Pete <neverland@GoodeveCa.net> wrote:
> In article <sms5ou$4fm$1@dont-email.me>,
> Ian J. Ball <IJBall@mac.invalid> wrote:
>> On 2021-11-14 22:47:01 +0000, anim8rfsk said:
>>
>>> suzeeq <suzee@imbris.com> wrote:
>>>> On 11/14/2021 12:54 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:
>>>>> Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
>>>>>> I watched:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> NOVA:
>>>>>> "Alien Worlds". Boring AF.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not to mention them getting the science wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>> If we still contributed to PBS I’d put a stop to it.
>>>>
>>>> 'WE'? Who've you got in your pocket?
>>>
>>> My family used to contribute. Once everybody but me was dead I put a stop
>>> to it.
>>
>> I would never have contributed to PBS, not even in the days of "Cosmos"
>> and "Life on Earth"!!
>
> WHat ideological objection do you have? (:-)) I don't subscribe,
> but excuse myself by saying that about all I watch is Nova and the
> occasional Masterpiece Mystery. Also because our local station,
> when it does show something like Austin City Limits, that I really
> want to watch, it shows it after Midnight -- instead of the expected
> time of 8pm. And pledge seasons are unwatchable, aside from the music
> specials. It has also been spending profligately on a new headquarters,
> despite producing hardly anything of its own. All in all, it annoys me.
>
> There's another, newer, local PBS that is a little less self-interested.
> I think maybe I should contribute to that.
>
> -- Pete --
>
>

Yeah, when I say “PBS“ I actually mean “KAET“ the local channel. They
constantly run ads for cool stuff that PBS offers and then don’t actually
show it here.

Many years ago during one of their constant pledge-a-thons viewers like me
were waiting for Monty Python‘s flying Circus to start. The head
pledge-athon guy came out and announced that Monty python viewers didn’t
contribute enough money and they weren’t going to show python until we
coughed up. They literally held it for ransom for hours and hours. Finally
they showed the damn thing and the next day announced it was canceled. As
you might expect there were some complaints from people who had just forked
over money expecting that that the show would continue to be seen. KAET
announced that there was a rights problem and nobody in the United States
could show it anymore. A brand new station was just starting up locally and
they said “bullshit, we’ll run it” And not only did they run it they ran it
without commercial interruption just to get some goodwill going. KAET saw
my last dollar that day.

—
“The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it’s still on my list.”

anim8rfsk@cox.net wrote:
> Ian J. Ball <IJBall@mac.invalid> wrote:
>> On 2021-11-14 22:47:01 +0000, anim8rfsk said:
>>> suzeeq <suzee@imbris.com> wrote:
>>>> On 11/14/2021 12:54 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:
>>>>> Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:

>>>>>> I watched:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> NOVA:
>>>>>> "Alien Worlds". Boring AF.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not to mention them getting the science wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>> If we still contributed to PBS I'd put a stop to it.
>>>>
>>>> 'WE'? Who've you got in your pocket?
>>>
>>> My family used to contribute. Once everybody but me was dead I put a
>>> stop to it.
>>
>> I would never have contributed to PBS, not even in the days of "Cosmos"
>> and "Life on Earth"!!
>
>I personally quit after the local station pulled the Monty python swindle.
>Even my exes ex who for god sake’s worked the phones during the continual
>telethon found that outrageous.

The person in charge of our local PBS removed Doctor Who from the lineup
and eventually ruined SFC's as well.

--
Let's go Brandon!

