Was the cancellation a blessing in disguise?

[Midas]

The 70's would have destroyed the show, I agree there. The show ending where it did was definitely a blessing, oh yeah.

 

[Warped9]

The 70's would have destroyed the show, I agree there. The show ending where it did was definitely a blessing, oh yeah.

That's an assumption, not a fact. There was decent television being done in the '70s even if it wasn't Trek.

TAS had a number of good stories that could have been done or adapted as live-action. Shows like The Six Million Dollar Man and Space: 1999 had done respectable stories throughout their runs showing that good storytelling was possible. Some of the best films ever made were done in the '70s. Some innovative and ground breaking television was done in the '70s. Ever here of All In The Family and M*A*S*H?

I could easily say the same thing about our contemporary time where so much around us seems so shallow and stupid. And yet good television and good films still arise out of the morass like warm invigorating sunlight breaking through on a cold, grey and rainy day.

 

[Maurice]

I will add my voice to the 'Yes' to the OP question.

It also spared us seeing what Trek in most of the 70's would have looked like... prob a cross between SPACE: 1999, STARLOST, and Galaxy Quest

I shudder to think about the bad video chroma key that would have been employed to cut costs.

It probably would have looked like these Magicam tests for George Pal's War of the Worlds TV pitch. Actually fairly impressive for the time. It's too bad whoever digitized this video didn't de-interlace it.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

​

 

[Tribble Herder]

I think the show itself would've been fine, depending on who was the showrunner during those fourth, fifth, and subsequent seasons.

The fan movement, on the other hand, would've probably been seriously undercut without that feeling of being cheated, giving us that vital ingredient we now know as "nerd rage".

Thus, no movies (before TMP, the only time you had a tv show being done for the big screen was tripe like the Adam West Batman movie, which was nothing but a marketing ploy for overseas markets), probably no spinoff series, at least not the ones we know (we'd most likely have gotten "Assignment: Earth" and/or "Harry Mudd, Space Pirate" instead TNG, DS9, etc.), and the whole thing would've been wrapped up by the early 80's.

 

[Christopher]

The fan movement, on the other hand, would've probably been seriously undercut without that feeling of being cheated, giving us that vital ingredient we now know as "nerd rage".

Thus, no movies (before TMP, the only time you had a tv show being done for the big screen was tripe like the Adam West Batman movie, which was nothing but a marketing ploy for overseas markets), probably no spinoff series, at least not the ones we know (we'd most likely have gotten "Assignment: Earth" and/or "Harry Mudd, Space Pirate" instead TNG, DS9, etc.), and the whole thing would've been wrapped up by the early 80's.

First off, it wasn't fan rage that led to the revivals of the series. ST was revived because its reruns got good ratings in syndication -- because they made a profit. And because Gene Roddenberry capitalized on the show's popularity and made an ongoing effort to get it back on the air and/or into theaters. (The earliest ST movie proposals in '75-6 were part of a development deal Roddenbery had with Paramount at the time, so I gather.) The fans' eagerness for more Star Trek helped demonstrate that there was enthusiasm for a revival, but that by itself wouldn't have been enough if Paramount hadn't actually been making money off the reruns. With more episodes, there might've been less sense of fan deprivation, but there would've also been more potential profits from syndication. (And first and a half, the most we could've realistically expected was one more season before it ended, and that wouldn't have made too much difference.)

Second, it was actually not uncommon in the '60s for TV shows to spawn feature films with the original cast, sometimes while the shows were still in production. Batman was just one example of a pattern that also included Dragnet (1954), Hey There, It's Yogi Bear! (1964), McHale's Navy (1964), McHale's Navy Joins the Air Force (1965), The Man Called Flintstone (1966), Munster, Go Home! (1966), and Gunn (1967, based on Peter Gunn).

Third, the Adam West Batman movie was actually meant to be the pilot for the series; the plan was to create interest with the movie and then follow it up with a series -- and that the budget for a feature film would let them build vehicles and shoot stock footage that could then be reused in the series. But scheduling issues required them to postpone the movie until after the first season (which is why the Batcopter and Batboat don't appear in the show until season 2). And "tripe?" Hardly. It's a comedy classic.

 

[Tribble Herder]

I'd forgotten about the McHale's Navy movies, but they came right on the heels of the show wrapping up and used all the stuff they already had on hand and cast members who were (probably) still under contract (note that the last one didn't even have Ernest Borgnine). Not the same thing as reviving a show that had been shut down for ten years. As for the Yogi Bear movies, they don't really count since they just returned the character to where he started, the movies.

As for Dragnet, that started as a radio series, from 1949 to 1957, with the tv series running initially from 1951 to 1959, picking up again in 1967 and running to 1970. Movies based on tv shows at the time weren't all that unusual, again, as promotional tools for the overseas market while the show was still on the air (there were even plans to do that very thing with "The Cage", which is why the thing was so damn long; just add in a few more scenes and it becomes feature length and ready for theatres). Resuscitating long dead shows was unheard of until TMP (and thanks to TMP making several cubic tons of money, as well as the ensuing movie franchise, now it's nauseatingly common).

And while it wasn't unusual to run the pilot in theatres, to grab more attention before that first episode aire (last examples I can think of is "Buck Rogers In The 25th Century" and "Battlestar Galactica"), how could that Batman movie be the pilot when it was made between the first and second seasons?

