• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Was there ever a real intent to do Star Trek as a wheel show?

The idea was that instead of 26ish hours of rushed production, there would have been something like 8 episodes with a runtime of one and a half hours each, for about 12 hours of show per season

Good heavens am I glad they didn't do this

You never even see a 2-hour pilot or finale anymore. (Although The CW did air the last two Supergirl episodes back-to-back.)

And the two eps (already pretty good for a series that cried out for better writing throughout its run to match its very strong cast) improved in their impact as a result, due to the increased cohesion; just IMHO. BTW, by qualifying your comments to apply to commercial TV, did you mean broadcast TV? There have been many streaming shows I've watched where Episode X.XX of a season is longer than Episode X.YY, but shorter still than episode X.ZZ (usually the season finales are the longest). I think this is even true of Discovery, Picard, etc. Also, you probably know this, but British TV shows routinely blow past their "allotted" or "expected" times, which in the case of British mysteries used to lead to unwelcome programming decisions (cuts in the content) when they were rebroadcast on PBS as part of Masterpiece. This has been solved to some extent by PBS but not always. But I always chuckle thinking how the British managed to solve this issue and we didn't.

there won't be any more of them, so I don't care

Reboot!
 
Last edited:
BTW, by qualifying your comments to apply to commercial TV, did you mean broadcast TV?

Yes, that's what I meant to say. I forgot some streaming services have commercials. But it's different with streaming, since you can make episodes as long as they need to be. I'm talking about broadcast TV where shows have to fit within specific time slots, and how the range of time slot lengths has gotten less diverse over time, so that you never see 90-minute or 2-hour scripted shows anymore.
 
Yes, that's what I meant to say. I forgot some streaming services have commercials. But it's different with streaming, since you can make episodes as long as they need to be. I'm talking about broadcast TV where shows have to fit within specific time slots, and how the range of time slot lengths has gotten less diverse over time, so that you never see 90-minute or 2-hour scripted shows anymore.

When did that practice die out? Right now (in 66-67), there's The Virginian and Cimarron Strip that I know of.
 
When did that practice die out?

Well, in the '90s, we still had TV series made up of several movies per year, like the Perry Mason revival and the Mystery Movie/Columbo revival. Universal's Action Pack lasted for a year (1994) as a wheel of movie-length action shows including Hercules: The Legendary Journeys, TekWar, and Vanishing Son, which all got spun off into hourlong weekly series the following year. So I'd say it's only in the past 20-25 years that we've stopped getting movie-length series. As for 90-minute shows, those were pretty rare after the '70s or early '80s, I think. Though I'm pretty sure the 1993 premiere of Lois & Clark: The New Adventures of Superman was 90 minutes, with new material added when it was split into two hourlong episodes in reruns.

Star Trek: The Next Generation's pilot "Encounter at Farpoint" in 1987 was originally planned to be 90 minutes, but Paramount decided to up it to 2 hours, so Gene Roddenberry added the Q subplot to pad out D.C. Fontana's script about Farpoint Station -- which is why Q makes a lot of noise in the first couple of acts but then has no effect on the subsequent story beyond occasionally dropping in to taunt and kibitz. I think TNG's syndication sister show War of the Worlds: The Series (premiering a year later) may have had the same thing happen with its pilot, because it has a subplot about the lead character's wife leaving him that takes up about 1/4 of the running time and is completely disconnected from everything else in the story, like it was added late in the game. So I guess the late '80s were a transitional time, when the idea of 90-minute episodes was still on the table but was coming to be seen as less desirable.
 
When did that practice die out? Right now (in 66-67), there's The Virginian and Cimarron Strip that I know of.
Seems like you could be asking more useful questions about the future.
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
 
Growing up in the 70s-80s, KING5, the local NBC affiliate would air movies from 3-5pm M-F, before they replaced it with Donahue/Sally Jesse/Oprah.

That was my first exposure to the Planet of the Apes movies/tv show.

When the movies ran 90 minutes or so, they would pad out the time slot with Buster Keaton, Harold Lloyd, Laurel and Hardy or cartoons.
 
According to my copy of The Columbo Phile by Mark Dawidziak, CBS would air reruns of Columbo as late night movies in the late '70s, but they'd edit 20 minutes out of the 90 minute episodes to make them fit the timeslot. Since Columbo was a pretty intricately-plotted show without much fat to it, this would often render the show incomprehensible.
And the two eps (already pretty good for a series that cried out for better writing throughout its run to match its very strong cast) improved in their impact as a result, due to the increased cohesion
Wow, you must've watched a different version of the Supergirl finale episodes than I did. The two episodes I watched in November were nigh-incomprehensible, to the point of not even doing basic things like calling characters by name. As you said, the writing on that show never matched Melissa Benoist's considerable acting chops.
 
SciFi Wheel: StarTrek/Questor Tape/Genesis II (Planet Earth) or Spectre if you like. ( yeah, I know not SciFi and none are from the same studio)

;)
 
Seems like you could be asking more useful questions about the future.
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Ugh... I'm sad enough that he's our governor... And now there never will be a Governor Brown again.
 
Wow, you must've watched a different version of the Supergirl finale episodes than I did. The two episodes I watched in November were nigh-incomprehensible, to the point of not even doing basic things like calling characters by name. As you said, the writing on that show never matched Melissa Benoist's considerable acting chops.