In article
<2097297594.658622881.945845.anim8rfsk-cox.net@news.easynews.com>,
anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:

> A Friend <nope@noway.com> wrote:
> > In article <G_ydnYYoRZPmHwz8nZ2dnUU7-KmdnZ2d@giganews.com>, Ubiquitous
> > <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
> >
> >> In article <smrica$g8c$1@dont-email.me>, arthur@alum.calberkeley.org wrote:
> >>> On 11/14/2021 8:24 AM, Ian J. Ball wrote:
> >>>> On 2021-11-14 09:30:41 +0000, Ubiquitous said:
> >>
> >>>>> I watched:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> THE CENTER SEAT: 55 YEARS OF STAR TREK:
> >>>>> "Saturday Morning Pinks". Didn't realize there was a cartoon version of
> >>>>> Star Trek in the early 1970s? Not only was it great, but with original
> >>>>> series creator Gene Roddenberry, writer D.C. Fontana, and the series'
> >>>>> original stars on board, it is the fourth season of the original show.
> >>>>
> >>>> It's too bad it was such shitty animation quality...
> >>>
> >>> I don't recall ever having a problem with the animation.
> >>
> >> How could you not notice?
> >
> >
> > The quality of the animation in the Trek series was neither better nor
> > worse than Filmation's other stuff at the time, although they managed
> > effective caricatures of the actors. Many of us weren't watching TAS
> > for the animation, anyway. It was Trek's fourth season, or at least we
> > were pretending it was. You have to remember that Star Trek was dead,
> > dead, dead after 1969, so at least TAS was something.
> >
>
> I remember fans in early screenings saying how the animation of the ship
> was indistinguishable from the real show. Poor deluded fools!

It helps a lot if your audience is legally blind.

In article
<1191874541.658607034.514548.anim8rfsk-cox.net@news.easynews.com>,
anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:

> Arthur Lipscomb <arthur@alum.calberkeley.org> wrote:

> > The Time Machine (blu-ray) - The classic 1960 sci-fi movie, based on the
> > H. G. Wells book and directed by George Pal. Rod Taylor stars as a 19th
> > century inventor who invents a time machine which he uses to travel to
> > the distant future. I've watched this movie many times over the years,
> > but I think this was perhaps the first time I noticed myself being
> > really annoyed with Rod Taylor's character. He took *no* provisions and
> > made *no* plans for his trip to the future. And along the way he kept
> > encountering various people (well mostly Alan Young) who would warn him
> > about impending danger and every time he just ignored the warnings.

The proposed Time Machine II (ca. 1980) was worse. George tries to
bring a pregnant Weena back to 1900 or whatever because she's in labor
and it's not going well. The time machines "crashes" in ca. 1940,
perhaps because of the Blitz. George is killed. Weena soon delivers
the baby and dies, too. The boy is raised by Alan Young, who
eventually tells him about his parents. The son reinvents the time
machine and goes off into the future. Most of what he does is the
stuff they cut from the original script, such as defending future human
cavemen from evil reptile people. There was a trick ending that I
don't quite recall; it may have been that a revived but dying Weena
brings her son to 1900 or so, and the baby is raised as George. Or
something. George Pal wanted to make this movie but never got the
backing, perhaps because his Doc Savage had tanked a few years earlier.

> > The Time Machine (blu-ray) I have been waiting years for this 2002
> > version to get a blu-ray upgrade. It was worth the wait. This time
> > around Guy Pearce stars as the 19th century scientist who travels to the
> > future. Along the way he encounters an AI played by Orlando Jones. The
> > Eloi with a love interest played by Samantha Mumba, and a talking Uber
> > Morlock played by Jeremy Irons. The movie is directed by H.G. Well's
> > great grandson, Simon Wells. I know Alan Young also pops up in a cameo,
> > but I must have blinked and missed it.
>
> Watch for him in the flower store

I sorta kinda liked this one. Orlando Jones was the best thing in it.

