Watching The Animated Series For The First Time

[hbquikcomjamesl]

Bob Burns in a gorilla suit.

Presumably not the Bob Burns who played the bazooka (the novelty wind instrument, not the weapon).

(Couldn't resist! That Bob Burns died in 1956)

 

[Christopher]

Presumably not the Bob Burns who played the bazooka (the novelty wind instrument, not the weapon).

(Couldn't resist!)

I don't know if it's the same person as that, but it's the Bob Burns who's a prominent collector, archivist, and historian of SF/fantasy film props and memorabilia, the guy who restored George Pal's Time Machine prop.

 

[hbquikcomjamesl]

Bob Burns of "Bazooka" fame died in 1956. Wikipedia has Bob Burns of Ghost Busters gorilla suit fame as "Bob Burns III," and still alive. Not a clue whether they're related in any way.

And that phrase in my post links to a YouTube clip that starts out with a bazooka solo.

 

[Dar70]

I enjoy the animated series. Reminds me of summertime and swimming for some reason.

 

[mb22]

more to the topic, I don't think there has ever enough popular interest in the post-TMP era to support even a hypothetical smaller-budget cartoon set in that era. it's a weird wrinkle of ST lore, that apart from some TOS lit and some lackluster comics, the post-TMP era is largely unexplored, despite there ('canonically') being a second 5-year mission wedged in there. my own personal wish is for someone to make a live-action series from that era, filmed as though made in 1979-1980 (e.g., crotchjama uni's, feathered hair, disco music, voguish 1970s California New Human motifs) that nevertheless tries to tell TOS-style four act morality plays.

I recognize that there is literally no chance of the above ever happening.

There was no disco music in TMP, thank Heavens, so I doubt any direct follow up would have had any.

 

[Christopher]

There was no disco music in TMP, thank Heavens, so I doubt any direct follow up would have had any.

Yeah, that's more the sort of thing Buck Rogers in the 25th Century did, and Battlestar Galactica on occasion.

To be fair, though, when TOS tried to depict futuristic music, it tended to sound a lot like '40s or '50s dance music, and then we got the "Space Hippie" songs that were a lot like contemporary rock. So it's not implausible that if there had been a Phase II series or something similar, its attempts to depict 23rd-century popular music would sound pretty 1970s-ish to modern ears.

 

[I am not Herbert]

Yeah, that's more the sort of thing Buck Rogers in the 25th Century did, and Battlestar Galactica on occasion.

Yes, and Logan's Run (movie and series), Space: 1999, and possibly others. And as ridiculous as it seems to us now, I think the slightly otherworldly/outlandlish aspects of that disco-era aesthetic actually paired well with 'futuristic' sci-fi, and would have paired particularly well with the optimistic, and sometimes cornily optimistic vision of Star Trek.

 

[mb22]

The 1980 made for TV version of Brave New World had the feel (sets, costumes) of a lower budget TMP.

https://postimg.cc/CZDVgF5G

Screenshot 2024 08 20 084740 — Postimages

postimg.cc

https://postimg.cc/CZDVgF5G/b7237494

 

[TRON JA307020]

Just watched the Lorelei Signal. The most notable thing of course is the women of the enterprise had to take over and Uhura took command. A nice surprise. I think we all would have liked to see uhura get a bigger role in the live action series.

 

[I am not Herbert]

Canon actually says nothing about what the ship did between TMP and TWOK, and certainly doesn't specify a "second 5-year mission."

Eh, showing up in Star Trek Chronology is 'canonical' enough for my purposes. I know that others feel differently, however. I am certainly not attempting to start a 'canon' debate, which has a tendency to swallow entire threads whole.

 

[hbquikcomjamesl]

Just watched the Lorelei Signal. The most notable thing of course is the women of the enterprise had to take over and Uhura took command. A nice surprise. I think we all would have liked to see uhura get a bigger role in the live action series.

Still a bit sexist, the notion that a woman in command would be the slightest bit unusual, And that the ranking female officer would be a mere lieutenant.

Eh, showing up in Star Trek Chronology is 'canonical' enough for my purposes.

Is there anything in STC that hasn't been overwritten (much of it "with extreme prejudice") by canon?

 

[Sim]

Heh, the animation is indeed clunky and it even seemed that way back in 1973! But it's pretty easy to overlook.

Hm, for me it's different ... the very outdated animation and the terrible music (the same music over and over again in every single episode) ruin the series for me.

