The Animated Series

[The Overlord]

That's why I would be more interested in a new animated series rather then trying to remaster TAS. I think since the 90s, kids animation made leaps and bounds improvements in terms of story telling and animation and generally allowed for a far bigger voice cast then TAS ever did.

I think that is debatable. Often, some conflate the relaxation of censorship (usually of violence or sexual themes) as being evidence of better storytelling, as that is the most significant difference between eras of TV animation. However, current TV animation has its own share of problems (ex. Clone Wars relied too much on hollow foreshadowing of events we already know from the original Star Wars films / Anakin is just so brooding and frustrated--whatever), and are not as willing to explore some of the loftier ideas seen in series as old as TAS.

Its not like today's cartoons are just violence and sex (they are still mostly aimed at kids), its just I think in the past 20 years we seen more of willingness to explore certain things that wouldn't have happened back in the 70s. Gargoyles and Avatar could not have been created in the 70s. I think a lot of the quality cartoons we got from the 90s till recently (though it seems like Cartoon Network is only interested in comedies recently and Marvel's latest animated efforts have been lackluster).

Star Trek TAS may have been a good cartoon for the 70s, but it had no real competition, what else was on at that time, Super Friends?

I think it would be really hard to get kids interested in an old cartoon from the 70s, when there more exciting animated options for them. There is way more competition in terms of animation now then there was in the 70s.

I think Batman the Animated Series was more of a break through series then Star Trek TAS. TAS was likely good for an animated 70s show (which isn't saying much, the 70s is considered the worst decade for animation in America), but I doubt it holds much appeal today except for die hard Trekies. I don't think TAS would appeal to today's kids and most fans would like find it too cheesy.

At the time of its debut, I enjoyed Batman: TAS, but did not think it was as much of a breakthrough, as 1980s syndicated animated imports already pushed more adult themes (including violence) which stood out in a sea of the more common My Little Pony, G.I. Joe, Beverly Hills Teens, and Monchichis offerings.

One can argue--with effect--B:TAS was a breakthrough for superhero cartoons, as their very nature was still hobbled by censors targeting the genre as being inherently violent (nevermind that violence had been stripped from such series by 1969). However, to any interested parites, B: TAS were likely familiar with some of the key influences, such as the Burton Batman (1989) and the Fleischer Superman cartoons.

Cool it may have been, but its not like it was completely new in its execution. At least with TAS, animated TV of the early 1970s was (as noted above) hobbled by censors preventing anything other than the most benign subject matter, unless there was some psychologist-informed plot attempting to educate (mold) young viewers.

TAS--in keeping with the traditions established by TOS--told stories from a sci-fi inspiration that was rare for TV of any kind (including live action), which is one of the reasons the oft quoted Los Angeles Times review:

“NBC’s new animated Star Trek is as out of place in the Saturday morning kiddie ghetto as a Mercedes in a soapbox derby.

“Don’t be put off by the fact that it’s now a cartoon….It is fascinating fare, written, produced and executed with all the imaginative skill, the intellectual flare and the literary level that made Gene Roddenberry’s famous old science fiction epic the most avidly followed program in TV history, particularly in high IQ circles.

...proves just how much of a rare breakthrough TAS was to TV animation.

But BTAS opened the door to stuff like Gargoyles, Beast Wars and Exo Squad in the 90s, cartoons that told darker tales and had more moral ambiguity about them, TAS did not change the landscape of animation the way BTAS did. Star Trek TAS did not make as huge an impact in animation then BTAS.

Heck the animation in X-Men TAS was pretty bad, but it relate the themes of the X-Men well to children back in the 90s.

Also I don't really care if they bring back the original cast or not for a new cartoon, the Clone Wars cartoon used sound a likes to play major characters from the movies and that worked fine.

I do not know about you, but i've never come across anyone attempting Shatner or Kelly that did not sound like the would-be comedic versions of the actors.

A sound a like could try to sound like Chris Pine or Karl Urban, instead of Kelly or Shanter. Or they could just have a cast of new characters, either of those options makes more sense then trying to revive a cartoon from the 70s that kids would not care about and only the most die hard Trekies would want.

Star Trek TAS was a product of its time, Gene Roddenberry felt it was irrelevant after TNG debuted, perhaps its best to leave it in the past.

Star Trek TAS was daring for the time and there were a few stand out episodes, but I think take it out of its historical (which kids today would not care about) and it makes more pedestrian.

