Star Trek was a really popular TV series.
And the book The Making of Star Trek by Stephen A. Whitlfield and Gene
Roddenberry was quite popular because of that. It gave insight into how that
show, and TV shows in general, were made that was new at the time.
In one digest-sized pulp SF magazine, though, I remember reading a
less than complimentary review of it.

One of the things about the review was that it noted that whenever
Gene Roddenberry was quoted in the book, that quote appeared
IN CAPITAL LETTERS LIKE THIS.
The reviewer thought this was fulsome and excessively laudatory.

As well, he thought that all this stuff about how Star Trek first
brought "real" science fiction to the TV screen was overblown.
The Outer Limits did it before, and it did it better.

I've been trying to use Google to search for this (in?)famous review, but I've
turned up no scent that I could home in on.

John Savard

On Tue, 5 Apr 2022 10:36:50 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca>
wrote:

>Star Trek was a really popular TV series.
>And the book The Making of Star Trek by Stephen A. Whitlfield and Gene
>Roddenberry was quite popular because of that. It gave insight into how that
>show, and TV shows in general, were made that was new at the time.
>In one digest-sized pulp SF magazine, though, I remember reading a
>less than complimentary review of it.
>
>One of the things about the review was that it noted that whenever
>Gene Roddenberry was quoted in the book, that quote appeared
>IN CAPITAL LETTERS LIKE THIS.
>The reviewer thought this was fulsome and excessively laudatory.
>
>As well, he thought that all this stuff about how Star Trek first
>brought "real" science fiction to the TV screen was overblown.
>The Outer Limits did it before, and it did it better.
>
>I've been trying to use Google to search for this (in?)famous review, but I've
>turned up no scent that I could home in on.

I got no idea about the review, but I would add that "Science Fiction
Theater" and "Men Into Space" also brought "real science fiction" to
the TV screen. For that matter, one could argue that parts of
Disney's "Man in Space" and "Mars and Beyond" were very hard science
fiction.

On Tuesday, April 5, 2022 at 12:36:52 PM UTC-5, Quadibloc wrote:
> Star Trek was a really popular TV series.
> And the book The Making of Star Trek by Stephen A. Whitlfield and Gene
> Roddenberry was quite popular because of that. It gave insight into how that
> show, and TV shows in general, were made that was new at the time.
> In one digest-sized pulp SF magazine, though, I remember reading a
> less than complimentary review of it.
>
> One of the things about the review was that it noted that whenever
> Gene Roddenberry was quoted in the book, that quote appeared
> IN CAPITAL LETTERS LIKE THIS.
> The reviewer thought this was fulsome and excessively laudatory.
>
> As well, he thought that all this stuff about how Star Trek first
> brought "real" science fiction to the TV screen was overblown.
> The Outer Limits did it before, and it did it better.
>
> I've been trying to use Google to search for this (in?)famous review, but I've
> turned up no scent that I could home in on.
>
> John Savard

I wouldn't exactly call it a "scathing" review on the whole, but you may be thinking of the review by "William Atheling Jr." (James Blish) on p. 143 of the March 1969 issue of *Amazing Stories*:

"One slighdy annoying feature is that every direct quotation from Gene Roddenberry IS RUN ENTIRELY IN CAPITAL LETTERS, as if it were the voice of God."

https://archive.org/details/Amazing_Stories_v42n06_1969-03/page/n141/mode/2up?view=theater

On Tuesday, April 5, 2022 at 6:45:38 PM UTC-5, Butch Malahide wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 5, 2022 at 12:36:52 PM UTC-5, Quadibloc wrote:
> > Star Trek was a really popular TV series.
> > And the book The Making of Star Trek by Stephen A. Whitlfield and Gene
> > Roddenberry was quite popular because of that. It gave insight into how that
> > show, and TV shows in general, were made that was new at the time.
> > In one digest-sized pulp SF magazine, though, I remember reading a
> > less than complimentary review of it.
> >
> > One of the things about the review was that it noted that whenever
> > Gene Roddenberry was quoted in the book, that quote appeared
> > IN CAPITAL LETTERS LIKE THIS.
> > The reviewer thought this was fulsome and excessively laudatory.
> >
> > As well, he thought that all this stuff about how Star Trek first
> > brought "real" science fiction to the TV screen was overblown.
> > The Outer Limits did it before, and it did it better.
> >
> > I've been trying to use Google to search for this (in?)famous review, but I've
> > turned up no scent that I could home in on.
> >
> > John Savard
> I wouldn't exactly call it a "scathing" review on the whole, but you may be thinking of the review by "William Atheling Jr." (James Blish) on p. 143 of the March 1969 issue of *Amazing Stories*:
>
> "One slighdy annoying feature is that every direct quotation from Gene Roddenberry IS RUN ENTIRELY IN CAPITAL LETTERS, as if it were the voice of God."
>
> https://archive.org/details/Amazing_Stories_v42n06_1969-03/page/n141/mode/2up?view=theater