A Friend <nope@noway.com> wrote:
> In article
> <2097297594.658622881.945845.anim8rfsk-cox.net@news.easynews.com>,
> anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> A Friend <nope@noway.com> wrote:
>>> In article <G_ydnYYoRZPmHwz8nZ2dnUU7-KmdnZ2d@giganews.com>, Ubiquitous
>>> <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <smrica$g8c$1@dont-email.me>, arthur@alum.calberkeley.org wrote:
>>>>> On 11/14/2021 8:24 AM, Ian J. Ball wrote:
>>>>>> On 2021-11-14 09:30:41 +0000, Ubiquitous said:
>>>>
>>>>>>> I watched:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> THE CENTER SEAT: 55 YEARS OF STAR TREK:
>>>>>>> "Saturday Morning Pinks". Didn't realize there was a cartoon version of
>>>>>>> Star Trek in the early 1970s? Not only was it great, but with original
>>>>>>> series creator Gene Roddenberry, writer D.C. Fontana, and the series'
>>>>>>> original stars on board, it is the fourth season of the original show.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's too bad it was such shitty animation quality...
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't recall ever having a problem with the animation.
>>>>
>>>> How could you not notice?
>>>
>>>
>>> The quality of the animation in the Trek series was neither better nor
>>> worse than Filmation's other stuff at the time, although they managed
>>> effective caricatures of the actors. Many of us weren't watching TAS
>>> for the animation, anyway. It was Trek's fourth season, or at least we
>>> were pretending it was. You have to remember that Star Trek was dead,
>>> dead, dead after 1969, so at least TAS was something.
>>>
>>
>> I remember fans in early screenings saying how the animation of the ship
>> was indistinguishable from the real show. Poor deluded fools!
>
>
> It helps a lot if your audience is legally blind.
>

Lol

--
“The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it’s still on my list.”

A Friend <nope@noway.com> wrote:
> In article
> <1191874541.658607034.514548.anim8rfsk-cox.net@news.easynews.com>,
> anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> Arthur Lipscomb <arthur@alum.calberkeley.org> wrote:
>
>>> The Time Machine (blu-ray) - The classic 1960 sci-fi movie, based on the
>>> H. G. Wells book and directed by George Pal. Rod Taylor stars as a 19th
>>> century inventor who invents a time machine which he uses to travel to
>>> the distant future. I've watched this movie many times over the years,
>>> but I think this was perhaps the first time I noticed myself being
>>> really annoyed with Rod Taylor's character. He took *no* provisions and
>>> made *no* plans for his trip to the future. And along the way he kept
>>> encountering various people (well mostly Alan Young) who would warn him
>>> about impending danger and every time he just ignored the warnings.
>
>
> The proposed Time Machine II (ca. 1980) was worse. George tries to
> bring a pregnant Weena back to 1900 or whatever because she's in labor
> and it's not going well. The time machines "crashes" in ca. 1940,
> perhaps because of the Blitz. George is killed. Weena soon delivers
> the baby and dies, too. The boy is raised by Alan Young, who
> eventually tells him about his parents. The son reinvents the time
> machine and goes off into the future. Most of what he does is the
> stuff they cut from the original script, such as defending future human
> cavemen from evil reptile people. There was a trick ending that I
> don't quite recall; it may have been that a revived but dying Weena
> brings her son to 1900 or so, and the baby is raised as George. Or
> something. George Pal wanted to make this movie but never got the
> backing, perhaps because his Doc Savage had tanked a few years earlier.
>

Yikes!
Also, sharing it to my various Facebook doc savage groups.

>
>>> The Time Machine (blu-ray) I have been waiting years for this 2002
>>> version to get a blu-ray upgrade. It was worth the wait. This time
>>> around Guy Pearce stars as the 19th century scientist who travels to the
>>> future. Along the way he encounters an AI played by Orlando Jones. The
>>> Eloi with a love interest played by Samantha Mumba, and a talking Uber
>>> Morlock played by Jeremy Irons. The movie is directed by H.G. Well's
>>> great grandson, Simon Wells. I know Alan Young also pops up in a cameo,
>>> but I must have blinked and missed it.
>>
>> Watch for him in the flower store
>
>
> I sorta kinda liked this one. Orlando Jones was the best thing in it.
>

--
“The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it’s still on my list.”

