Star trek - 1967 - 69 - only aired two seasons. by vman

OTHER SCIENCE FICTION SERIES

Star trek - 1967 - 69 - only aired two seasons.

POSTED BY: VMAN
UPDATED: Friday, July 23, 2004 17:08
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 5405
PAGE 1 of 1

Sunday, July 11, 2004 10:48 AM

I've spent much of this weekend viewing the entire Firefly series. I'd never even heard of the series until my daughter brought it home yesterday afternoon (yes, I've been so engrossed, I've watched the entire series). I think I've figured out why I've just been unable to put the DVD's down!

It occured to me that the fine chemistry of the Firefly cast hasn't really existed so crystal clear since the Star Trek t.v. series, which, I believe, only aired for two seasons (yes, I'm old enough to remember the original airings!).

The Firefly productions have a beautiful simplicity, just as Star Trek did.

Firefly uses Earth "scenery" in its portraying of other moons or planets - just as Star Trek did.

Whoever aired Star Trek in the 60's was apparently little wiser that those who aired FireFly for LESS than one season.

In my mind, Firefly, like Star Trek, is already a Sci-Fi classic. The beauty of it is, while Dr. McCoy has passed away, and Scotty is at the onset of Alzheimers - the cast of Firefly has many years to go.

I hope, at MINIMUM, the Firefly cast makes at least six films, just as the original Star Trek cast did, after their show was cut down in its prime.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 11, 2004 11:17 AM

INVISIBLEGREEN

The original Star Trek series actually aired for 3 seasons, plus an original pilot that never aired (it was considered by the network to be "too cerebral") which exists in multiple edits.

Star Trek: TOS is actually getting full season DVD releases pretty soon.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 11, 2004 11:34 AM

VMAN

Thanks for the correction! Also, considering the theme of the Star Trek pilot (Captain Christopher Pike imprisoned by folks with overgrown brains?), I suppose it might be a bit of humor for those who considered the pilot too "cerebral."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 11, 2004 1:51 PM

QUICKSAND

Cerebral. I get it. Boo.

While I am not particularly looking forward to "Firefly: The Next Generation," I suppose I see your point. I can't imagine having watched "Star Trek" back in the 60's, when that acting was considered fresh and cutting edge. I hope "Firefly" will hold up a lil better than that, but... it's too early to tell.

Maybe you can enlighten us, though... "Firefly" getting canceled was just bad network management. Was "Star Trek" the same? Or was the audience just never big enough? We NEED to know these things.

Regardless, though, Mal's a way bigger pimp than Kirk. You betcha.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 11, 2004 2:40 PM

VMAN

My point is not to discuss superiority of actors - my point is simply that the chemistry in the two casts appears rather magic.

Whether Star Trek was cut down in its prime - I believe it was. To my memory, that was the view Gene Roddenberry expressed. I am absolutely certain Firefly was stopped too early!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 12, 2004 3:15 AM

LAILING

First, the following info I got from various cons & a book called "The Making of Star Trek" by Stephen...I can't remember, but it was published in the seventies or eighties. The guy was on-set during the filming of the original series & had access to People and Papers (memos between studio execs, etc.):
Star Trek was actually a Neilsen failure, but a demographics success. Since demographics was in it's infancy & everything went by Neilsen's, it was cancelled after the 2nd season. A landmark letter-writing campaign by fans brought it back, but by then, NBC had another sci-fi show it liked better: Lost in Space. (Which was actually pretty good to start with - til they took out the drama & replaced it with Technicolor.) So, NBC scheduled Star Trek for Friday nights at 10:00pm (a death slot). Gene Roddenberry threatened to walk unless they put it someplace better. NBC said OK, don't let the door hit you on the ass on the way out (Cause they REALLY wanted LiS, not Star Trek). Roddenberry had to leave if his word was to have any meaning (which is why there were such horrible 3rd season eps as "Spock's Brain"). And NBC got it's wish: Star Trek did so badly in the ratings, it could be cancelled and even another letter-writing campaign wasn't enough.
So, you see, the corollary between Star Trek & Firefly is closer than you first suspected: Fox evidently wanted to kill Firefly so they could put cheaper reality shows on (which, amusingly, NBC is now calling out Fox because Fox is copy-catting at least 2 of NBC's reality shows for next season

).

^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*
"They've gone to *plaid*!"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 12, 2004 4:14 AM

BLUESUNWORSHIPPER

Oh, ohhhhhhhhh...you guys are KILLING me again.

"First, the following info I got from various cons & a book called "The Making of Star Trek" by Stephen...I can't remember, but it was published in the seventies or eighties. The guy was on-set during the filming of the original series & had access to People and Papers (memos between studio execs, etc.)"

Stephen Whitfield. His name was Stephen Whitfield, and he actually died in 2000. Nice man. Wrote a good book. Had a wonderful singing voice. (Well, I don't know that for sure, but it sounded nice.)