 

[Christopher]

I'd forgotten about the McHale's Navy movies, but they came right on the heels of the show wrapping up and used all the stuff they already had on hand and cast members who were (probably) still under contract (note that the last one didn't even have Ernest Borgnine). Not the same thing as reviving a show that had been shut down for ten years.

You didn't say anything about revivals. Your exact words were "before TMP, the only time you had a tv show being done for the big screen was tripe like the Adam West Batman movie."

As for the Yogi Bear movies, they don't really count since they just returned the character to where he started, the movies.

Whatever gave you that idea?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yogi_Bear

He made his debut in 1958 as a supporting character in The Huckleberry Hound Show. Yogi Bear was the first breakout character created by Hanna-Barbera, and was eventually more popular than Huckleberry Hound. In January 1961, he was given his own show, The Yogi Bear Show, sponsored by Kellogg's, which included the segments Snagglepuss and Yakky Doodle.

In fact:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hey_There,_It's_Yogi_Bear!

Hey There, It's Yogi Bear! was the first theatrical feature produced by Hanna-Barbera, and the first feature-length theatrical animated film based on a television program.

Movies based on tv shows at the time weren't all that unusual...

So now you're directly contradicting your statement in your previous post that Batman was "the only time you had a tv show being done for the big screen."

Resuscitating long dead shows was unheard of until TMP (and thanks to TMP making several cubic tons of money, as well as the ensuing movie franchise, now it's nauseatingly common).

That's true enough, but it's not what you actually said in your previous post.

And while it wasn't unusual to run the pilot in theatres, to grab more attention before that first episode aire (last examples I can think of is "Buck Rogers In The 25th Century" and "Battlestar Galactica"), how could that Batman movie be the pilot when it was made between the first and second seasons?

I already answered that question! I told you, it was originally intended to come before the series but was delayed due to scheduling problems (and because it would be riskier to the network to bankroll a feature film than a TV series).

 

[Tribble Herder]

I always reserve the right to revise and extend my comments.

 

[Greg Cox]

I remember being excited when Munsters, Go Home! came out, because it was the first time we had ever seen the Munsters in color.

 

[Tribble Herder]

Regarding the '66 Batman movie...

From Batman (1966 film):

"William Dozier wanted to make a big-screen film to generate interest in his proposed Batman TV series, to have the feature in theaters while the first season of the series was rolling before the cameras. The studio, 20th Century Fox, refused because while a network would have to cover the entire cost of a movie, they would only have to share the cost of a TV series (a much less risky proposition).[4] So it was not filmed until the end of the first season of Batman the TV series (between April 25 and May 31, 1966 at an estimated $1,377,800). (Emphasis mine)"

 

[Christopher]

^Um, yes, that's what I told you before, twice: that the original plan was to make the movie before the series, but it didn't work out so it had to be made after the first season instead. I consulted that exact same article myself when composing my previous post, to bolster my recollection.

 

[Tribble Herder]

The way you worded it gave the impression that it was filmed first and held back, which was not the case. You also stated that it was to serve as the pilot, which was not the case; it was just a vehicle for greater exploitation of the property.

 

[Christopher]

The way you worded it gave the impression that it was filmed first and held back, which was not the case.

Okay, I can see how my choice of words was ambiguous. I said "it was postponed," and I should've said "its production was postponed" or "it was not actually made until...".

You also stated that it was to serve as the pilot, which was not the case; it was just a vehicle for greater exploitation of the property.

Here's what The Official Batman Batbook by Joel Eisner (Contemporary Books, 1986) has to say on p. 52 (emphasis mine):

The Batman movie was originally scheduled to be made prior to the television series. However, when ABC found that many of its television shows were failing, they ordered the Batman series moved back from its fall, 1966 planned airdate to the midseason premiere of January 1966. The film[,] which was intended to introduce the viewing public to the Batman characters, was put on hold until filming was completed on the first season of the series.

Since the series was such a success, one might wonder why ABC proceeded with the motion picture. Well, apart from the obvious financial incentives, the film served two functions. First, it was intended to aid the studio in selling the series to overseas markets. Secondly its larger budget allowed the producers to create the Batcopter and Batboat under the movie budget, and then use these impressive vehicles in the series.

The Wikipedia article cites an article by Bob Garcia in Cinefantastique Vol. 24 #6/Vol. 25 #1 (double issue, February 1994) as its source. Unfortunately that's not an issue of CFQ which I own, so I can't check what the original text says and whether the Wikipedia article has cited it accurately.

However, the Wikipedia article is consistent with Eisner's account. Note that it says "William Dozier wanted to make a big-screen film to generate interest in his proposed Batman TV series," "proposed" indicating a series that didn't yet exist; and that he wanted "to have the feature in theaters while the first season of the series was rolling before the cameras," i.e. while the first season was still being filmed, not while it was airing. (Shows usually go into production several months before they hit the airwaves.) So Wikipedia (after Garcia) agrees with Eisner that the intent was to release the film before the series premiered on television. Which is what I said. Perhaps I used "pilot" a bit figuratively, but the intent was that the movie would be the audience's introduction to Batman and his world, and that the series would follow.

 

[Tribble Herder]

Before someone chimes in with "Holy semantics, Batman!", I think we'll call this tangent fully thrashed out and move on...