 

[Christopher]

But I think the Flimation tactic of almost never hiring voice actors and having the principal cast voice everyone is not used very often anymore.

Not so much in "children's" animation, but it is done, paradoxically, in some more adult animated shows. Virtually all the male voices on The Simpsons are done by Dan Castellaneta, Harry Shearer, and Hank Azaria, and the overwhelming majority of the male voices on Futurama were by Billy West, John DiMaggio, Phil LaMarr, and David Herman -- with Tress MacNeille doing a lot of female guest voices on both shows.

Star Trek TAS was a product of its time, Gene Roddenberry felt it was irrelevant after TNG debuted, perhaps its best to leave it in the past.

I think that had more to do with the fact that Paramount hadn't yet secured the rights to TAS, and that its ownership was uncertain after Filmation went bankrupt. Maybe there were aspects of it that Roddenberry had second thoughts about, but the same went for a lot of TOS and the movies. Basically, around that time, he wanted to marginalize any version of Star Trek that he hadn't personally been in charge of, and TAS had been mainly D.C. Fontana's show (even though he executive-produced it and had more unfettered creative control over it than he ever had on TOS or TNG).

So that had more to do with legal issues and Roddenberry's own ego than the quality or merits of the show, and thus I don't think it should be considered binding.

 

[The Overlord]

But I think the Flimation tactic of almost never hiring voice actors and having the principal cast voice everyone is not used very often anymore.

Not so much in "children's" animation, but it is done, paradoxically, in some more adult animated shows. Virtually all the male voices on The Simpsons are done by Dan Castellaneta, Harry Shearer, and Hank Azaria, and the overwhelming majority of the male voices on Futurama were by Billy West, John DiMaggio, Phil LaMarr, and David Herman -- with Tress MacNeille doing a lot of female guest voices on both shows.

Fair enough, but I do think those people had a greater vocal range then Majel Barrett and Nichelle Nichols. I like Majel Barrett and Nichelle Nichols, but they did not have a huge vocal range, that one episode (The Lorelei Signa) where there several female guest stars and all of them were voiced by Majel Barrett and Nichelle Nichols, it really becomes noticeable that all the female characters are voiced by two people.

The Simpsons and Futurama shows will often have celebs play guest stars, so their voice acting budget is not limited in the same way Star Trek TAS was.

Star Trek TAS was a product of its time, Gene Roddenberry felt it was irrelevant after TNG debuted, perhaps its best to leave it in the past.

I think that had more to do with the fact that Paramount hadn't yet secured the rights to TAS, and that its ownership was uncertain after Filmation went bankrupt. Maybe there were aspects of it that Roddenberry had second thoughts about, but the same went for a lot of TOS and the movies. Basically, around that time, he wanted to marginalize any version of Star Trek that he hadn't personally been in charge of, and TAS had been mainly D.C. Fontana's show (even though he executive-produced it and had more unfettered creative control over it than he ever had on TOS or TNG).

So that had more to do with legal issues and Roddenberry's own ego than the quality or merits of the show, and thus I don't think it should be considered binding.

Its not legally binding, but it does seem like Roddenberry did not think much of that show in later years.

 

[Christopher]

I think that had more to do with the fact that Paramount hadn't yet secured the rights to TAS, and that its ownership was uncertain after Filmation went bankrupt. Maybe there were aspects of it that Roddenberry had second thoughts about, but the same went for a lot of TOS and the movies. Basically, around that time, he wanted to marginalize any version of Star Trek that he hadn't personally been in charge of, and TAS had been mainly D.C. Fontana's show (even though he executive-produced it and had more unfettered creative control over it than he ever had on TOS or TNG).

So that had more to do with legal issues and Roddenberry's own ego than the quality or merits of the show, and thus I don't think it should be considered binding.

Its not legally binding, but it does seem like Roddenberry did not think much of that show in later years.

Wow, you just completely ignored my entire statement there. My whole point is that you can't assume it's about a specific dislike for TAS, partly because the move was largely done for legal/copyright reasons, and partly because Roddenberry had the same attitude toward parts of TOS and several of the movies.

And frankly it was pretty damn hypocritical of Roddenberry to dismiss TAS, because -- as I said -- it was the only Trek series he had complete creative control over. If he didn't like it, he has only himself to blame. And really, Roddenberry's tastes in general at that late stage of his life were pretty terrible -- as the writing in TNG season 1 makes clear -- so I don't think his attitudes at the time are really any kind of indicator of quality.