"Star Trek was actually a Neilsen failure, but a demographics success. Since demographics was in it's infancy & everything went by Neilsen's, it was cancelled after the 2nd season. A landmark letter-writing campaign by fans brought it back, but by then, NBC had another sci-fi show it liked better: Lost in Space. (Which was actually pretty good to start with - til they took out the drama & replaced it with Technicolor.)"

Oh, this is killing me. "Lost in Space" aired on CBS, not NBC. The incident you're thinking of actually was when Roddenberry was shopping the Star Trek series to the networks (the series was shot at Desilu and was actually greenlighted by none other than Lucille Ball herself). The CBS brass pumped Roddenberry for information about how he was going to produce a science fiction series with a regular cast (scifi was anthology at the time, with a rotating cast...a regular series proved rather expensive to maintain). Roddenberry shared his ideas of using period sets and costumes already available and use the "alternate Earths" notion, which is why we have Roman and Nazi planets, and two episodes set in the 1930's (or a reasonable facsimile). The CBS brass took that idea and told Roddenberry they were going ahead with "Lost in Space," and used the same concept to make production of that series cheap. Star Trek was picked up by and aired on NBC a little later. Of course, we all know which series came out on top.

"So, NBC scheduled Star Trek for Friday nights at 10:00pm (a death slot). Gene Roddenberry threatened to walk unless they put it someplace better. NBC said OK, don't let the door hit you on the ass on the way out (Cause they REALLY wanted LiS, not Star Trek)."

No, no, no...you're KILLING me. Most of that statement is true, except they didn't want LiS, it was nearing the end of it's run on CBS at the time. They just wanted to get Trek off the air because the standard Nielsen ratings were so low. The demographics DID later prove that the series was a HUGE hit with college-age kids and teens of ALL ages, and they made a BIG boo-boo in cancelling it. They still wanted the series, but they wanted it cheap and easy to produce, hence the animated series that came out a few years later.

"So, you see, the corollary between Star Trek & Firefly is closer than you first suspected: Fox evidently wanted to kill Firefly so they could put cheaper reality shows on (which, amusingly, NBC is now calling out Fox because Fox is copy-catting at least 2 of NBC's reality shows for next season."

Most of that statement is absolutely true. Except, I don't think Fox actually wanted to kill 'Firefly' from the start. I think they saw that the show was a slow burner from the git-go, and would take lots of time before getting a solid audience, and they wanted to just dump it and put something on that would make more quick cash. I hate money men. The corollary is the fact that the series was cancelled, and a fan write-in campaign helped in creating a 'Firefly' movie...just like Trek. However, Trek had to take the LONG road to do this (it had never happened before) and was almost brought back as a series in the 1970's, then as a miniseries, then as a made-for-TV movie...then, finally, as Star Trek: The Motion Picture. The story is a long, twisted tale that is still ongoing, but makes a fascinating read. I sometimes wish they would make a "Making of Star Trek" movie, along the same lines as the "Batman" and "Charlie's Angels" flicks they made recently, but without all the cheese. Of course, it's almost impossible to have an actor play a young William Shatner without resorting to cheese, but I'd still like to see the scene in which Shatner hoists Nimoy's bike over the studio floor so that he can't find it. Pretty funny behind-the-scenes stuff.

Also, I just have to say that I couldn't stand 'Fastlane,' which took over the 'Firefly' timeslot. You don't see any 'Fastlane' movies coming to a theater near you anytime soon, do you? No, I don't THEEEEEEEENK so. Stupid Fox execs.

Anyhoo, sorry about the rant. That's the pre-coffee Tony brain speaking. Post coffee, I may be a little less vitriolic.

Ciao!

- T

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 12, 2004 7:24 AM

LAILING

Hmmm...I'm not THAT old. When I was a kid, LiS was syndicated on a local affiliate where I saw it. So I'll take your word for it that LiS was on CBS so that wasn't it. I wonder where I got the idea from then...?
Please forgive me. I have major memory problems (I sometimes can't remember the date, or having conversations 5 min. after they happen, for instance), so if I don't have the material there to look at (my copy of "Making of Star Trek" is in storage right now), then I frequently mis-remember certain details. (I do remember the whole Neilsen's thing [as much because of the whole controversy in the 80's I think? about how inaccurate they supposedly were - which is why so many looked at demographics at the time. But since they still use Neilson's, then some changes were evidently made]). And the letter-writing campaign thing - a big enough deal was [and is still] made about it!

^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*
"They've gone to *plaid*!"

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 12, 2004 7:41 AM

BLUESUNWORSHIPPER

I was mostly just poking ya. My friends get facts wrong all the time, and I take it on as my job to poke them in the ribs with a stick and tell 'em the real deal. Rumor control, here are the facts. That sort of thing. Don't worry, I wasn't pissed or anything. What kind of fanboy would I be if I let something like THAT bother me?

