These Are The Voyages - Season Three

[Ssosmcin]

Star Trek's cancellation was announced, fans had left in droves. It's not like there were dozens of ads trumpeting Trek's move to Tuesday's at 7:30. And even so, look what they got: Turnabout Intruder. Had Season 1 or 2 been at the Tuesday/7:30 birth, it might have made a difference. At this stage of the game...it's summer. School's out, the sun is still up...the kids are playing ball or riding bikes. Nobody's giving up fresh air and sunshine to watch Star Trek's crappier episodes...

A few years later, when it's on every weekday around dinnertime, with great episodes being rerun, there ya go.

 

[CrazyMatt]

Star Trek's cancellation was announced, fans had left in droves. It's not like there were dozens of ads trumpeting Trek's move to Tuesday's at 7:30. And even so, look what they got: Turnabout Intruder. Had Season 1 or 2 been at the Tuesday/7:30 birth, it might have made a difference. At this stage of the game...it's summer. School's out, the sun is still up...the kids are playing ball or riding bikes. Nobody's giving up fresh air and sunshine to watch Star Trek's crappier episodes....

After watching two years of great adventure, the sight of Kirk riding on all fours, braying like a horse with a midget (sorry Michael Dunn) on his back would have had me reaching for the remote... er, the channel knob.

 

[Warped9]

I've just finished reading Volume 3 and I come away with two prominent thoughts.

People can have such different perspectives even while experiencing the exact same events. And I will grant Cushman credit for showing us such differnt perspectives from diferrent individuals.

The second takeaway is that Star Trek was royally screwed over no matter what they did. The writing was on the wall before the third season came along.

Paramount didn't care for the show which that was made apparent in the corporate mentality bearing down on the series. Less money was made available and the production time became inflexible. They wanted to wash their hands of the series. Their only concern was to get enough out of it for syndication, but they would do nothing to help the show in getting to that point.

NBC also came to the point of wanting to be rid of Star Trek. That's apparent in them scheduling the show on Fridays at 10pm.

Roddenberry hurt the show by walking away and in choosing Freiberger as Executive Producer. I think perhaps Freiberger. while certainly responsible for some wrong decisions, has been saddled with too much of the blame for what went wrong. If Roddenberry had stayed on or had at least given Freiberger more guidance and positive feedback the third season as a whole might have come off better. And if Roddenberry had stayed more involved then maybe they wouldn't have lost Robert Justman and maybe even D.C. Fontana. Given Paramount's and NBC's coinciding intent on being rid of the series the more prominent presence of Roddenberry, Justman and Fontana during the third season likely wouldn't have saved the show, but it would have come off better overall.

Without more guidance from Roddenberry left Freiberger to learn and produce the show as best as he knew how. We can see that he was trying to accomplish something positive even as Paramount, NBC and the censors were bearing down on him. To that end I see pretty much all of the third season stories as having value, but given the environment in which they were produced it's easier to see how some still manged to come off well while others didn't work at all. Of course your mileage may vary on which episodes you consider working and which don't.

In the beginning I think Stan Robertson could offer some decent feedback for the series, but by the end it seemed like he was just trying to pile it on by constantly asking for things he had to have known couldn't be delivered. He pressed for more aliens and planets and action even as the budget no longer allowed for exotic aliens and planets and the censors were trying to squeeze the action and "violence" and any genuine substance out of the show. I can't fault Freiberger for trying to go for something a bit more "cerebral" and dramatic. The show had done "message" stories before and they were continuing to do so only now they were of a slightly different form. And realistically that isn't a bad thing when seen in retrospect. It certainly adds to the overall flavour of the series even if some of the efforts could have been better.

Regarding the ratings question I'll admit I don't completely understand how it all worked. But I will say that I sense the show's performance was painted in the worst possible light and that it's performance was possibly undereported to serve a particularly viewpoint. No matter which way one sees it doesn't matter a whit because nothing is changed by it.

History is the ultimate arbiter because no matter what one thinks of Star Trek's original run it ultimately won out in the long run. From the moment it went into syndication it became a success. Or maybe it simply began to really illustrate how it had been succeeding all along.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

No matter which way one sees it doesn't matter a whit because nothing is changed by it.

Huh? It sounds like you're setting the standard for understanding history at being able to alter the past.

 

[Warped9]

No matter which way one sees it doesn't matter a whit because nothing is changed by it.