Nah, I imagine we watched the same versions, but just had different takeaways. The CW stopped doing personalized programming for me some time ago, hang it. (I would have greenlighted Green Arrow and the Canaries without a second thought, to take just one example.)

Yeah, for the reasons I mentioned the whole show was ultimately an exercise in enduring frustration and I'm afraid that's how it may be remembered. Melissa was terrific, and going a step further, pound-for-pound I would say that Supergirl had the best regular cast of any of the Arrowverse shows, with no real weak link. I thought David and Chyler were superb, I loved Jeremy, it was nice to see Calista Flockhart providing so many laughs in the first season, and I thought Mehcad was a strong actor (given little or nothing to do). Of the later additions, I enjoyed Nicole and Jesse tremendously and came around on Azie Tesfai after not really understanding her character's role for a while. She's a good actor. Then you have Katie McGrath, who was outstanding for the whole run. I was also a Chris Wood fan - more comic relief and a very likeable guy. Andrea Brooks? Great. So were Julie Gonzalo and Sam Witwer. On top of that, add in the peripheral players (like Dean Cain, Helen Slater and Brenda Strong) and the guest stars, most of whom were top-notch. (I always wanted Peter Facinelli to come back as Maxwell Lord.) A little bit of Jon Cryer's Lex went a long way for me, but that was okay. He worked well with the material they gave him, certainly.

That's . . . a veritable metric ton of acting talent. And yet the show never capitalized and ended too early (after what I thought was a pretty strong S6). I know the official reason is that Melissa wanted to be with her baby, and who can blame her, but honestly I bet she was also equally tired of the same old pitfalls that the writers kept falling into. The writing almost never failed to fail in misusing many of the cast members entirely (Jimmy, e.g., but also Mon-El and Winn), underdeveloping ideas, offering up subpar dialogue and revisiting cliched situations. Plus, they never quite figured out how to write credible threats for a Kryptonian, so after S1 most villains were either Kryptonian equivalents like Reign or the Daxamites, or people using Kryptonian substances or technology or clones like Lex. They also toyed with the alternative, which was Supergirl facing situations that she should have been able to handle in two shakes, so they depowered her in dumb ways. (The Flash has had the same problem throughout its run, but I think that group of writers has mostly handled it far better.) Finally, the Supergirl creative team even managed to ruin the wonderful Kara/Alex dynamic for far too long.

Given the Supergirl cast's overall excellence, I really hope to see a lot of them in future DC shows. I know they already had Alex on The Flash I believe (I have not yet seen the beginning of this Flash season so no huge spoilers for that, please!). Honestly, the cast members are all so young that I could see them doing a Supergirl limited series or something in the future. With, let's hope, better writing.
 
Last edited:
I was counting on you to have already supplied a definitive answer to the original questions :hugegrin:
If we mean in 1964–65 when the pilots were being developed, no. There’s no mention of anything but a regular series pickup. The only detour from that was Roddenberry trying to get Hunter to agree to come back for a few extra days of shooting so the first pilot could be filled out to be a feature. Hunter apparently didn’t bite and the idea seems to have evaporated when the 2nd pilot got rolling.
 
I watched Quester last year for the first time since it initially aired. It was almost unwatchable. Same for Spectre the year before that.

Hm. The Questor Tapes is my favorite of the Roddenberry pilot movies by a wide margin, though I can see that it does have some elements that might turn people off (like the slow-paced opening and Questor's initially very jerky, robotic speech pattern). Spectre was more of a mixed bag; I liked Robert Culp in it, but not Gig Young.


No, this would have been post TOS, maybe post TAS, and pre TMP.
Trying to remember where I came across this. TWOST, maybe? I don't think the timing works for that.

Not quite. On p. 266 of 1973 Del Rey paperback edition of The World of Star Trek, Roddenberry is quoted as saying:

"Mort Werner (of NBC) and I once had a talk about the ideal way to do the show and we both agreed that the really right way to do Star Trek would have been to do six or seven segments a year and do them in 90 minute lengths and do them with time and money and do them right and have them play like the first Monday of every month or something like that.
"I think NBC would not object to the idea. I think the success of the long form on television might make it a little easier to convince them. Of course, the disadvantage of that is you do lose the habit pattern of tuning in that same night every week. You probably would lose some audience, not having this weekly pattern. But I think you would gain some back by the better quality."

So he did talk about bringing it back in a movie format, and he probably was thinking about something like the Mystery Movie when he mentioned "the success of the long form on television." But he didn't specifically mention wheels. Though it could be something that was proposed later as a possible solution to the audience loss from the lack of a regular schedule.
 
I've been watching Banacek for the past couple of months on IMDB. I loved the show in first run, as well as MacMillan & Wife. My rewatch got me thinking about something I'd read decades back, that one of Roddenberry's plans for bringing Trek back to TV was to do it as a wheel show, sharing a timeslot with several other programs. The idea was that instead of 26ish hours of rushed production, there would have been something like 8 episodes with a runtime of one and a half hours each, for about 12 hours of show per season.
So my question is "How real was this?" Wheel shows were fairly popular and successful at the time, so I can see it having been a real idea. Were there ever any serious talks with a network? Any execs ever interested? If it was a "real" idea, why didn't TPTB follow up on it?
I thought they stopped doing the wheel/rotation shows in the late 50s; and by the mid-sixties when Star Trek was pitched, the networks were no longer doing that type of thing?
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top