I double-checked on the web before I posted, and yes, LiS did air on CBS. Star Trek aired on NBC around the same time and was produced by Desilu for it's first season or so. Lucille Ball (The "lu" of Desilu) was the driving force behind approving the series. The studio was very small at that time, and brand new. They wanted a new hit series to show off, and Star Trek was it. Too bad about the Nielsen farce, or they would have had it. Paramount picked it up later, and carried it into syndication as well. Funny thing is, they sold Trek at a lower syndication rate than normal, and small TV stations picked it up and ran with it. A few years later, the conventions began, and the phenomenon we know today as the Trek franchise exploded. Some people don't know this, but the original Enterprise Space Shuttle Orbiter (SSO) was really named after the starship of the series. The Trek cast actually stood in attendance in a place of honor as they rolled her out. A letter-writing campaign got her named that. If we get cracking now, maybe we can convince Paul Allen to rename the SpaceShip One as Serenity. Yeah? Whaddya think?

- T

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 12, 2004 8:29 AM

BROWNCOAT1

May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one.

Welcome to the board Vman! It is good to have another fan w/ us.

I am glad to hear that you enjoyed the DVD set. Firefly is, in my opinion, one of the best Sci Fi series of all times. Too bad that Fox execs were a bit too short sighted to see that when it originally aired. Gross mishandling by Fox of the series, pre-empting for baseball, airing the episodes out of order & ordering the original pilot shelved effectively cancelled a brilliant series.

Luckily the staunch support of a dedicated fanbase and the efforts of Joss and company kept Firefly from fading. We now have the DVD set and the BDM (Big Damn Movie) coming out next year.

The comparisons to the original Star Trek are pretty obvious. I think though that Firefly will surpass Star Trek in its rebirth. The show was cancelled, and against all odds we got the DVDs released. Against all odds we are seeing (& hearing about) the making of the film "Serenity". I think that Joss and his baby will go right on beating the odds.

"May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 12, 2004 10:34 AM

VMAN

Hello all!!! I am REALLY enjoying this discussion!!!

How about the cast chemistry? I think the old Star Trek cast and the Firefly cast are in love with each other - platonically or otherwise. They really appear to have fun together. Comic timing in both casts is excellent.

Both casts had/have good Karma.

Aside from comparing the two captains, anyone see any other approximate comparison between original Star Trek and Firefly characters?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 12, 2004 11:11 AM

DEWSHINE

I can't find anything about the individual characters that are the same. Firefly's characters are not just "formula" enough for that. But both cast of Star Trek and Firefly have some special type of magic that few shows ever get. The actors like each other, and they seem to be devoted to the characters they play. There is some hint of this chenistry with Farscape too. The best scifi shows all seem to have it.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 19, 2004 10:24 AM

NESS

I never realized how much Firefly and the original Star Trek series had in common until my dad bought Star Trek: The Motion Picture the other day.

Both shows had two pilots. Thankfully we were able to see Firefly's original pilot fully unlike the Star Trek one which was cut up in an episode.

Both shows were cancelled in their prime. Though Star Trek managed three seasons as where Firely didn't even last a season.

Both shows have hordes of rabid fans. The dedication of the fans is what keeps shows running. Without the fans, I don't think Star Trek would have made a movie.

Both shows, after cancellation, got to make a movie out of the series. Of course, it took like 10 years before Star Trek got a movie so thankfully Firefly fans don't have to wait that long.

Having watched the first Star Trek movie the other day I hope Firefly will be much better; the first Star Trek movie is so slow.

And one final similarity...

Both shows had Canadians portraying their captains!

"Sir, I think you have a problem with your brain being missing." - Zoe

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 19, 2004 2:43 PM

VMAN

I think it's important to remember, as has already been mentioned, that it took ten years to finally get the Star Trek movie. The thrill of simply seeing the crew together again is hard to put in perspective today!

The movie was heavily critisized for being simply an extended Star Trek episode - and so it was, and so what! Simply seeing the crew together again was thrilling. Notice how they are individually introduced in the movie - most at or near the beginning, with Spock coming a bit later in the film. Remember also how so much movie time was taken simply by Kirk looking over a re-fitted Enterprise in space dock. In short, Star Trek the movie was a true Trekkie film - it just wasn't for everybody.

Star Trek the Movie, is hardly the best in the series of six. But taken for its all in all, it was fundamental in our getting five more films!

I do hope Firefly has a good run of more than six movies!!!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 22, 2004 9:58 AM

GHOULMAN

I'm just like you Vman, though I thrilled to Star Trek in the Seventies when they first reran that show.

I too see a great correlation between Star Trek, a smart Sci-Fi show with the best writing on TV and characters you can love immediately, and Firefly... er, ditto.

I'm pretty familiar with the history of Trek and the posts above are really accurate.

Nice to see some old time fans around.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 23, 2004 5:08 PM

HLGEM

Well this brings back some old memories. I did see Star Trek in it's orininal incarnation. And loved it. Yes some of it doesn;lt stnd up well almost 40 years later, but it was very cutting edge at the time. Yes there was great chemistry between the cast members. The relationship between Kirk, Spock and McCoy seemed very real.

But I think my favorite memories of ST were in my college days when it was playing in endless syndication. My sorority sisters and I saw those episodes so many times we would just sit there and chant the lines aloing with the actors. It was fun and until Firefly, I hadn;t done anything like that since I graduated lo these many years ago.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE