Was the cancellation a blessing in disguise?

[Maurice]

A few things related to the posts above.

1. Everyone related to the original series seems to complain about the "low budget", but it should be pointed out that Star Trek's first season budget ($190,635)was higher than Lost In Space's budget in its third season ($164,788).
2. Star Trek never ranked above 52 in the ratings, whereas Lost In Space frequently landed in the low 30s.
3. Martin Landau being offered the role of Spock. This has been discussed before, and there's evidence to the contrary.
4. The TV Guide letter above cites "more than 100,000 viewers...wrote or wired", but what this means isn't clear. Does this include phone calls to NBC? I recall reading that some of what NBC was sent were petitions with many signatures on them, not just individual letters. Furthermore, I doubt NBC created a database to track unique letter writers, so it's possible the hardcore fans sent multiple letters.

 

[Christopher]

Everyone related to the original series seems to complain about the "low budget", but it should be pointed out that Star Trek's first season budget ($190,635)was higher than Lost In Space's budget in its third season ($164,788).

The difference is that ST's effects were an order of magnitude above LIS's in advancement and complexity. The 20th Century Fox FX department was great at what it did, but for the Irwin Allen shows that meant flying ship models on wires in front of a starscape backdrop, while TOS was doing feature-level bluescreen work and pioneering cloud-tank effects and stuff so elaborate that they needed to farm their FX production out to four different companies. So I'd say ST's budget was tighter in proportion to what they needed to do with it.

(Also, assuming you're going by Wikipedia, you may note that the Jupiter 2 interior was the most expensive set on TV at the time, costing more than the TOS bridge.)

[*]Star Trek never ranked above 52 in the ratings, whereas Lost In Space frequently landed in the low 30s.

Yes, LiS was markedly more popular. Irwin Allen was the most successful genre producer of the '60s. What made Star Trek distinctive was that it was an attempt to do science fiction as an adult drama with continuing characters, instead of the more kid-oriented stuff that was standard for SFTV at the time. Before ST, the only adult-oriented genre TV had been anthologies like The Twilight Zone and The Outer Limits.

[*] Martin Landau being offered the role of Spock. This has been discussed before, and there's evidence to the contrary.

Landau has spoken many times of how he was considered for the role and turned it down. Maybe that memo was from before or after he was under consideration.

(It would've been interesting to see Star Trek with Leslie Nielsen as the captain and Michael Dunn as Spock. And ohh, if only Roddenberry had just been willing to cast Lee Meriwether as Number One, the network wouldn't have objected (unless he'd been sleeping with her too), and Trek history would've been very different. Meriwether would've been a fantastic Number One.)

[*] The TV Guide letter above cites "more than 100,000 viewers...wrote or wired", but what this means isn't clear. Does this include phone calls to NBC? I recall reading that some of what NBC was sent were petitions with many signatures on them, not just individual letters. Furthermore, I doubt NBC created a database to track unique letter writers, so it's possible the hardcore fans sent multiple letters.

"Wired" means "sent telegrams." It was the pre-Internet equivalent of e-mail.

As for multiple letters, the network did keep track of who sent them, so that they could reply to them (many letters were requests for autographed photos or answers to questions). So one person trying to cheat by sending multiple letters would likely have been noted and dismissed. I'm sure the folks who organized the letter-writing campaign advised people on proper etiquette and respectability, on what to do and what not to do (those threatening letters TV Guide reprinted would not have been in keeping with the guidelines).

 

[Redfern]

To be fair, I wouldn't "brush aside" the effectiveness of "low tech" solutions, such as flying the Jupiter 2 "by wire". If it works, then darn it, use it! I stand by my assessment that the "crash sequence" using the 2 and 4 foot miniatures of the J2, guided upon a pair of wires (pioneered by the Liedecker Bros.) over the landscape of the Trona Peaks holds up compared to many effects sequences created some 20 to 30 years later. Because the model was "on site", one didn't have to worry about aligning shadows in post; they were real. It still sends chills up my spine to see the saucer cutting through a bank of fog, silhouetting sunbeams behind it. And if anyone can provide evidence of clearly visible wires, I'll humbly concede that part of my debate. But for 40+ years, I've yet to spot the "strings" used to suspend the model in those iconic shots.

Sincerely,

Bill

 

[Christopher]

To be fair, I wouldn't "brush aside" the effectiveness of "low tech" solutions, such as flying the Jupiter 2 "by wire". If it works, then darn it, use it!

What?? Whatever gave you the idea I was making a value judgment or criticizing LIS's effects in any way? I fully agree with your assessment of the quality of Lydecker's wire effects in LIS. I was speaking in terms of budget and logistics, not quality. I was saying that though ST's budget may have been bigger in raw numbers, that money had to be spent on effects that were exponentially more complex to create, so it was a proportionally tighter budget. I could say the same about ST's need to create numerous ship sets and new alien environments week after week, while LIS had a smaller number of standing sets and mostly used the same planetscape set every week. I wasn't saying either was "better" or "worse," just that they had different needs and that must be taken into account when comparing their budgets.