By the way, instead of a Giggle search, I went to the ISFDB for a list of reviews of that book.

http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?1253584

On Tuesday, April 5, 2022 at 5:45:38 PM UTC-6, Butch Malahide wrote:

> I wouldn't exactly call it a "scathing" review on the whole, but you may be thinking of the review
> by "William Atheling Jr." (James Blish) on p. 143 of the March 1969 issue of *Amazing Stories*:

> "One slighdy annoying feature is that every direct quotation from Gene Roddenberry IS RUN
> ENTIRELY IN CAPITAL LETTERS, as if it were the voice of God."

Thank you. That was a point made in the review I remembered. But that review _also_
mentioned the Outer Limits, and was longer than this one, so it does not appear to be
the one I was thinking of.

John Savard

On Tuesday, April 5, 2022 at 5:50:31 PM UTC-6, Butch Malahide wrote:

> By the way, instead of a Giggle search, I went to the ISFDB for a list of reviews of that book.
>
> http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?1253584

And none of the other entries in that list appear to be candidates.

Possibly, what I read was _not_ a book review of that book, but a commentary
on either the TV series or its fandom, in which that book was held up as an
example as what was wrong with it.

One thing that was present, just as in the James Blish review, was that the
complaint about the capital letters was in all capital letters. But it contained
the words "LIKE THIS".

And the _main_ thrust of the essay, whatever it was, was that Star Trek
wasn't so great, because The Outer Limits did it before, and better, contrary
to what the Whitfield book falsely claimed, in his opinion.

John Savard

Quadibloc wrote:
>
> Possibly, what I read was _not_ a book review of that book, but a commentary
> on either the TV series or its fandom, in which that book was held up as an
> example as what was wrong with it.
>
> And the _main_ thrust of the essay, whatever it was, was that Star Trek
> wasn't so great, because The Outer Limits did it before, and better, contrary
> to what the Whitfield book falsely claimed, in his opinion.

From chapter 2 of the book:
"The third myth involved the belief that it was impossible to weave continuing characters into television science fiction. Until STAR TREK, all television's science fiction had been anthologies.

"Yet, Roddenberry noted, virtually every other television series on the air, with mass audience appeal, had a cast of familiar, continuing characters." There then follows an analysis of audience engagement with BONANZA characters. (It's fairly obvious why sf would have a need to be anthology more than westerns, police, or medical shows.)

These paragraphs were preceded by a Roddenberry quote in all caps about what bad sf does. Perhaps the critic did not read the small print carefully, and got the wrong impression. (I did not read the large print carefully. I was about to write a lot trying to excuse Roddenberry as talking colloquially, but I see he said, "tendency" rather than "ALL".) Earlier critics, without our instant access to knowledge, can be forgiven for not being aware that STAR TREK producer Robert H. Justman, who appears several times in the book, was also involved in THE OUTER LIMITS, and would have at least been an influence on Gene not to dis that show.

--
-Jack

On Wednesday, April 6, 2022 at 8:04:53 AM UTC-6, jack....@gmail.com wrote:

> From chapter 2 of the book:
> "The third myth involved the belief that it was impossible to weave continuing characters
> into television science fiction. Until STAR TREK, all television's science fiction had been
> anthologies.

> "Yet, Roddenberry noted, virtually every other television series on the air, with mass
> audience appeal, had a cast of familiar, continuing characters." There then follows
> an analysis of audience engagement with BONANZA characters. (It's fairly obvious
> why sf would have a need to be anthology more than westerns, police, or medical
> shows.)

These paragraphs are (with one glaring exception) a reasonable and factual
statement of the issue at hand...

> Earlier critics, without our instant access to knowledge, can be forgiven for
> not being aware that STAR TREK producer Robert H. Justman, who appears
> several times in the book, was also involved in THE OUTER LIMITS, and
> would have at least been an influence on Gene not to dis that show.

I'm certainly not accusing Gene Roddenberry of dissing The Outer Limits,
but for that matter, the essay I remember didn't quite do that either.

