for setting me straight about the writers directive (of which I genuinely wasn't aware) and my factual error.

Christopher, you obviously have a greater knowledge of the show's history than me. You've vigorously stated your case and corrected my factual error - to which I've conceded.

Despite any edicts or directives, it is still my opinion the show was aimed at children and I feel the writers worked with that in mind.

To be honest, this issue just isn't that important to me - I greatly enjoy the show for what is - 22 additional episodes of my beloved original crew.

Again, to me, when I view the show, I form the opinion it is a children's cartoon based on the live action version. I am not trying to be facetious, flippant or denegrating to your extremely well argued and eloquently composed conclusions.
 
^You're contradicting yourself. First you acknowledge I'm right that the show was NOT "aimed at children" -- and then you reiterate that it WAS "aimed at children." Make up your mind already!

It's one thing for you to say that it feels like a children's show to you. That's a subjective opinion and can't be argued with. But when you use the phrase "aimed at children," that is an assertion of the creators' intent. So for you to stipulate that that wasn't the creators' intent while continuing to use that specific choice of words is completely contradictory.
 
^You're contradicting yourself. First you acknowledge I'm right that the show was NOT "aimed at children" -- and then you reiterate that it WAS "aimed at children." Make up your mind already!

It's one thing for you to say that it feels like a children's show to you. That's a subjective opinion and can't be argued with. But when you use the phrase "aimed at children," that is an assertion of the creators' intent. So for you to stipulate that that wasn't the creators' intent while continuing to use that specific choice of words is completely contradictory.
I acknowledge the validity of your assertion reference the writers directive - I'm sure you could provide a credible link if asked. I apologise if you found my language in anyway contradictory or insufficient, but...

LOKAI of CHERON said:
it is still my opinion the show was aimed at children
I believe I've made my opinion quite clear, but I'm sure that won't prevent you from continuing to pick apart my every word in order to prove my irrationality and contradictory ramblings!
 
^You're contradicting yourself. First you acknowledge I'm right that the show was NOT "aimed at children" -- and then you reiterate that it WAS "aimed at children." Make up your mind already!

It's one thing for you to say that it feels like a children's show to you. That's a subjective opinion and can't be argued with. But when you use the phrase "aimed at children," that is an assertion of the creators' intent. So for you to stipulate that that wasn't the creators' intent while continuing to use that specific choice of words is completely contradictory.
I acknowledge the validity of your assertion reference the writers directive - I'm sure you could provide a credible link if asked. I apologise if you found my language in anyway contradictory or insufficient, but...

LOKAI of CHERON said:
it is still my opinion the show was aimed at children
I believe I've made my opinion quite clear, but I'm sure that won't prevent you from continuing to pick apart my every word in order to prove my irrationality and contradictory ramblings!

Well, news flash, YOUR OPINION IS WRONG!
 
^You're contradicting yourself. First you acknowledge I'm right that the show was NOT "aimed at children" -- and then you reiterate that it WAS "aimed at children." Make up your mind already!

It's one thing for you to say that it feels like a children's show to you. That's a subjective opinion and can't be argued with. But when you use the phrase "aimed at children," that is an assertion of the creators' intent. So for you to stipulate that that wasn't the creators' intent while continuing to use that specific choice of words is completely contradictory.
I acknowledge the validity of your assertion reference the writers directive - I'm sure you could provide a credible link if asked. I apologise if you found my language in anyway contradictory or insufficient, but...

LOKAI of CHERON said:
it is still my opinion the show was aimed at children
I believe I've made my opinion quite clear, but I'm sure that won't prevent you from continuing to pick apart my every word in order to prove my irrationality and contradictory ramblings!

Well, news flash, YOUR OPINION IS WRONG!
OK, thanks for that. I'm out of this thread now, I must admit I'm finding the hostility over something so trivial quite unpleasant.
 
Star Trek themed Kid's Show?..

Look here..

4379940597.jpg
Yeah, I'd say we all dodged a bullet, there...!

Interesting that Scotty has a mustache - had Jimmy Doohan grown his by this point, or was it just a coincidence that Scotty later ended up with one?
 
I tried watching TAS last night. I simply couldn't get into it. Visually, it's just too much like a kid's show. ;)

Seriously though, I just can't watch it. I tried listening to it as an audio, and it worked better for me that way. I've no clue why I can't stand seeing it. I've no problems watching old Scooby Doo episodes.
 
Star Trek themed Kid's Show?..

Look here..

4379940597.jpg
Yeah, I'd say we all dodged a bullet, there...!

Interesting that Scotty has a mustache - had Jimmy Doohan grown his by this point, or was it just a coincidence that Scotty later ended up with one?

Doohan had a mustache and goatee from the early 1970s until STTMP, when he shaved off the goatee portion, per friends who saw him at conventions in that time frame.
 
Doohan had a mustache and goatee from the early 1970s until STTMP, when he shaved off the goatee portion, per friends who saw him at conventions in that time frame.

Ah, okay. I knew he grew the face fuzz at some point in the Seventies, just couldn't remember when.
 
I knew he grew the face fuzz at some point in the Seventies, just couldn't remember when.

http://therinofandor.blogspot.com/2007/06/origins-of-filmations-tas-1969-titans.html

Don Christensen's "concept paper" proposed for TAS suggested Scotty's moustache in 1969. Maybe Christensen had seen Doohan (or pics of him) not long after TOS finished up?

Actors will often go for a radical hair change immediately after a prominent role finishes up just to throw the casting people into perhaps offering different types of roles. One actor I knew was always trying to avoid being cast as a rapist or bank robber in cop shows, thanks to a scar under his eye (received as an innocent bystander during a pub brawl).
 
Don Christensen's "concept paper" proposed for TAS suggested Scotty's moustache in 1969. Maybe Christensen had seen Doohan (or pics of him) not long after TOS finished up?

Or it could be coincidence; sometimes animated characters have their appearance modified to make them more distinctive from one another. (Note that Lt. Kyle gained a moustache in TAS.)
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top