 

[Redfern]

I guess I misread the intent about optical processing in Trek to mean it was superior technology and thus better. Trust me, I can and will openly "rag" on "LiS" for many things, but I can't fault the production for the miniature work. Well, that and Bob Kinoshita's realization of the Robot! (Otherwise, I wouldn't have a life-size recreation standing in my rumpus room.)

You bring up something that draws a parallel for me. Irwin Allen had several productions on TV during the 60s and was still using more "traditional" methods for obtaining visual illusions while Trek was experimenting with optical processing involving silhouetted mattes. Flash forward to the 90s and Trek was presenting 2 shows (Next Gen and DS9) which were using the industry standard of optical processing. But then we had a "new guy" on the block, Babylon 5, and it opted to try a very different approach, digital rendering for the bulk of its visuals.

So, in a way, Paramount with Trek of the early to mid 90s was in the same position as the IA productions of the 60s, and B5 was the show trying new twechniques as was classic Trek in the 60s. I know it's not an exact analogy, but I can't help but to see a certain similarity.

Sincerely,

Bill

 

[Christopher]

I guess I misread the intent about optical processing in Trek to mean it was superior technology and thus better. Trust me, I can and will openly "rag" on "LiS" for many things, but I can't fault the production for the miniature work. Well, that and Bob Kinoshita's realization of the Robot! (Otherwise, I wouldn't have a life-size recreation standing in my rumpus room.)

Life is too complicated to reduce everything to a simplistic "This is better than that" value judgment. Different techniques have different advantages, drawbacks, and applicability. 20th Century Fox's FX department were great at doing what they did, and it looked good, and it suited Irwin Allen's needs. But Star Trek required more complex and versatile visual effects; it was a quantum leap beyond what any TV show had ever attempted or required before. So it did need more advanced and versatile techniques, though some of those techniques had their own drawbacks. A ship flown on wires doesn't have the matte lines or generation loss or film-grain mismatch that a bluescreen matte can have, but bluescreen lets you do a wider range of things, like allowing head-on shots or turns, or better controlling the lighting of the miniature vs. the background, or so on.

So, in a way, Paramount with Trek of the early to mid 90s was in the same position as the IA productions of the 60s, and B5 was the show trying new twechniques as was classic Trek in the 60s. I know it's not an exact analogy, but I can't help but to see a certain similarity.

I had the same thought back when B5 was originally on the air, not just in terms of cutting-edge FX techniques on a tight budget, but in terms of introducing new storytelling approaches to SFTV (since B5 pioneered the season/series-arc structure that's now routine). It's often struck me as a regrettable irony that TNG and its successors came to represent old-school conservatism when TOS had been so daring and iconoclastic for its day. But that's the cost of success.

 

[Ssosmcin]

Had Trek been given the time slot originally promised, it would have followed I Dream of Jeannie (cool!) but been up against the last half hour of Gunsmoke & The Avengers, and then Here's Lucy and the first half of Peyton Place. Peyton Place was on its way out and Gunsmoke was enjoying resurgence in popularity. But I can't see Star Trek's target audience having a hard time choosing. They might, however, have had a hard time convincing their parents if they lived at home and had one TV.

So, it's probably safe to assume Trek would be reaching a somewhat wider audience and the numbers would have improved. Gene would have stayed , so Frieberger would not be involved unless Gene recruited him to be story editor to replace John M Lucas. Maybe William Read Woodfield and Allan Balter would have gone onto Trek, I think they were leaving M:I or had recently left and Woodfield wanted to work on Trek. The writing team worked with Irwin Allen on Voyage and Lost in Space, and contributed some of Voyage's best stories. But I wonder how much of Roddenberry's rewriting they would have tolerated. Woodfield detested being rewritten.

In any event, Herb Solow was gone and he was the buffer between the Network guys and Roddenberry, who never wanted to work with them. Paramount was a much more corporate entity. Would Douglas Cramer, Solow's replacement, have been as understanding with Gene? Who knows if any of this would factor into the end product or if an assumed increase in ratings would have been enough? The only thing we could really be sure of is that the episodes and atmosphere of the series would have been different than what we got. If it lasted longer and ran its course, people may have simply gotten their fill and the rerun market might not have been as lucrative. Mission Impossible, for example, ran 7 years but did poorly in reruns. If more people saw Trek in its original run, the level of discovery might have been lower. But that's just me guessin'. It may also have made no real difference.

 

[Tribble Herder]

It might be more accurate to describe Star Trek's budget as "inadequate" rather than "low" since it was one of the most expensive shows on television at the time (rough equivalent of a million dollars an episode in today's money). Over $180,000 is nothing to sneeze at, but when you really need $250,000, well...

