Would a theatrical star trek work during tos 66-69 run.

[Kor]

Perhaps they could have written and shot some extra stuff to tie "The Naked Time" with "Tomorrow is Yesterday." Of course, mashing two self-contained stories together would have made for an odd overall narrative.

Or they could have done a low-key, low-budget production of the famous lost story "Requiem for a Martian."

Kor

 

[Christopher]

The first pilot retooled for theatrical release would not have been vastly more expensive. My guess is they'd have shot the Rigel fight as the action opener (I think Roddenberry intimated as much) and maybe the equivalent of the scrapped sequence when they docked with a small ship and sent some wounded off as Colt came aboard. They'd certainly have shot more of the ship exterior, probably, since they barely got any of it into the pilot.

That's quite interesting. I've long known they considered expanding it to a movie, but I never really thought about what they might add. That all makes sense. "The Cage" is a bit odd structurally in that it's the first story, yet it's a sort of sequel to a mission we didn't see. Actually showing the mission at the start would've been a natural way to expand it. It's obvious now that I think about it.

As is the part about the ship. They really didn't have many exterior shots, did they?

Not 'big' bucks, but certainly fancier than the TV show.

That goes without saying, but I'm suggesting it would still be well under the budget or scale of something like Fantastic Voyage or 2001.

Can you think of any late 60s early 70s theatrical films with a budget that might be analogous ton a contemporary Trek film?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_science_fiction_films_of_the_1960s
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_science_fiction_films_of_the_1970s

I looked over the list of '60s films, but I'm not familiar enough with the American B pictures to judge which ones might be good analogies.

Perhaps they could have written and shot some extra stuff to tie "The Naked Time" with "Tomorrow is Yesterday." Of course, mashing two self-contained stories together would have made for an odd overall narrative.

You know they were originally meant to be a 2-parter, right? That's why "The Naked Time" ends with time travel in the first place. It's a totally gratuitous ending without the link to TIY.

And it wasn't unheard of for a film to have two or three different stories in it. There were other theatrical or TV-movie mashups of hourlong TV episodes, and there were also horror or thriller anthology films with several different stories linked by a framing sequence (Twilight Zone: The Movie was the most recent example I can think of).

 

[mb22]

I looked over the list of '60s films, but I'm not familiar enough with the American B pictures to judge which ones might be good analogies

Byron Haskin, who co-produced "The Cage", also directed Robinson Crusoe on Mars released earlier in 1964 (he didn't get along with Roddenberry). I can see a 1960s Trek feature shot on location like that film. I can also see a mid 70s Trek production shooting inside a 'futuristic looking' shopping mall like Logan's Run did.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

The Batman movie didn’t do great box office domestically. So it depends on what one means by “work”.

True--in fact, the movie was a flop, thanks to Dozier producing the film after the end of the series' first season, which was already suffering from a steep decline in the ratings. Dozier also reasoned (paraphrasing), "Why would anyone pay to see something they get for free at home?" Somehow, he did not think of that when producing the movie. By the fall of 1966, "Batmanina" was over, and Dozier's response was to re-use movie footage of new vehicles (the Batcycle, Batboat & Batcopter), shoot a few three-part episodes and pile more of his celebrity friends into the series as villains--and that too, failed to work.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

I can also see a mid 70s Trek production shooting inside a 'futuristic looking' shopping mall like Logan's Run did.

Doubtful, if we use Roddenberry's other sci-fi telemovies (Genesis II, Planet Earth and Strange New World) as an indicator of the kind of production values he would use, or simply tale a look at the early sets and conceptual paintings for the unproduced Star Trek: Phase II. Roddenberry (and anyone working with him) did have some artistic / production consistency found in the post-TOS productions, and I imagine it was not going to lead them to use a mall as a futuristic setting.

 

[mb22]

Doubtful, if we use Roddenberry's other sci-fi telemovies (Genesis II, Planet Earth and Strange New World) as an indicator of the kind of production values he would use, or simply tale a look at the early sets and conceptual paintings for the unproduced Star Trek: Phase II. Roddenberry (and anyone working with him) did have some artistic / production consistency found in the post-TOS productions, and I imagine it was not going to lead them to use a mall as a futuristic setting.