 

[Maurice]

Batman the Animated Series was fairly revolutionary, not just because of what its content was re a US cartoon made ostensibly for the younger set, but in terms of its design AND the fact that it made a very striking stylistic break from the standard TV cartoons of the time, as exemplified by its "paint on black" technique: the backgrounds were largely painted on textured black paper, meaning they started with black and added light and color to that, with the result that there's an underlying darkness to every setting in the show. That was a huge visual difference from what came before it on TV.

 

[The Overlord]

I think that had more to do with the fact that Paramount hadn't yet secured the rights to TAS, and that its ownership was uncertain after Filmation went bankrupt. Maybe there were aspects of it that Roddenberry had second thoughts about, but the same went for a lot of TOS and the movies. Basically, around that time, he wanted to marginalize any version of Star Trek that he hadn't personally been in charge of, and TAS had been mainly D.C. Fontana's show (even though he executive-produced it and had more unfettered creative control over it than he ever had on TOS or TNG).

So that had more to do with legal issues and Roddenberry's own ego than the quality or merits of the show, and thus I don't think it should be considered binding.

Its not legally binding, but it does seem like Roddenberry did not think much of that show in later years.

Wow, you just completely ignored my entire statement there. My whole point is that you can't assume it's about a specific dislike for TAS, partly because the move was largely done for legal/copyright reasons, and partly because Roddenberry had the same attitude toward parts of TOS and several of the movies.

And frankly it was pretty damn hypocritical of Roddenberry to dismiss TAS, because -- as I said -- it was the only Trek series he had complete creative control over. If he didn't like it, he has only himself to blame. And really, Roddenberry's tastes in general at that late stage of his life were pretty terrible -- as the writing in TNG season 1 makes clear -- so I don't think his attitudes at the time are really any kind of indicator of quality.

Fair enough, I should have given you a more detailed response to your comment.

You can say Roddenberry was hypocritical for not liking TAS, fair enough. But it does seem like the type of series only a really hardcore Trekies care about, I think a lot of fans don't even care about this show and I doubt it would appeal to kids today. It barely lasted two seasons, it wasn't really a great success.

I don't see the point in spending money trying to spend money on revamping a cartoon series that wasn't popular when it first aired in the 1970s, instead of just making a new animated series that would appeal more to kids today.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

it wasn't really a great success.

It garnered Star Trek's first Emmy Award, and the only one in a "major" category: Daytime Emmy for Outstanding Entertainment Children's Series in 1975. That's success.

 

[The Overlord]

it wasn't really a great success.

It garnered Star Trek's first Emmy Award, and the only one in a "major" category: Daytime Emmy for Outstanding Entertainment Children's Series in 1975. That's success.

It lasted less then two seasons, only 22 episodes in total and the second season. Something like BTAS got several Emmy awards, had far more episodes and had a couple of spin offs. Star Trek TAS may have an award, but it didn't change the face of animation or was a huge ratings success like BTAS was.

Maybe people who enjoy this show, should accept that its time is done and just leave it in the past. If people like this show, that is fine, I just don't personally see the point in spending a bunch of an money revamping the animation, when I don't think there was enough of an audience for it.

What is wrong with spending that money on a new animated series instead? I wonder some people think it will succeed because of nostaglia, more then anything else.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

If people like this show, that is fine, I just don't personally see the point in spending a bunch of an money revamping the animation, when I don't think there was enough of an audience for it.

What is wrong with spending that money on a new animated series instead?

Nothing. I don't recall coming down either in favor of doing any more work on TAS or against any new animated Trek. In fact, in past threads, I've specifically posted against the former and not at all opposed to the latter.

 

[Christopher]

You can say Roddenberry was hypocritical for not liking TAS, fair enough. But it does seem like the type of series only a really hardcore Trekies care about, I think a lot of fans don't even care about this show and I doubt it would appeal to kids today.

Which has nothing whatsoever to do with the reasons behind Roddenberry's 1989 memo regarding the status of TAS. You were misinterpreting its significance.

It barely lasted two seasons, it wasn't really a great success.

Again, you're misunderstanding the facts you're citing. Very few of Filmation's shows had more than two seasons' worth of new episodes, because the market rarely supported that. The only Filmation shows that ran longer than two seasons were Fat Albert and Tarzan: Lord of the Jungle. I'm not counting The Archies because it went through several different titles and formats lasting about a year each, which was actually fairly typical for the day (Hanna-Barbera shows like Scooby-Doo and Super Friends followed the same practice). Given that most '70s Saturday morning shows lasted only one season, and hardly any lasted more than two, TAS's run is actually quite respectable.