In article <1232600363.658636963.099021.anim8rfsk-cox.net@news.easynews.com>,
anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
>Pete <neverland@GoodeveCa.net> wrote:
>> In article <sms5ou$4fm$1@dont-email.me>,
>> Ian J. Ball <IJBall@mac.invalid> wrote:
>>> On 2021-11-14 22:47:01 +0000, anim8rfsk said:
>>>
>>>> suzeeq <suzee@imbris.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 11/14/2021 12:54 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:
>>>>>> Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> I watched:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> NOVA:
>>>>>>> "Alien Worlds". Boring AF.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not to mention them getting the science wrong.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If we still contributed to PBS I’d put a stop to it.
>>>>>
>>>>> 'WE'? Who've you got in your pocket?
>>>>
>>>> My family used to contribute. Once everybody but me was dead I put a stop
>>>> to it.
>>>
>>> I would never have contributed to PBS, not even in the days of "Cosmos"
>>> and "Life on Earth"!!
>>
>> WHat ideological objection do you have? (:-)) I don't subscribe,
>> but excuse myself by saying that about all I watch is Nova and the
>> occasional Masterpiece Mystery. Also because our local station,
>> when it does show something like Austin City Limits, that I really
>> want to watch, it shows it after Midnight -- instead of the expected
>> time of 8pm. And pledge seasons are unwatchable, aside from the music
>> specials. It has also been spending profligately on a new headquarters,
>> despite producing hardly anything of its own. All in all, it annoys me.
>>
>> There's another, newer, local PBS that is a little less self-interested.
>> I think maybe I should contribute to that.
>>
>> -- Pete --
>>
>>
>
>Yeah, when I say “PBS“ I actually mean “KAET“ the local channel. They
>constantly run ads for cool stuff that PBS offers and then don’t actually
>show it here.
>
>Many years ago during one of their constant pledge-a-thons viewers like me
>were waiting for Monty Python‘s flying Circus to start. The head
>pledge-athon guy came out and announced that Monty python viewers didn’t
>contribute enough money and they weren’t going to show python until we
>coughed up. They literally held it for ransom for hours and hours. Finally
>they showed the damn thing and the next day announced it was canceled. As
>you might expect there were some complaints from people who had just forked
>over money expecting that that the show would continue to be seen. KAET
>announced that there was a rights problem and nobody in the United States
>could show it anymore. A brand new station was just starting up locally and
>they said “bullshit, we’ll run it” And not only did they run it
>they ran it
>without commercial interruption just to get some goodwill going. KAET saw
>my last dollar that day.
>
Oh. Yeah... Luckily I don't think our local KQED has ever done
anything quite that stupid, but that would certainly have caused
my immediate cancellation! No blame on you there.

-- Pete --

On 11/14/2021 7:50 PM, A Friend wrote:
> In article
> <1191874541.658607034.514548.anim8rfsk-cox.net@news.easynews.com>,
> anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> Arthur Lipscomb <arthur@alum.calberkeley.org> wrote:
>
>>> The Time Machine (blu-ray) - The classic 1960 sci-fi movie, based on the
>>> H. G. Wells book and directed by George Pal. Rod Taylor stars as a 19th
>>> century inventor who invents a time machine which he uses to travel to
>>> the distant future. I've watched this movie many times over the years,
>>> but I think this was perhaps the first time I noticed myself being
>>> really annoyed with Rod Taylor's character. He took *no* provisions and
>>> made *no* plans for his trip to the future. And along the way he kept
>>> encountering various people (well mostly Alan Young) who would warn him
>>> about impending danger and every time he just ignored the warnings.
>
>
> The proposed Time Machine II (ca. 1980) was worse. George tries to
> bring a pregnant Weena back to 1900 or whatever because she's in labor
> and it's not going well. The time machines "crashes" in ca. 1940,
> perhaps because of the Blitz. George is killed. Weena soon delivers
> the baby and dies, too. The boy is raised by Alan Young, who
> eventually tells him about his parents. The son reinvents the time
> machine and goes off into the future. Most of what he does is the
> stuff they cut from the original script, such as defending future human
> cavemen from evil reptile people. There was a trick ending that I
> don't quite recall; it may have been that a revived but dying Weena
> brings her son to 1900 or so, and the baby is raised as George. Or
> something. George Pal wanted to make this movie but never got the
> backing, perhaps because his Doc Savage had tanked a few years earlier.
>
>

Wow this sounds bad. I know there is another version out there, I think
made for TV. I saw it once. In the TV version he visits the old west.
It was pretty bad. I've mostly blocked it from my mind.