It's complaint was that The Outer Limits was simply being ignored; that
Star Trek was being claimed as the be-all and end-all of televised science
fiction... *as if* The Outer Limits hadn't already brought science fiction to
the television screen before, and done an even better job of that than Star
Trek did. _Not_ that anything *bad* was being said about The Outer Limits.

Now then, as for the "glaring exception": the statement "Until STAR TREK,
all television's science fiction had been anthologies". Depending on how
you define "science fiction", that statement could be considered to be not
merely false, but ludicrously so.

What were "Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea", "Captain Video", "Tom
Corbett, Space Cadet" and "My Favorite Martian", chopped liver? Well, no,
they weren't, but they certainly weren't _serious_ science fiction either,
which Star Trek at least approached being in some of its better episodes.

John Savard

On Tuesday, April 5, 2022 at 3:37:24 PM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:

> I got no idea about the review, but I would add that "Science Fiction
> Theater" and "Men Into Space" also brought "real science fiction" to
> the TV screen.

I didn't mention "One Step Beyond" either.

John Savard

On Wednesday, April 6, 2022 at 8:55:09 AM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote:

> It's complaint was that The Outer Limits was simply being ignored; that
> Star Trek was being claimed as the be-all and end-all of televised science
> fiction... *as if* The Outer Limits hadn't already brought science fiction to
> the television screen before, and done an even better job of that than Star
> Trek did. _Not_ that anything *bad* was being said about The Outer Limits.

If anything, the precise fault of that review... of Star Trek, perhaps, and not
of The Making of Star Trek... was that it _ignored_ the part of The Making of
Star Trek you quoted, because that quotation *acknowledged* shows like
The Outer Limits rather than pretending they didn't exist - which is what it seemed
to me like it was accusing that book of.

John Savard

On Wed, 6 Apr 2022 07:55:07 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca>
wrote:

>On Wednesday, April 6, 2022 at 8:04:53 AM UTC-6, jack....@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> From chapter 2 of the book:
>> "The third myth involved the belief that it was impossible to weave continuing characters
>> into television science fiction. Until STAR TREK, all television's science fiction had been
>> anthologies.
>
>> "Yet, Roddenberry noted, virtually every other television series on the air, with mass
>> audience appeal, had a cast of familiar, continuing characters." There then follows
>> an analysis of audience engagement with BONANZA characters. (It's fairly obvious
>> why sf would have a need to be anthology more than westerns, police, or medical
>> shows.)
>
>These paragraphs are (with one glaring exception) a reasonable and factual
>statement of the issue at hand...
>
>> Earlier critics, without our instant access to knowledge, can be forgiven for
>> not being aware that STAR TREK producer Robert H. Justman, who appears
>> several times in the book, was also involved in THE OUTER LIMITS, and
>> would have at least been an influence on Gene not to dis that show.
>
>I'm certainly not accusing Gene Roddenberry of dissing The Outer Limits,
>but for that matter, the essay I remember didn't quite do that either.
>
>It's complaint was that The Outer Limits was simply being ignored; that
>Star Trek was being claimed as the be-all and end-all of televised science
>fiction... *as if* The Outer Limits hadn't already brought science fiction to
>the television screen before, and done an even better job of that than Star
>Trek did. _Not_ that anything *bad* was being said about The Outer Limits.
>
>Now then, as for the "glaring exception": the statement "Until STAR TREK,
>all television's science fiction had been anthologies". Depending on how
>you define "science fiction", that statement could be considered to be not
>merely false, but ludicrously so.
>
>What were "Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea", "Captain Video", "Tom
>Corbett, Space Cadet" and "My Favorite Martian", chopped liver? Well, no,
>they weren't, but they certainly weren't _serious_ science fiction either,
>which Star Trek at least approached being in some of its better episodes.

"Men Into Space" was both "serious" and not an anthology.

Among the things Quadibloc wrote:
>
> Now then, as for the "glaring exception": the statement "Until STAR TREK,
> all television's science fiction had been anthologies". Depending on how
> you define "science fiction", that statement could be considered to be not
> merely false, but ludicrously so.
>
> What were "Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea", "Captain Video", "Tom
> Corbett, Space Cadet" and "My Favorite Martian", chopped liver? Well, no,
> they weren't, but they certainly weren't _serious_ science fiction either,
> which Star Trek at least approached being in some of its better episodes.

