Why switch to Kirk from Pike?

You people (except Christopher) are clearly nuts. Dick Sargent was was the better Darrin, and he was the producers' first choice.

...

How the hell did we get into a Bewitched debate?

 

^^^And the source for that assertion?

I found Sargent's Darrin brittle, unlikeable, and the actor uncharismatic.

 

Sargent really looked like he belonged alongside William Windom in one of those Frank Sinatra crime movies about homophobia from the late 60s. If I was going to give it much thought, he looked the type to slap Samantha around, which is probably why I rarely ever watched the Sargent episodes, despite the fact Sam's skirts were shortening by that time.

Even if Sargent was a producer's first choice, what of it? The Bond folks started claiming Roger Moore was their first choice for Bond, and if that were true AND came to pass, there'd be no film series (something even Moore has admitted recently.)

 

I'm not sure what you mean by that -- from the juxtaposition of statements, are you suggesting him as the type to play a violently homophobic character? Ironic, since he was gay.

I never perceived Sargent as a violent type; on the contrary, he struck me as more bland and mild-mannered than York. And though I found him less abrasive than York, I think I have to admit that he wasn't quite as funny either.

Oh, and his Wikipedia entry asserts that he was originally offered the Darrin role in 1964 but was under contract to Universal so he had to decline. However, there's a "[citation needed]" after that.


Anyway, Bewitched wasn't really as worthwhile after its first season. Originally, its developer/showrunner Danny Arnold (later of Barney Miller) used witchcraft as an allegory for social commentary on the challenges of a "mixed" marriage, gender relations, class conflict, intolerance, and the like. Look at the pilot episode today and it feels like a story about a member of a minority group trying to "pass" as normal -- which puts a darker spin on Darrin's intolerance of her cultural identity. But afterward, thanks to network pressure and Arnold's departure, it degenerated into shallow farce and gimmickry and "What curse can Endora put on Derwood this week?"

 

What have you started?!

 

Makes about as much sense as any prejudice.

 

My mother.

Seriously, though, she told me that when I was around 6, so I can only assume that she saw it on a Bewitched reunion or heard it somewhere else over the years. If it's not true, then the rumor's been around a lot longer than Wikipedia.

I found Dick York to be brittle and a huge jerk. But I think a large part of it in both cases with the way Darrin was written - he was a dum-dum, as Endora put it. And his prejudice would never have worked in a sitcom today; he'd be a witch-lover by the end of the series, and they'd have brought in a new witchphobic character to balance it.

 

From what I remember of one of those Sinatra pics (and I'm not sure if it was a TONY ROME or THE DETECTIVE), Windom played some closeted self-loathing guy. I don't recall if he got killed or killed someone else, but there's something in the eyes (and it ain't always there in Windom, the dude was clearly acting in this film) that just evokes Sargent in my mind.

As long as Windom came up ... has anybody got any idea if MY WORLD & WELCOME TO IT is ever going to limp onto DVD? It has been nearly 40 years, and I would really like to see if it and/or HE&SHE are as good as my memories of them, back when I was 7 or 8.

 

There was a plot wherein the transported merged Pike and Kirk into "Captain Kike," but it was deemed too politically insensitive.

 

Creating a new character to go with a new actor proved to be a very smart move I think. That in tandem with the different overall look of The Cage allowed them to later reuse the original pilot footage to give the series some much appreciated historical backstory. And it allowed them to recoup the expense of the original pilot because it no longer would just sit in a storeroom somehwre never to be seen again. Also it allowed something like the two-part Menagerie to be filmed within budget, because I suspect it would have been very unlikey to have produced such as story as we got without the original pilot footage and to try creating all that distinctive backstory footage from scratch while the series was in production while remaining within budget.

 

...And in general, the bigger the changes between the pilots, the lower the odds that the things that had annoyed the critics originally would keep on annoying them the second time around.

It's a good thing that the original pilot didn't establish too much about things like "Starfleet" or "the 23rd century", because the second pilot would have been compelled to change those, too, creating incompatibility rather than mere variety.