>>> The Time Machine (blu-ray) I have been waiting years for this 2002
>>> version to get a blu-ray upgrade. It was worth the wait. This time
>>> around Guy Pearce stars as the 19th century scientist who travels to the
>>> future. Along the way he encounters an AI played by Orlando Jones. The
>>> Eloi with a love interest played by Samantha Mumba, and a talking Uber
>>> Morlock played by Jeremy Irons. The movie is directed by H.G. Well's
>>> great grandson, Simon Wells. I know Alan Young also pops up in a cameo,
>>> but I must have blinked and missed it.
>>
>> Watch for him in the flower store
>

By the time I knew that I had already pulled the disc. It just wasn't
worth putting the disc back in and looking for it.

>
> I sorta kinda liked this one. Orlando Jones was the best thing in it.
>

Yes, he was.

Arthur Lipscomb <arthur@alum.calberkeley.org> wrote:
> On 11/14/2021 7:50 PM, A Friend wrote:
>> In article
>> <1191874541.658607034.514548.anim8rfsk-cox.net@news.easynews.com>,
>> anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Arthur Lipscomb <arthur@alum.calberkeley.org> wrote:
>>
>>>> The Time Machine (blu-ray) - The classic 1960 sci-fi movie, based on the
>>>> H. G. Wells book and directed by George Pal. Rod Taylor stars as a 19th
>>>> century inventor who invents a time machine which he uses to travel to
>>>> the distant future. I've watched this movie many times over the years,
>>>> but I think this was perhaps the first time I noticed myself being
>>>> really annoyed with Rod Taylor's character. He took *no* provisions and
>>>> made *no* plans for his trip to the future. And along the way he kept
>>>> encountering various people (well mostly Alan Young) who would warn him
>>>> about impending danger and every time he just ignored the warnings.
>>
>>
>> The proposed Time Machine II (ca. 1980) was worse. George tries to
>> bring a pregnant Weena back to 1900 or whatever because she's in labor
>> and it's not going well. The time machines "crashes" in ca. 1940,
>> perhaps because of the Blitz. George is killed. Weena soon delivers
>> the baby and dies, too. The boy is raised by Alan Young, who
>> eventually tells him about his parents. The son reinvents the time
>> machine and goes off into the future. Most of what he does is the
>> stuff they cut from the original script, such as defending future human
>> cavemen from evil reptile people. There was a trick ending that I
>> don't quite recall; it may have been that a revived but dying Weena
>> brings her son to 1900 or so, and the baby is raised as George. Or
>> something. George Pal wanted to make this movie but never got the
>> backing, perhaps because his Doc Savage had tanked a few years earlier.
>>
>>
>
> Wow this sounds bad. I know there is another version out there, I think
> made for TV. I saw it once. In the TV version he visits the old west.
> It was pretty bad. I've mostly blocked it from my mind.

You’re thinking of this version:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Time_Machine_(1978_film)?wprov=sfti1

--
“The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it’s still on my list.”

In article <smsee5$286$1@gioia.aioe.org>, neverland@GoodeveCa.net wrote:
> anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
>> Pete <neverland@GoodeveCa.net> wrote:
>>> anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
>>>> Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:

>>>>> I watched:
>>>>>
>>>>> NOVA:
>>>>> "Alien Worlds". Boring AF.
>>>>
>>>> Not to mention them getting the science wrong.
>>
>>How about the “scientist” who claimed that any planet under binary star
>>would always have double shadows, right while they showed an animation
>>where it didn't?
>
>Damn, my attention must really have been wandering! (:-/) I don't rcally
>that at all! It sounds more just sloppy than "Bad Science" anyway.

Well, it _was_ a dull ep.

--
Let's go Brandon!