 

[Christopher]

It might be more accurate to describe Star Trek's budget as "inadequate" rather than "low" since it was one of the most expensive shows on television at the time (rough equivalent of a million dollars an episode in today's money). Over $180,000 is nothing to sneeze at, but when you really need $250,000, well...

Well, yeah, but TNG cost $1.5 million per episode in 1980s/90s money. So that means TOS's budget per episode was equivalent to, what, maybe half of TNG's?

 

[Maurice]

The difference is that ST's effects were an order of magnitude above LIS's in advancement and complexity.

I'm not disagreeing, but don't forget that Lost In Space spent money differently on full-size props and vehicles like The Chariot, the Space Pod, and the giant Jupiter 2 that stood on three legs, so LIS spent a lot more money on those extravagances than Star Trek, so we could argue back and forth about such details for days, but the point isn't how the budgets broke out, but that Star Trek wasn't LOW budget, merely that its budget was insufficient for what they were aiming for.

Yes, LiS was markedly more popular. Irwin Allen was the most successful genre producer of the '60s. What made Star Trek distinctive was that it was an attempt to do science fiction as an adult drama with continuing characters, instead of the more kid-oriented stuff that was standard for SFTV at the time. Before ST, the only adult-oriented genre TV had been anthologies like The Twilight Zone and The Outer Limits.

Which doesn't have any bearing on Star Trek's budget.

Landau has spoken many times of how he was considered for the role and turned it down. Maybe that memo was from before or after he was under consideration.

And actors aren't always right. Other sources have contradicted him, so it remains arguable, which was my point.

"Wired" means "sent telegrams." It was the pre-Internet equivalent of e-mail.

I should have stated more clearly that the short letter to TV Guide didn't include details on all methods of contact, as it didn't mention phone calls to NBC.

As for multiple letters, the network did keep track of who sent them, so that they could reply to them (many letters were requests for autographed photos or answers to questions).

Maybe. According to Laugh-In producer George Schlatter, the switchboard at CBS consisted of one woman with two phone lines whom was easily overwhelmed any time any significant number of viewers called in. If you get a flood of mail that need replies and you don't have enough staff to do it, are you going to carefully note each letter in a manual database to make sure there aren't multiples, or just take a letter from pile A, type up a reply envelope, shove in a form reply, and move on? I'm guessing the latter.

...TNG cost $1.5 million per episode in 1980s/90s money. So that means TOS's budget per episode was equivalent to, what, maybe half of TNG's?

TOS's first season budget in 1987 dollars would be about $650,000, so you may be about on target there, but I don;t recall what TNG's first season budget was.

 

[Christopher]

I'm not disagreeing, but don't forget that Lost In Space spent money differently on full-size props and vehicles like The Chariot, the Space Pod, and the giant Jupiter 2 that stood on three legs, so LIS spent a lot more money on those extravagances than Star Trek, so we could argue back and forth about such details for days, but the point isn't how the budgets broke out, but that Star Trek wasn't LOW budget, merely that its budget was insufficient for what they were aiming for.

I don't see what there is to argue about. I simply made an observation about a difference between two shows that were aiming for different goals. It's apples and oranges, and I never intended to imply a value judgment, so I have no incentive to argue.

Yes, LiS was markedly more popular. Irwin Allen was the most successful genre producer of the '60s. What made Star Trek distinctive was that it was an attempt to do science fiction as an adult drama with continuing characters, instead of the more kid-oriented stuff that was standard for SFTV at the time. Before ST, the only adult-oriented genre TV had been anthologies like The Twilight Zone and The Outer Limits.

Which doesn't have any bearing on Star Trek's budget.

Huh? It wasn't meant to. I made that particular comment to agree with your statement that LIS got consistently higher ratings than ST.

And actors aren't always right. Other sources have contradicted him, so it remains arguable, which was my point.

I doubt Martin Landau would've fabricated the memory that ST's producers talked to him about the prospect of playing Spock, especially given that he didn't want to do it. Maybe he wasn't on their short list, but that doesn't mean they didn't spread a wider web than the four names in that single memo.

 

[Tribble Herder]

It always sounded to me like a fairly informal offer, as a backup plan in case Nimoy said no.

 

[Therin of Andor]

I would have had to ... probably develop the proper episode order from TV guide records, then watch reruns until each episode was covered... If I missed an episode of Star Trek in 1968, I would have ... had to talk to other human beings about the episode ... and, socialize ... how ... barbaric .