Huh? It sounds like you're setting the standard for understanding history at being able to alter the past.

The official story, and the one widely accepted, is that Star Trek failed in its original run. Regardless of whether one can prove otherwise it's unlikely to change the widely accepted story. It's proven that Columbus never made to continental America and yet the U.S. still celebrates Columbus Day.

And the history as it's known is still a compelling one: a quality show unrecognized and unappreciated in the beginning rises from the ashes to become one of the most successful franchises in entertainment history.

 

[Maurice]

I'm still dubious about this idea that NBC wanted to get rid of Star Trek. As I've said before, if they wanted it cancelled they'd just have cancelled it. They cancelled shows all the time for lots of reasons. More likely is that they didn't think the show was ever going to be a big draw but they didn't have anything in the wings they were more confident about, so they rearranged the schedule to put the show in a place where it wouldn't as negatively impact their bottom line. I know that's not as appealing to fans as Cushman's conspiracy laden take, but I think it far more likely given the way TV worked then (and now).

 

[Warped9]

Given the nature of human beings it's not impossible that network suits could feel vindictive with GR badmouthing them publicly at every turn. They gave the show a reprieve for another season and GR was still dissing them.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

 

[Maurice]

Gene clearly didn't know how to shut the Hell up. I'm reading some old official Star Trek Newsletters from 1977 now and Gene keeps dissing the studio even as they've just given him creative control of Star Trek II (aka Phase II). He sure didn't know how to play that part of the game.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Yeah, but, except in highly unusual circumstances, in a business context the calculation that a businessman makes isn't whether to be vindicative or not to someone acting out. It's whether the person is acting out enough to adversely affect the bottom line. If they're not acting out that much, they may "get managed," but business will otherwise go on as usual. That's the rational course. It's only when the person in question is really out of control that the course of business needs changing. During TOS, was Gene generating so much bad publicity that he was hurting the network's bottom line, or the studio's?

Given the nature of human beings it's not impossible that network suits could feel vindictive with GR badmouthing them publicly at every turn. They gave the show a reprieve for another season and GR was still dissing them.

"Not impossible" applies to anything however unlikely that has more than absolutely no chance at all of happening. It applies to me being simultaneously struck by lighting and hit by a crashing airplane and three falling meteorites as a sinkhole is opening up below me and a truck is crashing through my front door.

I'm still dubious about this idea that NBC wanted to get rid of Star Trek. As I've said before, if they wanted it cancelled they'd just have cancelled it. They cancelled shows all the time for lots of reasons. More likely is that they didn't think the show was ever going to be a big draw but they didn't have anything in the wings they were more confident about, so they rearranged the schedule to put the show in a place where it wouldn't as negatively impact their bottom line. I know that's not as appealing to fans as Cushman's conspiracy laden take, but I think it far more likely given the way TV worked then (and now).

That seems more reasonable.

 

[Warped9]

GR clearly lacked discretion. He showed that with his extramarital affairs and he showed that in business. NBC was someone he should not have been trying to pick a fight with if he wanted to keep his show going. Given what Star Trek was accomplishing during the first two season Roddenberry should have been trying to win them over rather than demonizing them publicly.

And despite Desilu being in a difficult situation it was a better home for the show than Paramount. Paramount wasn't interested in anything imaginative, maverick and willing to push the limits.

Ultimately a lot (but not all) of TOS' troubles can be traced back to Roddenberry.

 

[Cmdr. Loskene]

Hi--
Just recently joined the forum, but have enjoyed reading the discussion. I have read all of the TATV books and gotten a lot out of them, although there are certainly errors and misleading statements. Regarding the idea that NBC wanted to kill Star Trek, I agree that doesn't make much corporate sense. It does seem plausible though that they didn't especially support it and made choices that led to its demise.

The thesis that the show was a ratings hit is deeply misguided, but the numbers show that in its first season it was a borderline show when compared to other new NBC shows (a reasonable basis for comparison). At that point, they could have moved it somewhere better and given it the best possible chance to improve its status by delivering it to its demographic audience. Instead, they used it to fill a Friday night hole. While I can't believe that network executives sit around trying to cancel shows for which they pay a lot of money, I can believe that they like some shows (and producers) more than others and that when a borderline show can be treated two ways, those opinions come to bear on the choice.