Timo Saloniemi

 

What? "The critics" never saw "The Cage." Only the network executives did. And they loved the story, except for certain specific things that they objected to. According to Inside Star Trek, they weren't too happy with most of the characters and casting. They supported the idea of a female second-in-command but didn't like Roddenberry casting his mistress in the role rather than a more proven actress. They liked Nimoy but were uneasy with the "demonic" Spock. They were uneasy with the sexual content of the pilot. More pragmatically, "The Cage" wasn't a representative episode in terms of budget and complexity, since Desilu had gone all-out to prove they were capable of making a science-fiction epic, so it didn't give NBC a good sense of what a typical episode's budget and logistical requirements would be. They had no problem with minor things like the century and the name of the organization, so there was no reason whatsoever why the producers would've been under any pressure to change those.

It's the nature of the business that writers and producers need to respond to notes from those they answer to. But you only change what's specifically asked for in the notes. You don't change they things they don't ask you to change, because that might take away something they did like. You don't just randomly try to make it as different as possible and hope that satisfies them. The business isn't as shoddily run as that; they tell you specifically what they liked and didn't like, rather than forcing you to guess. (Well, actually, you generally get conflicting notes from multiple executives, but there's still not much guesswork involved, because the higher-ranked executive's notes always win.)

 

Sorry, I meant the executives, as in, the people who expressed critique against the first pilot.

Ah, I got that part completely wrong, then.

But is this whole two-pilot thing completely unique to Trek? If a second pilot is ordered, doesn't that send the strong message that the network wants something completely new, rather than a rehash with minor changes? What would be the point of making a second pilot that doesn't try to offer anything new to the critics? Just following their instructions in the production of a second pilot would seem to prove nothing, except that the people making the pitch can read. Which may be a good thing in general, but probably not the criterion the network would aim at.

Timo Saloniemi

 

That depends on the specific case. You can't make blanket generalizations. The network asked for a second ST pilot because the first one was too atypical. A pilot is as much a tool for evaluating a show's budget and production requirements as anything else. "The Cage" was made so that Desilu could prove it was capable of mounting a complex production, so they made the most elaborate, feature-quality telefilm they could make. Which was great as a selling tool for the studio, but it wasn't the best choice as a selling tool for the show itself, because it didn't work as an example of a typical episode. That's why they asked for a second pilot -- because they liked what they'd seen but needed more information before they could decide.

And yes, it is very rare to ask for a second pilot before the show has even been purchased. What usually happens is that the network buys the show on the strength of the pilot and then asks for specific changes to made to that pilot or for a different first episode to be shot. (Despite vernacular usage, not every first episode is a pilot, because a pilot is a selling tool for an unsold show. If the show sells before the first episode is made, or if a new first episode is shot after the show sells, then that episode is not literally a pilot.)

In any case, as I said, the network will tell you what specific changes it wants. If it wants virtually everything changed, it'll ask for that. (Case in point: M.A.N.T.I.S. The backdoor-pilot movie written by Sam Hamm and directed by Sam Raimi had a nearly all-black cast and an urban-themed story dealing with gang violence and racism. FOX bought the concept but had the series completely retooled, keeping the lead actor, his character, and his basic backstory but changing absolutely everything else and restarting the continuity from scratch, going for a multiethnic cast and a safer storyline with no exploration of racial themes.) If it wants minor changes, it'll ask for that. If it wants half the stuff changed and the rest kept the same, it'll ask for that.

And heck, if a network dislikes a pilot so much that they want "something completely new," they'll probably just reject the pilot and move on to some completely different show. So the scenario you're proposing is far from common.

What? ST's second pilot did offer plenty of new things -- it included the changes the executives asked for (all except the removal of the Spock character). My point is simply that it didn't make gratuitous, unasked-for changes.

It proves that the producers of the show know how to work with their superiors and follow instructions. Would you hire someone who wasn't able to follow your instructions? Honestly, I find this an utterly bewildering comment.

This is something I learned very early in the process of submitting stories to editors. You don't change what they don't ask you to change. By doing that, you risk removing something they did like, and that's just stupid. If they're interested enough to buy your story with certain requested changes, then that's what you give them, because that's what they've agreed to pay for. If you make random changes they didn't ask for, then you're cheating them. You're taking away something they expected to get from you. That's completely unprofessional and self-defeating.