In article <smrd8c$cbf$1@dont-email.me>, IJBall@mac.invalid wrote:
> On 2021-11-14 09:30:41 +0000, Ubiquitous said:

>> I watched:
>>
>> THE CENTER SEAT: 55 YEARS OF STAR TREK:
>> "Saturday Morning Pinks". Didn't realize there was a cartoon version of
>> Star Trek in the early 1970s? Not only was it great, but with original
>> series creator Gene Roddenberry, writer D.C. Fontana, and the series'
>> original stars on board, it is the fourth season of the original show.
>
>It's too bad it was such shitty animation quality...

Filmation perfected the method of cranking out cartoons quickly and cheaply.

They did mention that ST:tAS was no different.
They also mentioned the poor color choices were not made because the colorist
was color-blind and that it was something they had no control over.

--
Let's go Brandon!

In article <141120211715525019%nope@noway.com>, nope@noway.com wrote:
> Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
>> arthur@alum.calberkeley.org wrote:
>>>On 11/14/2021 8:24 AM, Ian J. Ball wrote:
>>>> On 2021-11-14 09:30:41 +0000, Ubiquitous said:

>>>>> I watched:
>>>>>
>>>>> THE CENTER SEAT: 55 YEARS OF STAR TREK:
>>>>> "Saturday Morning Pinks". Didn't realize there was a cartoon version of
>>>>> Star Trek in the early 1970s? Not only was it great, but with original
>>>>> series creator Gene Roddenberry, writer D.C. Fontana, and the series'
>>>>> original stars on board, it is the fourth season of the original show.
>>>>
>>>> It's too bad it was such shitty animation quality...
>>
>> I don't recall ever having a problem with the animation.
>>
>> How could you not notice?
>
>The quality of the animation in the Trek series was neither better nor
>worse than Filmation's other stuff at the time, although they managed
>effective caricatures of the actors.

Oh, you meant "in realtion to other Filmation cartoons".

>Many of us weren't watching TAS for the animation, anyway. It was Trek's
>fourth season, or at least we were pretending it was. You have to remember
>that Star Trek was dead, dead, dead after 1969, so at least TAS was
>something.

Not everyone. They mentioned a massive petition campaign to not make the
show because they didn't want a cartoon 'Trek, which surprised me.

--
Let's go Brandon!

Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
> In article <141120211715525019%nope@noway.com>, nope@noway.com wrote:
>> Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
>>> arthur@alum.calberkeley.org wrote:
>>>> On 11/14/2021 8:24 AM, Ian J. Ball wrote:
>>>>> On 2021-11-14 09:30:41 +0000, Ubiquitous said:
>
>>>>>> I watched:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> THE CENTER SEAT: 55 YEARS OF STAR TREK:
>>>>>> "Saturday Morning Pinks". Didn't realize there was a cartoon version of
>>>>>> Star Trek in the early 1970s? Not only was it great, but with original
>>>>>> series creator Gene Roddenberry, writer D.C. Fontana, and the series'
>>>>>> original stars on board, it is the fourth season of the original show.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's too bad it was such shitty animation quality...
>>>
>>> I don't recall ever having a problem with the animation.
>>>
>>> How could you not notice?
>>
>> The quality of the animation in the Trek series was neither better nor
>> worse than Filmation's other stuff at the time, although they managed
>> effective caricatures of the actors.
>
> Oh, you meant "in realtion to other Filmation cartoons".
>
>> Many of us weren't watching TAS for the animation, anyway. It was Trek's
>> fourth season, or at least we were pretending it was. You have to remember
>> that Star Trek was dead, dead, dead after 1969, so at least TAS was
>> something.
>
> Not everyone. They mentioned a massive petition campaign to not make the
> show because they didn't want a cartoon 'Trek, which surprised me.
>

The objection wasn’t necessarily cartoon Trek, it was that the powers that
be wanted it to be a space cadet show with lots of Wesley crushers running
around saving the day.

> —> Let’’ go Brandon!
>
>

—
“The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it’s still on my list.”

Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
> In article <smrd8c$cbf$1@dont-email.me>, IJBall@mac.invalid wrote:
>> On 2021-11-14 09:30:41 +0000, Ubiquitous said:
>
>>> I watched:
>>>
>>> THE CENTER SEAT: 55 YEARS OF STAR TREK:
>>> "Saturday Morning Pinks". Didn't realize there was a cartoon version of
>>> Star Trek in the early 1970s? Not only was it great, but with original
>>> series creator Gene Roddenberry, writer D.C. Fontana, and the series'
>>> original stars on board, it is the fourth season of the original show.
>>
>> It's too bad it was such shitty animation quality...
>
> Filmation perfected the method of cranking out cartoons quickly and cheaply.
>
> They did mention that ST:tAS was no different.
> They also mentioned the poor color choices were not made because the colorist
> was color-blind and that it was something they had no control over.
>

The Director, Hal Sutherland, was colorblind.

Hence pink Kzinti.

> —> Let’’ go Brandon!
>
>

—
“The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it’s still on my list.”

anim8rfsk@cox.net wrote:
> Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
>> In article <141120211715525019%nope@noway.com>, nope@noway.com wrote:
>>> Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
>>>> arthur@alum.calberkeley.org wrote:
>>>>> On 11/14/2021 8:24 AM, Ian J. Ball wrote:
>>>>>> On 2021-11-14 09:30:41 +0000, Ubiquitous said:

>>>>>>> I watched:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> THE CENTER SEAT: 55 YEARS OF STAR TREK:
>>>>>>> "Saturday Morning Pinks". Didn't realize there was a cartoon version
>>>>>>> of Star Trek in the early 1970s? Not only was it great, but with
>>>>>>> original series creator Gene Roddenberry, writer D.C. Fontana, and
>>>>>>> the series' original stars on board, it is the fourth season of the
>>>>>>> original show.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's too bad it was such shitty animation quality...
>>>>
>>>> I don't recall ever having a problem with the animation.
>>>>
>>>> How could you not notice?
>>>
>>> The quality of the animation in the Trek series was neither better nor
>>> worse than Filmation's other stuff at the time, although they managed
>>> effective caricatures of the actors. Many of us weren't watching TAS for
>>> the animation, anyway. It was Trek's fourth season, or at least we were
>>> pretending it was. You have to remember that Star Trek was dead, dead,
>>> dead after 1969, so at least TAS was something.
>>
>> Not everyone. They mentioned a massive petition campaign to not make the
>> show because they didn't want a cartoon 'Trek, which surprised me.
>
>The objection wasn't necessarily cartoon Trek, it was that the powers that
>be wanted it to be a space cadet show with lots of Wesley crushers running
>around saving the day.

That's not how they described their objection, but that was the objection to a
proposed cartoon within this decade, if memory serves. I guess that begs the
question of how anyone knew what it would be like in the early 1970's.

--
Let's go Brandon!

anim8rfsk@cox.net wrote:
> Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
>> IJBall@mac.invalid wrote:
>>> On 2021-11-14 09:30:41 +0000, Ubiquitous said:

>>>> I watched:
>>>>
>>>> THE CENTER SEAT: 55 YEARS OF STAR TREK:
>>>> "Saturday Morning Pinks". Didn't realize there was a cartoon version of
>>>> Star Trek in the early 1970s? Not only was it great, but with original
>>>> series creator Gene Roddenberry, writer D.C. Fontana, and the series'
>>>> original stars on board, it is the fourth season of the original show.
>>>
>>> It's too bad it was such shitty animation quality...
>>
>> Filmation perfected the method of cranking out cartoons quickly and cheaply.
>>
>> They did mention that ST:tAS was no different.
>> They also mentioned the poor color choices were not made because the
>> colorist was color-blind and that it was something they had no control
>> over.
>
>The Director, Hal Sutherland, was colorblind.

Yeah, they said that's what people claimed.

>Hence pink Kzinti.

And Klingons wearing pink uniforms.
And pink Tribbles.

--
Let's go Brandon.

Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
> anim8rfsk@cox.net wrote:
>> Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
>>> In article <141120211715525019%nope@noway.com>, nope@noway.com wrote:
>>>> Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
>>>>> arthur@alum.calberkeley.org wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/14/2021 8:24 AM, Ian J. Ball wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2021-11-14 09:30:41 +0000, Ubiquitous said:
>
>>>>>>>> I watched:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> THE CENTER SEAT: 55 YEARS OF STAR TREK:
>>>>>>>> "Saturday Morning Pinks". Didn't realize there was a cartoon version
>>>>>>>> of Star Trek in the early 1970s? Not only was it great, but with
>>>>>>>> original series creator Gene Roddenberry, writer D.C. Fontana, and
>>>>>>>> the series' original stars on board, it is the fourth season of the
>>>>>>>> original show.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's too bad it was such shitty animation quality...
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't recall ever having a problem with the animation.
>>>>>
>>>>> How could you not notice?
>>>>
>>>> The quality of the animation in the Trek series was neither better nor
>>>> worse than Filmation's other stuff at the time, although they managed
>>>> effective caricatures of the actors. Many of us weren't watching TAS for
>>>> the animation, anyway. It was Trek's fourth season, or at least we were
>>>> pretending it was. You have to remember that Star Trek was dead, dead,
>>>> dead after 1969, so at least TAS was something.
>>>
>>> Not everyone. They mentioned a massive petition campaign to not make the
>>> show because they didn't want a cartoon 'Trek, which surprised me.
>>
>> The objection wasn't necessarily cartoon Trek, it was that the powers that
>> be wanted it to be a space cadet show with lots of Wesley crushers running
>> around saving the day.
>
> That's not how they described their objection, but that was the objection to a
> proposed cartoon within this decade, if memory serves. I guess that begs the
> question of how anyone knew what it would be like in the early 1970's.
>

Mimeographed fanzines of the time. They claimed the suits had wanted a kid
on the bridge in the original Trek as well. Roddenberry had been fighting
it for years.

> —> Let’’ go Brandon!
>
>

—
“The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it’s still on my list.”

anim8rfsk@cox.net wrote:
> Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
>> anim8rfsk@cox.net wrote:
>>> Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
>>>> In article <141120211715525019%nope@noway.com>, nope@noway.com wrote:
>>>>> Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
>>>>>> arthur@alum.calberkeley.org wrote:
>>>>>>> On 11/14/2021 8:24 AM, Ian J. Ball wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2021-11-14 09:30:41 +0000, Ubiquitous said:

>>>>>>>>> I watched:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> THE CENTER SEAT: 55 YEARS OF STAR TREK:
>>>>>>>>> "Saturday Morning Pinks". Didn't realize there was a cartoon
>>>>>>>>> version of Star Trek in the early 1970s? Not only was it great,
>>>>>>>>> but with original series creator Gene Roddenberry, writer D.C.
>>>>>>>>> Fontana, and the series' original stars on board, it is the fourth
>>>>>>>>> season of the original show.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's too bad it was such shitty animation quality...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't recall ever having a problem with the animation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How could you not notice?
>>>>>
>>>>> The quality of the animation in the Trek series was neither better nor
>>>>> worse than Filmation's other stuff at the time, although they managed
>>>>> effective caricatures of the actors. Many of us weren't watching TAS
>>>>> for the animation, anyway. It was Trek's fourth season, or at least
>>>>> we were pretending it was. You have to remember that Star Trek was
>>>>> dead, dead, dead after 1969, so at least TAS was something.
>>>>
>>>> Not everyone. They mentioned a massive petition campaign to not make the
>>>> show because they didn't want a cartoon 'Trek, which surprised me.
>>>
>>> The objection wasn't necessarily cartoon Trek, it was that the powers
>>> that be wanted it to be a space cadet show with lots of Wesley crushers
>>> running around saving the day.
>>
>> That's not how they described their objection, but that was the objection
>> to a proposed cartoon within this decade, if memory serves. I guess that
>> begs the question of how anyone knew what it would be like in the early
>> 1970's.
>
>Mimeographed fanzines of the time. They claimed the suits had wanted a kid
>on the bridge in the original Trek as well. Roddenberry had been fighting
>it for years.

They never mentioned that, just that the fandom had a knmee-jerk reaction
to the form in which it was going to be made.

I wish you had seen this!

--
Let's go, Brandon!