TREK post 1969??

[RobertScorpio]

One of the reasons given for TOS's eventual popularity was that after the moon landing people became interested with anything about space; thus they found their way to STAR TREK and the rest is history.

If STAR TREK had come on a month after the moon landing do you think it would have been more successful? And if so, how much more successful? Because I still think there was a large part of the population at that time that would never have watched in any event, due to viewing habits of the day.

What do all think?

Rob

 

[caisson2delta]

I agree with your statement. I remember watching it in reruns with my dad, grandfather, and uncles all through the '70s. My uncles commented that it wasn't overly popular in first run, that it seemed a bit cheesy ( I was born in '69 so didn't see it until later). I do remember that once Star Wars and, eventually, TMP debuted, that TOS began popping up in reruns again. I've always believed that both franchises, especially early on, sort of fueled each other to keep producing more for us to see.

 

[RobertScorpio]

If it had been more popular then there may have been no movie series..you never know..

Rob

 

[Gagarin]

I'm not sure. It might have gotten some wind, but even the moon landings became ratings-duds. At least that's what the script of Apollo 13 said. *shrug*.

 

[RobertScorpio]

That is a good point, I hadn't though of that.

Another reason they state for TREK's demise was the archaic way they did ratings. Had it lasted another year it would have done great with that 18-49 age group and might have been kept around...we'll never know of course. Then again, considering how the episodes were getting a bit, well, daffy towards the end, maybe its good it died after season three...

Rob

 

[Maurice]

I think that the whole "if we'd premiered after the moon landing we'd have had a 20 year run" was just Roddenberry con-talk. Star Trek's success in syndication was in a big part because it got moved into early timeslots, often before and not competing with the network programming. Demographics were already considered when TOS was on NBC, as the show did well with people with color TVs, and appears to have been renewed in no small part because of RCA, as Inside Star Trek relates.

 

[RobertScorpio]

Timeslot is usually the reason I have heard to. But then again, I don't know. What if Star Trek had the most sought after timelot of the time. Would it have made that big of a deal? Scifi shows in the here and now, usually, do not do good in the ratings (V--nuBSG--Flashforward)...even much praised ones (FIREFLY) are ratings flop.

Rob

 

[Ssosmcin]

I agree, if Star Trek had the same timeslot as, say, Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea (Sundays at 7:30 in NY), it would have taken off. People have accepted sci-fi with or without moon landings. The Invaders was a huge smash when it premiered and we still hadn't gone anywhere. Lost in Space had better ratings than Trek and it was even more "unrealistic" a series, to say the least.

Had it run five or so years, I would guess there wouldn't have been movies, and no franchise. Maybe a reunion film done in the 80's, but the fans would have gotten a good run out of Trek and not felt cheated. Ah, it's nice to imagine a successful original series, produced by Justman, Roddenberry, and John Meredyth Lucas. Maybe in its later seasons by William Read Woodfield and Allan Balter.

 

[plynch]

It was so a part of the mid-60s space age "New Frontier" zeitgeist. Would a network have bought it for the '70s?

 

[RobertScorpio]

Well, they did give us old BSG...Space 1999 came out back then too, and UFO and Buck Rogers. So you never know...


Rob

 

[caisson2delta]

Agreed, but none of them lasted either. I don't really think that anything, no matter how well written, would've succeeded in the era. Trek did just fine in reruns and i don't think TPTB cared too much, until they saw the increased success with the Trek movies.

 

[RobertScorpio]

Agreed, but none of them lasted either. I don't really think that anything, no matter how well written, would've succeeded in the era. Trek did just fine in reruns and i don't think TPTB cared too much, until they saw the increased success with the Trek movies.

I actually agree with you. I don't think scifi really ever does well...nuBSG only had critical success, and would have died for the numbers Galactica 1980 got!!!

Firefly was critically loved as well, but flopped on TV and at the movies.

SCI on TV just doesn't seem to do all that good. TNG was probably the greatest success, maybe Xfiles, LOST..but I see them as rarities...

Rob

 

[plynch]

Sci fi doesn't do well. American Idol does. I'm about to generalize about intelligence here, but will stop.

 

[Anji]

The social climate in 1966 provided the excellent material for the series. Had it been made in the early 70s, it would've been less political and humanistic...and it would've been considered sci-fi fluff.

 

[Neopeius]

Considering the Moon Landings were canceled due to low ratings, what makes you think Trek would do any better?