 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Jan 21, 2017 - 4:31 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Metryq
(Member)
|
Forget the broadcast order, why were two so very similar episodes produced? I read in one analysis of Star Trek that it was not an "anthology" series, like The Twilight Zone. Aside from the fact that "Charlie X" is much like The Twilight Zone's "It's a Good Life," I considered Trek anthology-like because it seemed to translate many sci-fi stories to the screen, and even "borrow" from popular films (e.g. The Enemy Below). That is, stories from all over appeared to have been adapted to a familiar cast of characters and settings to fit within a practical budget. So you'd think there would be no lack of existing good stories to adapt without having to repeat a concept.
I later learned that episodes I thought were adapted were "chance" likenesses. For example:
"The Doomsday Machine" = Fred Saberhagen's Berserker series.
"The Enemy Within" = Robert Louis Stevenson's The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde
"Arena" = Frederic Brown's short by the same name
"Operation: Annihilate!" = Robert Heinlein's The Puppet Masters
And there are others. In interviews Norman Spinrad said he was thinking Moby Dick when he wrote "The Doomsday Machine", D. C. Fontana addressed "Arena" in the recently released Roddenberry Vault, and David Gerrold's "The Trouble With Tribbles" has been kicked around endlessly on the Web. I will bow to the wisdom of those in the know, but I find the likeness to the Martian flatcats episode of Heinlein's The Rolling Stones so close on so many details that I find it hard to swallow.
As for the changes in the bridge and costumes between the second pilot and the rest of the series, I'm glad they cleaned up those things. The gooseneck communicator screens looked terrible. The changes are "explained" in David Goodman's The Autobiography of James T. Kirk.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All the ST series were prone to runs of episodes with similar concepts or premises.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Jan 22, 2017 - 5:15 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
ScottyM
(Member)
|
Charlie X & Where No Man Has Gone Before had essentially the same concept. A crew member gains God like powers, and it becomes a test of will and ego between the antagonist and Kirk. Why did they broadcast two similar stories back to back? Especially when they aired episodes out of filming order anyway?
The broadcast order in the early first season was determined by what episodes were actually ready to air. Originally, the second episode planned to go out was The Corbomite Maneuver, but the SFX were so time consuming, it kept getting pushed back until it was 10th. Aside from model footage from the two pilots, Charlie X had no ship or planet shots needed, just some minor opticals over live action footage (it's the only post pilot episode to have no shots of the "series" version of the Enterprise in the episode proper). From what I understand, the second pilot was only aired because they literally had no episode totally ready to in time. It just needed minor editing to get it in line with the format (opening and closing credits, a couple of trims for violence).
All of this is after the fact hearsay based on a few reference books. Had the episodes been broadcast in production order, the similarities might have been obscured a bit by the few week's of space between them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Star Trek is mighty fine company during any kind of recovery.
Especially if you're recovering from Star Trek addiction. Take two episodes and call me in the morning.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sometimes the original intent of a thread morphs into something else. 
nice, great. Since you caved so easily, I'm probably expected to eat my hat or sumthin. Maybe a sombrero, sounds more eatable. Or I'll get a stand-in from the ST fight scenes to do it. 