I was thinking about a theatrical film in where there would be more money available. And TOS did use the real life futuristic looking exteriors of the TRW Space and Defense Park for Deneva in "Operation Annihilate!", so there is a precedent.

 

[Maurice]

True--in fact, the movie was a flop, thanks to Dozier producing the film after the end of the series' first season, which was already suffering from a steep decline in the ratings. Dozier also reasoned (paraphrasing), "Why would anyone pay to see something they get for free at home?" Somehow, he did not think of that when producing the movie. By the fall of 1966, "Batmanina" was over, and Dozier's response was to re-use movie footage of new vehicles (the Batcycle, Batboat & Batcopter), shoot a few three-part episodes and pile more of his celebrity friends into the series as villains--and that too, failed to work.

Batman's first season was a half-one due to it being a midseason pickup. Its ratings were good throughout all its first-run episodes.

When the 1965-1966 season ended, a total of 34 episodes of Batman had been broadcast, twelve on each day. Both installments were in the top ten, with the Thursday installment ranking fifth and the Wednesday installment tenth. Only two other ABC shows, Bewitched and The Lawrence Welk Show, ranked in the top thirty. Whether it was due to the intense promotional campaign ABC waged prior to the show’s premiere or the “camp” factor, the viewing public loved Batman.

BATGIRL AND THE BATMAN PHENOMENON, TV Obscurities
​

The show fell out of the top 30 in the second season, and not merely because fads run their course, but perhaps in part because one of its two weekly segments was up against Lost in Space , which had similar child viewer demographics

 

[Maurice]

Doubtful, if we use Roddenberry's other sci-fi telemovies (Genesis II, Planet Earth and Strange New World) as an indicator of the kind of production values he would use, or simply tale a look at the early sets and conceptual paintings for the unproduced Star Trek: Phase II. Roddenberry (and anyone working with him) did have some artistic / production consistency found in the post-TOS productions, and I imagine it was not going to lead them to use a mall as a futuristic setting.

Roddenberry's Genesis II filmed parts at UC Riverside’s Carillion Mall area while Planet Earth shot at UC Irvine’s Langson Library and Murray Krieger Hall. So it's not impossible they'd have gone on location for a suitably large interior space.

 

[Christopher]

I was thinking about a theatrical film in where there would be more money available.

Clearly. But the question is whether that's a likely prospect for a Trek movie made during or immediately after its TV run. Back then, before the show had proved its popularity in syndication, it would've probably been given a more modest feature budget if a feature had been done at all.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

Roddenberry's Genesis II filmed parts at UC Riverside’s Carillion Mall area while Planet Earth shot at UC Irvine’s Langson Library and Murray Krieger Hall. So it's not impossible they'd have gone on location for a suitably large interior space.

However, none of the locations were as on the nose as a shopping mall, which--in one of the few detrimental production issues for Logan's Run--could not pass for anything other than a mall.

 

[Maurice]

However, none of the locations were as on the nose as a shopping mall, which--in one of the few detrimental production issues for Logan's Run--could not pass for anything other than a mall.

That really depends on the mall, how much of it you show, and how much you dress it. Anyway, the point is moot.

 

[Christopher]

I don't think I ever recognized Logan's Run's city interior as a shopping mall.

 

[drt]

Doubtful, if we use Roddenberry's other sci-fi telemovies (Genesis II, Planet Earth and Strange New World) as an indicator of the kind of production values he would use, or simply tale a look at the early sets and conceptual paintings for the unproduced Star Trek: Phase II. Roddenberry (and anyone working with him) did have some artistic / production consistency found in the post-TOS productions, and I imagine it was not going to lead them to use a mall as a futuristic setting.

I think Trek design purists got lucky Paramount was so wishy-washy in the 70s and ultimately ended up transitioning Roddenberry’s Phase II TV stuff to TMP, if Planet of the Titans had happened instead, things would have turned out very differently.

That really depends on the mall, how much of it you show, and how much you dress it.

Yeah, I thought using one in Logan’s Run was a reasonable attempt for the interior of a domed city. People in that society were largely just doing mall things anyway, what else could it have looked like?