I might enjoy the rest, but I don't manage to look beyond that.

 

[Christopher]

Eh, showing up in Star Trek Chronology is 'canonical' enough for my purposes. I know that others feel differently, however. I am certainly not attempting to start a 'canon' debate, which has a tendency to swallow entire threads whole.

Calling a reference book canon is like calling an anatomy book a person.

The Chronology says, and I quote:

U.S.S. Enterprise embarks on another five-year mission of exploration under the command of James T. Kirk.

Conjecture.

The statement that it's conjecture also "shows up in the Chronology" -- it's literally the very next word. So why doesn't it count too? The authors of the Chronology stated repeatedly in the book that any conjectures beyond onscreen information are non-binding. "The reader is, of course, free to agree or disagree with our interpretations."

The same page also claims that TMP took place in 2271, which was contradicted decades ago when VGR: "Q2" explicitly established that Kirk's 5-year mission ended in 2270, putting TMP (at least 2 1/2 years later) in at least late 2272, more likely 2273, which is the generally accepted date today.

Still a bit sexist, the notion that a woman in command would be the slightest bit unusual, And that the ranking female officer would be a mere lieutenant.

They worked with what TOS gave them. TOS took one step beyond its era by including women on the crew at all, albeit in conventional feminine roles like switchboard operator, nurse, and secretary. TAS took the next step by letting them do more. TNG went further, and so on. Every step in the journey counts.

Hm, for me it's different ... the very outdated animation and the terrible music (the same music over and over again in every single episode) ruin the series for me.

I might enjoy the rest, but I don't manage to look beyond that.

I loved that music. I memorized it and grew up with it playing in my head (along with other Filmation music by the same composers).

 

[hbquikcomjamesl]

They worked with what TOS gave them.

Quite. And the word "Still" in "Still a bit sexist" is there to acknowledge that.

Of course, if "The Lorelei Signal" were a SNW episode, it wouldn't have taken very long at all for Una to assume command.

Going back to the recently-cited "Inside Star Trek" recording, Roddenberry had a whole story about how the Enterprise ended up with a crew that was 30% women, instead of 50%.

 

[TRON JA307020]

Still a bit sexist, the notion that a woman in command would be the slightest bit unusual, And that the ranking female officer would be a mere lieutenant.


Is there anything in STC that hasn't been overwritten (much of it "with extreme prejudice") by canon?

It didn't seem like it was unusual. I'll take what I can get. NIchelle voiced it so it happened.

 

[Christopher]

It didn't seem like it was unusual.

You're right -- there's no dialogue in "Lorelei" to suggest that there's anything unusual about a woman in command. Certainly it's implied by the need to incapacitate every man on the ship to make it happen, but none of the characters treat it as an issue; it's only presented as unusual for a lieutenant to be taking over, if anything.

I'd say the bigger problem is how heteronormative it is, assuming that every man in the crew would fall for seductive women the same way, and that no women would. But nobody was going to touch that issue in 1973 Saturday morning TV, of course. (And it's maybe a bit tricky to reconcile now that SNW has canonically, if cursorily, established Chapel as bisexual.)

 

[FredH]

Filmation's version actually came first, in a sense. In 1975, they'd made a live-action comedy series called The Ghost Busters, starring Larry Storch, Forrest Tucker, and Bob Burns in a gorilla suit. Filmation took Columbia to court over their use of the title in the movie, and Columbia had to pay them for it. Filmation neglected to ask for animation rights to the movie as part of the deal, so Columbia went with DIC instead for their animated series. However, Filmation still had the rights to The Ghost Busters, so they made an animated sequel to it to capitalize on the film's success, centering on the adult sons of Storch and Tucker's characters from the original show. The reason the DIC/Columbia series was called The Real Ghostbusters was to distinguish it from Filmation's show, which was going to be called The Original Ghostbusters but ended up being just Ghostbusters, and was released on home video as Filmation's Ghostbusters.





In retrospect, maybe, but I think that in 1979-80, it would've been seen as worth pursuing. After all, people forget that TMP was actually the most successful Trek film at the box office until 2009, correcting for inflation. It spawned a Marvel comic book tie-in that ran from 1980-82 and a syndicated newspaper comic strip that ran from 1979-83, both set in the TMP timeframe (though the newspaper strip updated to TWOK uniforms in 1982), in addition to the Pocket Books novel line that's continued to this day (now under the Gallery Books label). It also had more of a toy tie-in line than any of the subsequent movies until 2009, I believe. Given all that, it's a bit surprising that there wasn't an attempt at an animated tie-in as well.




Canon actually says nothing about what the ship did between TMP and TWOK, and certainly doesn't specify a "second 5-year mission." Many non-canonical stories have presumed a mission after TMP, and a few have set its duration at 5 years, but some fans and writers have assumed that Kirk returned to the admiralty shortly after TMP.

I never understood fandom's assumption that just because the one mission we saw on TV was 5 years long, that somehow required it to be the only possible mission profile a starship could have. One example never proves a pattern. Maybe the reason Kirk specified "Its 5-year mission" is because that's the exception, not the rule. Although 2010s-20s productions have canonized the existence of other 5-year missions before the one in TOS.

I think the assumption may have come from the idea that “There’s certainly room for it, so why not?” There’s no real evidence for or against, but it’s an excuse for more familiar-crew stories not having to be stuffed into the classic 5YM, if one wants them. (And if one doesn’t, fine, they’re not canon.)

 

[TRON JA307020]

You're right -- there's no dialogue in "Lorelei" to suggest that there's anything unusual about a woman in command. Certainly it's implied by the need to incapacitate every man on the ship to make it happen, but none of the characters treat it as an issue; it's only presented as unusual for a lieutenant to be taking over, if anything.

I'd say the bigger problem is how heteronormative it is, assuming that every man in the crew would fall for seductive women the same way, and that no women would. But nobody was going to touch that issue in 1973 Saturday morning TV, of course. (And it's maybe a bit tricky to reconcile now that SNW has canonically, if cursorily, established Chapel as bisexual.)

Agreed. . It wasn't a perfect episode. As you said a Saturday morning cartoon for kids couldn't dive into any sexual preferences outside heterosexuality. But at least we got something in the era before modern trek got underway showing the old school uhura taking command. But all in all a decent episode even if the alien threat was a bit cheesy.

 

[Christopher]

I think the assumption may have come from the idea that “There’s certainly room for it, so why not?”

Yes, of course there's room for new adventures. The assumption I object to is that the only possible duration for a starship mission is 5 years. Prior to 2012, we had canonical evidence for exactly one 5-year mission in the entire history of Starfleet. One example does not prove a pattern. And it doesn't make any sense at all to assume that starships can only have one mission profile or duration. We know, for example, that the Excelsior's mission in the Beta Quadrant prior to TUC was 3 years long -- proof positive that 5 years is not the automatic default.

Per current calendrical assumptions, there's a full dozen years between TMP & TWOK. The latter gives the impression that Kirk's been back behind a desk and Spock's been captain for at least a few years, but there's room for a significantly longer mission duration than the kneejerk 5-year assumption. The Crucible novel trilogy by David R. George III, for example, posited that the Enterprise was assigned to a 7-year-long survey of a distant region of space after TMP.

But at least we got something in the era before modern trek got underway showing the old school uhura taking command.

One of the best things about TAS, one of the reasons I feel it deserves to be valued as a legitimate revival rather than dismissed because of its medium, is that it made better use of Sulu and Uhura than TOS did. They're treated more as full members of the ensemble.

 

[I am not Herbert]

The statement that it's conjecture also "shows up in the Chronology" -- it's literally the very next word. So why doesn't it count too? The authors of the Chronology stated repeatedly in the book that any conjectures beyond onscreen information are non-binding. "The reader is, of course, free to agree or disagree with our interpretations."

Ok, but you have to ask yourself why the Okudas made that conjecture. I understand that "the only thing that is canon is that which is shown onscreen" but I don't think that means that 'canon' cannot include reasonable inferences based on what *is* shown on screen. I don't think it is plausible to say we don't know if the Enterprise embarked on a mission after the events of TMP. It would have been an extraordinarily wasteful refitting of the ship if this never happened. And based on where they are at the end of TMP, and where they are in WOK (physically and, in the case of kirk, emotionally), I think we're safe in assuming that many of the familar bridge crew served on this mission, at least for a time. We can't make many inferences beyond this, because the era is unexplored (which was my original point), but I do not agree that there would have to have been a movie scene in which the bridge crew sits around saying "hey remember that second mission, with you, me, bones, scotty, uhura and sulu? that sure was a blast" before concluding that, as a matter of 'canon,' such a mission took place.

But we are ultimately talking about two ways of thinking about the fictional timeline of fictional characters. It is not surprising that two people have different ideas of what we "know" about these fictional events.