 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Irwin Allen, on the other hand, had no problem borrowing from Roddenberry.
"The Making of Star Trek" and other subsequent books tell the tale of the infamous meeting between Roddenberry and "the suits" at CBS. They picked his brain, and took notes, on every topic they could think of having to do with producing a weekly science fiction adventure on a TV budget.
Then they rejected Roddenberry's pitch saying, "Thanks, but we're already working on something very similar."
"Lost in Space" debuted on CBS a year before NBC's "Star Trek."
That's Gene Roddenberry's self-flattering version of events, and not entirely true. According to Herb Solow and Robert Justman in their landmark book INSIDE STAR TREK, Roddenberry and Oscar Katz (himself a former CBS executive) had a pitch meeting at CBS that included James T. Aubrey, president of the network. But it was too soon. The STAR TREK concept wasn't fleshed out yet, it wasn't ready to be pitched, and on top of that, Roddenberry was a terrible pitchman. He was nervous and he mumbled.
By rushing STAR TREK into a premature pitch meeting, Roddenberry hurt the show's chances of getting picked up, because there were only three networks to pitch, and you didn't get a second meeting for the same idea.
For my part, as a fan of both shows, I can't believe LOST IN SPACE got any clever production ideas from Gene Roddenberry's pitch to CBS. That kind of fib was pure Roddenberry, but he had never done this kind of show before, while Irwin Allen knew every trick in the book.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
But the similarities in form are coincidental and they don't extend to the substance of the two shows. There is not a particle of evidence that any of STAR TREK's creators ever even saw VOYAGE TO THE BOTTOM OF THE SEA.
STAR TREK got its main inspirations from FORBIDDEN PLANET and Forester's Hornblower novels.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Geez, dude, chill out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Geez, dude, chill out.
His answer lies elsewhere.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Admit it, Sig, ever since the TREK BOX was announced, you've been emotionally compromised.
Guilty.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Who has watched the black and white pilot of "Star Trek"?
Was it better?
I'm not sure there's any reason to watch it in black and white.
It was only released that way because the color negative had not yet been located in the Paramount vaults. The footage alternates between a scratchy black and white workprint and the color film used in the two-part "Menagerie" episode. It's just a novelty now, I guess. On my DVD set it includes introductory remarks by Roddenberry, but that's pretty much the only reason to watch it, as far as I know.
The one advantage I would consider in watching Roddenberry's B&W work print in it's entirety (as I understand it was shown at the old Star Trek conventions in the 1970s) is to hear the entire soundtrack with Malachi Throne's unaltered voice as the Keeper. I would certainly like to view a full color version edited and with soundtrack duplicating the experience of being a Paramount executive at the screening 1965. Although I can't find that Paramount or CBS has ever offered an explanation, speculation has been that the neither the complete soundtrack nor the complete dialog stem exist for the entire 1965 cut outside of the B&W work print (on which the soundtrack is in poor quality). The latest attempts at the episode utilize as much soundtrack as is available from "The Menagerie" combined with audio from the B&W work print with Throne's voice altered in an attempt to match "The Menagerie" material. I also haven't found a color version that is a 100% accurate cut to the original 1965 color version. The Blu-ray version, while fixing other material, has strangely sucked the color out of the opening shots of the Enterprise during the main titles (missing the chroma portion of the video). Color prints or negatives of the original end titles appear to be completely lost, as every version I've seen uses the end title from the B&W work print, colorized on the full-color versions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
geez, dude, chill out. I never said they were the same.
I am chill, sport. I didn't once use an exclamation point. And I never said YOU said they were the same.
So give the OP some credit that there's more than just a "Naval" premise between the two series.
Is he your brother or something? I'm only responding to his exact wording. I never said there weren't similarities. I was responding to the comment that one borrowed from the other and that they were "all the same." None of these comments were ones you made, so relax.
Why is it people think a detailed reply means "upset?" If I were anything but "chill" you'd know it. I don't lose my temper on message boards and the innernets.
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's only useful if you read it.
We were talking about some submarine show, how it's nothing like Star Trek.
As you were, men.
Ah yes, the shared use of actors... "FLASH! Man from Uncle and The Outer Limits now considered The Same Show!"
You kids...
|
|
|
|
|
|
But the similarities in form are coincidental and they don't extend to the substance of the two shows. There is not a particle of evidence that any of STAR TREK's creators ever even saw VOYAGE TO THE BOTTOM OF THE SEA.
STAR TREK got its main inspirations from FORBIDDEN PLANET and Forester's Hornblower novels.
Voice o'reason at last! :-) THANK you Zap.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