 

[Christopher]

I think Trek design purists got lucky Paramount was so wishy-washy in the 70s and ultimately ended up transitioning Roddenberry’s Phase II TV stuff to TMP

I'm not sure why you think that's "wishy-washy." It was done out of budgetary practicality, since the sets and assets were already built and there was no sense in wasting them. It turned out to be a very wise move, since sets built for TV are built to last for years, while feature sets are only meant to hold up for weeks. So they were able to keep redressing and reusing the sets through the movies, TNG, and VGR, keeping them in continuous use for more than two decades.

 

[mb22]

Clearly. But the question is whether that's a likely prospect for a Trek movie made during or immediately after its TV run. Back then, before the show had proved its popularity in syndication, it would've probably been given a more modest feature budget if a feature had been done at all.

Though with sets a bit more elaborate than these, I presume:

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

Yeah, I thought using one in Logan’s Run was a reasonable attempt for the interior of a domed city. People in that society were largely just doing mall things anyway, what else could it have looked like?

The Dallas Market Center--used for the "Arcade" / city interiors looked like malls I shopped at in Southern California in the 70s--it was that apparent, and for all of the strong visuals in other parts of the film, seeing the mall did take me out of the movie anytime it was on screen.

Recreational & housing units should have taken more influences from the novel, which was very illustrative, painting a strong picture of how a future society would appear. Some would say, "well, that would have been too expensive," but the film had a large budget, and was well spent on a number of innovative effects, constructs, etc. Taking that economical route has been the biggest negative legacy of the film, one that was criticized in '76.

 

[Richard S. Ta]

You know they (The Naked Time and Tomorrow is Yesterday) were originally meant to be a 2-parter, right? That's why "The Naked Time" ends with time travel in the first place. It's a totally gratuitous ending without the link to TIY.

@Maurice

Is this right? I'm sure I remember you guys debunked it?

 

[Harvey]

@Maurice

Is this right? I'm sure I remember you guys debunked it?

"The Naked Time" was conceived with a cliffhanger. The script describes the episode as "Part 1" and the ending was partially reshot over a month after principal photography to make it less open ended.

However, "Tomorrow Is Yesterday" was never intended to be the second part. Dorothy Fontana's story outline is dated October of 1966, after "The Naked Time" had aired with the non-cliffhanger ending we all know.

 

[Christopher]

Though with sets a bit more elaborate than these, I presume:

Yes, obviously. As I already said at the start of this, the comparison I was making was to "The Cage," which was shot with a substantially bigger budget than the series proper, with production values that compared favorably to the feature films of the era. That's a large part of the reason they did a second pilot -- because the production was too elaborate to give a good sense of the budget requirements for a typical episode, which is part of the purpose of a pilot.

My point is that this is not a binary discussion, TV budget vs. feature budget, because those are not monolithic things. Everything has a bell curve. I'm saying that if a '60s Trek movie had been budgeted toward the low end of the range of '60s SF feature budgets, which I think is likely, it might not have been that different in production values from "The Cage," which was at the high end of the TV budget bell curve (at least compared to the rest of TOS). Probably a little fancier, e.g. with more ship miniature shots, as mentioned. But not necessarily a drastic difference.

"The Naked Time" was conceived with a cliffhanger. The script describes the episode as "Part 1" and the ending was partially reshot over a month after principal photography to make it less open ended.

However, "Tomorrow Is Yesterday" was never intended to be the second part. Dorothy Fontana's story outline is dated October of 1966, after "The Naked Time" had aired with the non-cliffhanger ending we all know.

Oh, that's intriguing. I wonder what the original plan was for part 2, then.

If they abandoned the cliffhanger idea after principal photography, that would explain why they didn't just ditch the time travel element altogether. It's really an utterly pointless inclusion in the final episode, but I guess they were stuck with it.

 

[mb22]

t might not have been that different in production values from "The Cage," which was at the high end of the TV budget bell curve (at least compared to the rest of TOS). Probably a little fancier, e.g. with more ship miniature shots, as mentioned. But not necessarily a drastic difference.

I think the 'picnic scene' on Earth might have been done differently -- it definitely looks like an interior set, not the outdoors. The matte painting in the background could be more realistic looking as well, although the scene in general still works because it's not supposed to be real anyway.