Also, there are different measures of success. According to Lou Scheimer: Creating the Filmation Generation by Scheimer and Andy Mangels, p. 106:

For those wondering, or who think Star Trek did poorly, it didn't. It had a huge following on Saturday morning, but the numbers for kids watching were not as strong. It was adults and older kids watching the show, and they didn't matter to the networks or advertisers on Saturday mornings as much. If it had been a hit with kids as well, it might have changed the very type of material done for Saturday morning, but it just didn't have the kid numbers.

So it was actually a big success with teen and adult viewers, and might've been a huge hit if it had aired in prime time.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

it wasn't really a great success.

It garnered Star Trek's first Emmy Award, and the only one in a "major" category: Daytime Emmy for Outstanding Entertainment Children's Series in 1975. That's success.

It lasted less then two seasons, only 22 episodes in total and the second season. Something like BTAS got several Emmy awards, had far more episodes and had a couple of spin offs. Star Trek TAS may have an award, but it didn't change the face of animation or was a huge ratings success like BTAS was.

It did not last 22 episodes due to it being a failure. At that time, many animated series only produced 16 to 20 episodes, which would be rerun endlessly (ex. most of Hanna-Barbera and Filmation's 1960s successes--with few exceptions--were produced in this way). The points you make regarding B:TAS were already covered by TAS: not only was the series praised far and wide by critics and winning an Emmy, but it was one of the few cartoons to attract large numbers of adult viewers.

This was not Scooby-Doo or Goober and the Ghost Chasers. TAS was in a class by itself, honoring the legacy of its predecessor--some say better than what would come when ST returned to TV.

What is wrong with spending that money on a new animated series instead? I wonder some people think it will succeed because of nostaglia, more then anything else.

No one has a desire to hear voice actors ape TOS characters. Earlier, you mentioned basing the performances off of the JJ movie actors, but I believe that would be a failure waiting to happen, as JJ-Trek is not a phenomenon generating a desire to see new versions no matter the venue (as in the case of TAS following in TAS' footsteps).

 

[Ithekro]

BTAS came at a time when cartoons started to be made more for teens that younger kids. At least that is what it seemed like Fox Kids was doing in the early 90s. Also going back to the older formula were the show might also appeal to the parents for one reason or another.

I remember getting my father hooked on Slappy the Squirrel and The Tick while my mother like Batman and Superman, and to a limited extent X-men. She had issues with Spiderman as he was a little too snarky.

 

[The Overlord]

It garnered Star Trek's first Emmy Award, and the only one in a "major" category: Daytime Emmy for Outstanding Entertainment Children's Series in 1975. That's success.

It lasted less then two seasons, only 22 episodes in total and the second season. Something like BTAS got several Emmy awards, had far more episodes and had a couple of spin offs. Star Trek TAS may have an award, but it didn't change the face of animation or was a huge ratings success like BTAS was.

It did not last 22 episodes due to it being a failure. At that time, many animated series only produced 16 to 20 episodes, which would be rerun endlessly (ex. most of Hanna-Barbera and Filmation's 1960s successes--with few exceptions--were produced in this way). The points you make regarding B:TAS were already covered by TAS: not only was the series praised far and wide by critics and winning an Emmy, but it was one of the few cartoons to attract large numbers of adult viewers.

This was not Scooby-Doo or Goober and the Ghost Chasers. TAS was in a class by itself, honoring the legacy of its predecessor--some say better than what would come when ST returned to TV.

Well the Super Friends started in the 70s and that seemed to last forever.

I would say lots of cartoons from the 90s, like BTAS, Gargoyles, Beast Wars and Animaniacs were enjoyed both by kids and adults and delat with subject matter that was rarely touched upon before.

I think Star Trek the Animated Series is a product of its time, it was edgy for animation in the 70s, but now kids would find it tame and perhaps bland.

There is nothing wrong with liking TAS, I don't care for it, but I think that because I have seen better Star Trek and because I though the animation and voice acting was kinda weak. I have been spoiled by newer cartoons that have better voice work and animation.

I just thinking spending money on redoing the animation, but keeping the same audio and plots from TAS seems like something that would not work for today's audience. Just because something worked in the past, doesn't mean it works in the present.

What is wrong with spending that money on a new animated series instead? I wonder some people think it will succeed because of nostaglia, more then anything else.

No one has a desire to hear voice actors ape TOS characters. Earlier, you mentioned basing the performances off of the JJ movie actors, but I believe that would be a failure waiting to happen, as JJ-Trek is not a phenomenon generating a desire to see new versions no matter the venue (as in the case of TAS following in TAS' footsteps).

I don't care personally, I wasn't offended when they got sound a likes for the Clone Wars cartoon instead of the Movie actors and I wouldn't care if they got sound a likes for a new Star Trek.

Or if you find sound a likes too offensive, they could just make a show about new characters. They make a show about the USS Titian and bring in Jonathan Frakes, that be more interesting and original then just revamping TAS, I rather see new stories than a redressing of stories from 40 years ago.

Personally I am far more interested in a new animated series, then a revamp of TAS, a lot.

If you love TAS, that's fine, but perhaps its best to realize its of its time and its time has long since pasted and maybe that is where it should stay, you can still enjoy it.

 

[Christopher]

Batman: TAS was a major step forward, but it didn't emerge from nowhere. Animation had been heading toward greater maturity throughout the '80s. The Real Ghostbusters under J. Michael Straczynski's story-editorship really pushed the envelope in telling more sophisticated stories, although it wasn't allowed to go as far on Saturday mornings as it did in first-run syndication. And one of the key creative minds behind B:TAS and most animated Batman shows since then, Alan Burnett, was a writer on the final Super Powers Team seasons of the Super Friends franchise, which started to take it in a smarter, more comics-influenced direction and develop the characters beyond the ciphers they'd been in previous seasons. Burnett's 1985 episode "The Fear" was the first time Batman's origin story was ever depicted outside the comics, and was surprisingly dark and intense for the era (though less so than B:TAS was). It was essentially a pilot for a Batman solo series and probably helped pave the way for B:TAS.

It's worth noting, by the way, that Straczynski, Bruce Timm, and Paul Dini all got their start working for Filmation, mostly He-Man and She-Ra. Although admittedly a lot of what they did to make animation more sophisticated was probably a reaction against the limits they were under at Filmation.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

Star Trek TAS may have been a good cartoon for the 70s, but it had no real competition, what else was on at that time, Super Friends?

The series stood out not only for not being like anything on the Saturday morning programming block, but for its qualities which attracted adults--without a moment's hesitation of "that's a silly cartoon."

But BTAS opened the door to stuff like Gargoyles, Beast Wars and Exo Squad in the 90s, cartoons that told darker tales and had more moral ambiguity about them, TAS did not change the landscape of animation the way BTAS did. Star Trek TAS did not make as huge an impact in animation then BTAS.

Noted earller, in the 80's, American audiences were exposed to series with darker themes via popular syndicated Japanese imports--B:TAS did not introduce that to North American audiences.

Star Trek TAS was daring for the time and there were a few stand out episodes, but I think take it out of its historical (which kids today would not care about) and it makes more pedestrian.

One could say that about any production within a franchise. Do younger viewers of recent James Bond films completely reject anything from the Connery or Moore era? Are they incapable of understanding / accepting / enjoying the older films? Or do they suffer from the mindset that everything must be skewed toward their generation's quirks or be dismissed as irrelevant?

 

[The Overlord]

Star Trek TAS may have been a good cartoon for the 70s, but it had no real competition, what else was on at that time, Super Friends?

The series stood out not only for not being like anything on the Saturday morning programming block, but for its qualities which attracted adults--without a moment's hesitation of "that's a silly cartoon."

I'm sure Star Trek TAS was good for the 70s, but I'm not sure it would be a big hit now, when animation is a far more competitive field then it was in the 70s.

Again, why are you assuming a revamp of the 70s cartoon would be a bigger hit then new animated series, that would more targeted to audiences today?

But BTAS opened the door to stuff like Gargoyles, Beast Wars and Exo Squad in the 90s, cartoons that told darker tales and had more moral ambiguity about them, TAS did not change the landscape of animation the way BTAS did. Star Trek TAS did not make as huge an impact in animation then BTAS.

Noted earller, in the 80's, American audiences were exposed to series with darker themes via popular syndicated Japanese imports--B:TAS did not introduce that to North American audiences.

I think BTAS was the first time a lot of this stuff was done in Western cartoon and the anime imports from the 80s were often really censored.

Anime wasn't all just Akira in the 80s.

Star Trek TAS was daring for the time and there were a few stand out episodes, but I think take it out of its historical (which kids today would not care about) and it makes more pedestrian.