 

[Botany Bay]

I'm still dubious about this idea that NBC wanted to get rid of Star Trek. As I've said before, if they wanted it cancelled they'd just have cancelled it. They cancelled shows all the time for lots of reasons. More likely is that they didn't think the show was ever going to be a big draw but they didn't have anything in the wings they were more confident about, so they rearranged the schedule to put the show in a place where it wouldn't as negatively impact their bottom line. I know that's not as appealing to fans as Cushman's conspiracy laden take, but I think it far more likely given the way TV worked then (and now).

Well said. I agree 100%.

Loskene, welcome, and I agree with you. The author didn't make his case about the ratings, or the "NBC sabotage" theory either. I will say I think that the third volume adds the most value out of any of the editions -- I had very little info on Season three before this book was published. The spelling error/typo quotient is a lot lower in the third volume, but I can't say if the referencing is any better. I didn't bother to check this time in an effort to avoid getting too frustrated at all the missing/non-existent references I encountered in the first two volumes.

Just on the "NBC conspiracy" -- two quotes sum up my impression of what NBC thought of Star Trek :

NBC President Herb Schlosser :

Star Trek was renewed because it was good and different. And we were proud to have it on NBC.

Justman & Solow, 1996, p.307.

NBC executive Stanley Robertson :

...I was the NBC Program Executive involved in the series...I speak not only for myself but for the NBC management as well in advising you that the decision not to renew Star Trek was one of the most difficult decisions the company ever made. What many do not realize is that Star Trek, while a critical and artistic triumph during the three seasons it was on NBC, was a minimal series in terms of the number of viewers who watched the program on a regular basis. In a situation where there would have been great justification for not renewing the program at the completion of the first or second years of its existence, NBC, because our management believed so strongly in Star Trek, kept the program on air, hoping that it would attain the audience approval which is needed to sustain program forms in commercial television. Unfortunately, with enormous regret, it became obvious that the program was not building an audience and, therefore, would have to be replaced.

Cushman, 2015, p.668.

 

[Maurice]

re the Robertson comment, you cite Cushman's vol. 3 page number, but what's the source? Was it a letter to Paramount?

 

[Botany Bay]

Sure. It was a letter from Robertson to a fan either called "Bob Olsen" or "Bob Olden", the spelling is different in the text vs the reference list.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

While I can't believe that network executives sit around trying to cancel shows for which they pay a lot of money, I can believe that they like some shows (and producers) more than others and that when a borderline show can be treated two ways, those opinions come to bear on the choice.

One of the key words being "borderline."

As another way of looking at it, than saying that executives might "like" some producers more than others, it would also make sense that executives might be more interested in working with some producers on future projects more than others.

 

[Warped9]

re the Robertson comment, you cite Cushman's vol. 3 page number, but what's the source? Was it a letter to Paramount?

NBC also sent out form letters in reply to fan letters saying much the same thing. Of course they would put the network's decisions in the best possible light and spun to deflect criticism. Politicians and corporate suits do it all the time.

 

[CrazyMatt]

According to the books, and they are supported with corroborating comments from Harlan Ellison and D.C. Fontana, NBC's problem wasn't with Star Trek, it was with GR.

The rift between the network and Roddenberry resulted from the racially charged fiasco with the episode "To Set It Right" for GR's previous series, "The Lieutenant." If NBC had any hopes GR would be less provocative while producing Star Trek, those hopes evaporated when he submitted the story outline for "A Portrait In Black and White," an even more controversial racially-charged story which of course NBC flatly refused to approve/pay for.

My take: Star Trek's ratings were never great, and I don't really ascribe to the idea that just because Star Trek was often NBC's top-rated Thursday or Friday show that renewal should have been a no-brainer, as Cushman proposes. I suspect that if Star Trek was a ratings winner, NBC execs would have held their noses and renewed even given their disdain for GR. That the ratings weren't great allowed that disdain to prove decisive in the eventual decision to cancel.

 

[Warped9]

Except that there was precedent for lower rated shos being renewed and higher rated shows being dropped.

 

[plynch]

I'm not sure what's being argued here anymore. Why NBC execs cancelled Star Trek?

Something tells me it was to make money for NBC shareholders. If Trek had big numbers, GR's personality would have mattered little. Maybe it did a bit b/c Trek was a bubble (even below the bubble S3) show.

It's fine. As I haven't posted in awhile: I have my clamshell DVD set with original fx of 79 great episodes (well minus two or three suckish) . . . so all is well.