Precisely how I got to see all of TOS (and TAS). As a fan who found ST as a result of ST:TMP, and living in a country where ST reruns never happened until the introduction of colour TV in 1975, when a handful (perhaps no more than ten) of TOS episodes were showcased anew, we had to rely on "Star Trek Marathons": six - later five - episodes of TOS shown on the silver screen one Saturday each month, in both Melbourne and Sydney. All thanks to a loophole about international distribution when Paramount bought Desilu. Our Marathons weren't meant to show Season Three, although that didn't stop anyone. Took me about three years to catch everything. Finishing up my list was a prime time revival of TOS, on a different TV network, as media interest started brewing for the upcoming ST II.

Probably would have taken months if not years, with the less popular episodes.

I dunno. When ST was being stripped in early US prime time syndication, did they care what episodes were popular? Didn't just just put all 78 stories on endless loop?

Here in Oz, the added complication was the way the episodes had been rated. 40 at "G" and the rest at what was then known as "NRC ("Not Recommended for Children"). So had the show been repeated wholly at 8.30pm, no problem, but when it shifted to a weekend afternoon timeslot only 40 episodes could be screened. Stripped weeknight early prime time repeats, which were so popular in the US, were simply not viable here in Oz, although shows like "Gilligan's Island", "I Dream of Jeannie", "Get Smart" and even the sometimes-too-scary "Lost in Space" seemed like they were on endless repeat.

Those Star Trek Marathons were a godsend, and helped to fostered a rich fannish existence for those of us who'd emerge from the darkened theatrette at intermission and... talk to each other!

 

[Therin of Andor]

It always sounded to me like a fairly informal offer, as a backup plan in case Nimoy said no.

Roddenberry had a habit of boasting to actors, "I'm working on something and I have a role in mind for you."

He said it to De Kelley several times (having to settle for Boyce and Piper before McCoy was realised), Leonard Nimoy, no doubt Majel Barrett, Diana Muldaur (several times), and he said it to several actors playing guest and main roles in "The Lieutenant" and other Roddenberry projects, by memory Grace Lee Whitney, Nichelle Nichols, Gary Lockwood, among others.

During the preliminary work on TMP, he told a bewildered Walter Koenig, totally out of the blue, that he was working on a way for the actor to play Chekov's father. He also made a promise to Grace Lee Whitney, at her first convention in many years, that he'd find a way to put her into "ST: Phase II".

 

[J.T.B.]

Hard to imagine living in the 1960s and 1970s. If I wanted to see the entire series as I am right now, I would have had to ... probably develop the proper episode order from TV guide records, then watch reruns until each episode was covered. Probably would have taken months if not years, with the less popular episodes.

By the time I was old enough to really get in to Star Trek you could buy episode guide books, but yeah that was basically what you had to do. Where I lived the local station would re-start the reruns every time they changed time slots, which they did quite often, so the third season really got short shrift. I started watching seriously in the mid-'70s and didn't see "The Lights of Zetar" and "The Cloudminders" till 1986 or '87.



Justin

 

[Warped9]

I agree with what others have said. TOS wasn't going to be renewed as is. Changes would have had to have come before Season3. If NBC had given the show a better timeslot and Roddenberry had some others had stayed then we would likely have gotten a better overall result in episodes for Season 3 and thus a Season 4 would have gotten off to a better start.

But as is then, yes, maybe it's just as well it ended when it did. There aren't that many poor episodes in Season 3 and thus the series overall isn't so tainted. But a lacklustre Season 4 like what has happened to other shows could have tainted TOS' appeal more.

But in the end no one can really say.

 

[Christopher]

Hard to imagine living in the 1960s and 1970s. If I wanted to see the entire series as I am right now, I would have had to ... probably develop the proper episode order from TV guide records, then watch reruns until each episode was covered. Probably would have taken months if not years, with the less popular episodes.

By the time I was old enough to really get in to Star Trek you could buy episode guide books, but yeah that was basically what you had to do.

Of course, back then, if you couldn't see the episodes, you could buy the James Blish adaptations, or check the omnibus Star Trek Reader collections of same out of the library. The stories were sometimes not quite the same as what was on TV, but if you never saw the episodes they were based on, you wouldn't know the difference.

 

[Tribble Herder]

That goes to explain why a lot of erroneous information has crept into fanon.

 

[Ronald Held]

The adaptations were all that we had for many years.

 

[BoredShipCapt'n]

The adaptations were all that we had for many years.

And the Mandala Fotonovels. Don't forget them.

I agree with what others have said. TOS wasn't going to be renewed as is. Changes would have had to have come before Season3. If NBC had given the show a better timeslot and Roddenberry had some others had stayed then we would likely have gotten a better overall result in episodes for Season 3 and thus a Season 4 would have gotten off to a better start.

But as is then, yes, maybe it's just as well it ended when it did. There aren't that many poor episodes in Season 3 and thus the series overall isn't so tainted. But a lacklustre Season 4 like what has happened to other shows could have tainted TOS' appeal more.

But in the end no one can really say.

Season 3 could have been as rich as any season. If only...

If only...