One could say that about any production within a franchise. Do younger viewers of recent James Bond films completely reject anything from the Connery or Moore era? Are they incapable of understanding / accepting / enjoying the older films? Or do they suffer from the mindset that everything must be skewed toward their generation's quirks or be dismissed as irrelevant?

Well who would be the audience for the proposed revamped Star Trek TAS, hard core Trekies or kids? If its kids, yeah this would be very hard sell, even kids in the 70s didn't really take to the show and kids often prefer something new to something old.

Plus I think 60s James Bond had better production values then TAS.

This seems like a very nostaglia based argument for revamping TAS, rather then a logical one.

 

[Hober Mallow]

On now to...Star Trek: The Motion Picture...

Actually, if you're trying to watch all of filmed Star Trek in chronological order, then you have to watch this first.

As far as TAS only having 22 episodes and something like Batman: TAS having many more: when TAS was produced, first-run cartoons airing five days a week was unheard of. It wasn't until the mid-80s that animated series became produced for first-run syndication and a season of sixty-five episodes became typical. Incidentally, the very first sixty-five-episode-a-season animated series was Filmation's He-Man and the Masters of the Universe.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

Again, why are you assuming a revamp of the 70s cartoon would be a bigger hit then new animated series, that would more targeted to audiences today?

Think of it this way: two of the most popular episodes of Deep Space Nine ("Trials and Tribble-ations") and Enterprise (the two-part "In a Mirror, Darkly") were tributes/flashbacks to TOS episodes or situations. They were produced for modern audiences (1996 & 2005), and it would be a gross understatement to say they were met showered with praise.

The lesson here is that if the audiences of 1996 & 2005 loved trips back to TOS--after being exposed to all of the modern sci-fi TV & movies of their respective eras--yet still found themselves engaged in stories set in situations/visuals from the 1960s, then a new animated series--if as faithful--could stand a serious chance to succeed.

I think BTAS was the first time a lot of this stuff was done in Western cartoon and the anime imports from the 80s were often really censored.

On average, 1970s anime suffered severe edits or entire plots restructured (see Gatchaman's North American version, Battle of the Planets), but the 80s--in syndication--opened the door to series (ex. Robotech--despite some edits) were violence, death and other adult themes were exposed to audiences at a time where G.I. Joe lasers never killed anyone, and all pilots managed to eject from planes before the crash. The contrast was shocking, but audiences certainly embraced the imports' mature ideas.

Well who would be the audience for the proposed revamped Star Trek TAS, hard core Trekies or kids? If its kids, yeah this would be very hard sell, even kids in the 70s didn't really take to the show and kids often prefer something new to something old.

Kids, young adults and older adults were fans of the series. On a personal note, I was a child when TAS premiered, and found it every bit as fascinating as the parent series.

This seems like a very nostaglia based argument for revamping TAS, rather then a logical one.

Nostalgia/repsect fueled the episodes of DS9 and ENT, and results were successful.

 

[EnriqueH]

Did any Saturday morning cartoons last?

I can remember cartoons for Gilligan's Planet, Dukes of Hazzard, none of them lasted.

 

[Christopher]

I'm sure Star Trek TAS was good for the 70s, but I'm not sure it would be a big hit now, when animation is a far more competitive field then it was in the 70s.

Why do you feel it necessary to keep harping on that as if anyone were suggesting anything of the kind? The question is not whether it would "be a big hit now" -- the question is whether one is able to assess it by the standards of its time and understand factually that for its time, it was actually a well-made, respected, and successful show. If people are too blinded by modern tastes to appreciate older works like '70s animation or black-and-white movies or live radio dramas, warts and all, I say that's their loss.

Did any Saturday morning cartoons last?

I can remember cartoons for Gilligan's Planet, Dukes of Hazzard, none of them lasted.

Actually Gilligan's Planet was Filmation's sequel to its The New Adventures of Gilligan from eight years earlier, so you could say that show "lasted" in the sense of being revived.

There were a few Saturday morning cartoons that ran for a fairly long time, usually by getting revamped into a new format and title every season -- The Archies, Scooby-Doo, The Flintstones, Fat Albert, Super Friends. Certainly Fat Albert was Filmation's most enduring success, staying on Saturday mornings for nine seasons with at least a few new episodes made in eight of those seasons, and then returning in syndication in 1984.

Then of course there was the long-running Bugs Bunny-Roadrunner Show on CBS, but that was mostly old theatrical cartoons with some new bridging material.