The first myth we are told Roddenberry had to defeat to make his show was "that 'science fiction' and 'fantasy' were the same." MY FAVORITE MARTIAN seems to be the target of this example: "you can say, 'This man has the power to blink his left eye and he will disappear," and never explain how or why he can do that."
The CAPTAIN and the CADET are, of course, children's shows, and beneath discussion.
VOYAGE is a question. I'm told it was serious in its black and white season, before it went to color, and giant monsters, and people blinking their left eye and disappearing, but THE ADVENTURES OF SUPERMAN was not overtly silly in its black and white seasons, that doesn't necessarily mean it made more sense. You could argue there is not a lot of well thought out speculation in the adventures of the supersub, possibly the first being _a_ supersub rather than an arms race of them.

--
-Jack

On 06/04/2022 09.55, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 6, 2022 at 8:04:53 AM UTC-6, jack....@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> From chapter 2 of the book:
>> "The third myth involved the belief that it was impossible to weave continuing characters
>> into television science fiction. Until STAR TREK, all television's science fiction had been
>> anthologies.
>
>> "Yet, Roddenberry noted, virtually every other television series on the air, with mass
>> audience appeal, had a cast of familiar, continuing characters." There then follows
>> an analysis of audience engagement with BONANZA characters. (It's fairly obvious
>> why sf would have a need to be anthology more than westerns, police, or medical
>> shows.)
>
> These paragraphs are (with one glaring exception) a reasonable and factual
> statement of the issue at hand...

> What were "Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea", "Captain Video", "Tom
> Corbett, Space Cadet" and "My Favorite Martian", chopped liver? Well, no,
> they weren't, but they certainly weren't _serious_ science fiction either,
> which Star Trek at least approached being in some of its better episodes.

The first episode of _Lost in Space_ aired 1965-09-15.

The first episode of _Star Trek_ aired 1966-09-08, not quite
a year later.

The first episode of _The Time Tunnel_ aired 1966-09-09, the
very next day.

I say nothing about the quality of any of these, but they
all had "cast[s] of familiary, continuing characters."

--
Michael F. Stemper
Life's too important to take seriously.

In article <t2kgpf$6ns$1@dont-email.me>,
Michael F. Stemper <michael.stemper@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 06/04/2022 09.55, Quadibloc wrote:
>> On Wednesday, April 6, 2022 at 8:04:53 AM UTC-6, jack....@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> From chapter 2 of the book:
>>> "The third myth involved the belief that it was impossible to weave
>continuing characters
>>> into television science fiction. Until STAR TREK, all television's
>science fiction had been
>>> anthologies.
>>
>>> "Yet, Roddenberry noted, virtually every other television series on
>the air, with mass
>>> audience appeal, had a cast of familiar, continuing characters."
>There then follows
>>> an analysis of audience engagement with BONANZA characters. (It's
>fairly obvious
>>> why sf would have a need to be anthology more than westerns, police,
>or medical
>>> shows.)
>>
>> These paragraphs are (with one glaring exception) a reasonable and factual
>> statement of the issue at hand...
>
>> What were "Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea", "Captain Video", "Tom
>> Corbett, Space Cadet" and "My Favorite Martian", chopped liver? Well, no,
>> they weren't, but they certainly weren't _serious_ science fiction either,
>> which Star Trek at least approached being in some of its better episodes.
>
>The first episode of _Lost in Space_ aired 1965-09-15.
>
>The first episode of _Star Trek_ aired 1966-09-08, not quite
>a year later.
>
>The first episode of _The Time Tunnel_ aired 1966-09-09, the
>very next day.
>
>I say nothing about the quality of any of these, but they
>all had "cast[s] of familiary, continuing characters."
>

The first season of "Lost In Space" was quite different in tone and plotlines
than the second and third ones. I won't say it was *plausible*, but it was
serious.
--
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..

On 2022-04-06 8:04 a.m., Jack Bohn wrote:
> Quadibloc wrote:
>>
>> Possibly, what I read was _not_ a book review of that book, but a commentary
>> on either the TV series or its fandom, in which that book was held up as an
>> example as what was wrong with it.
>>
>> And the _main_ thrust of the essay, whatever it was, was that Star Trek
>> wasn't so great, because The Outer Limits did it before, and better, contrary
>> to what the Whitfield book falsely claimed, in his opinion.
>
> From chapter 2 of the book:
> "The third myth involved the belief that it was impossible to weave continuing characters into television science fiction. Until STAR TREK, all television's science fiction had been anthologies.
>
> "Yet, Roddenberry noted, virtually every other television series on the air, with mass audience appeal, had a cast of familiar, continuing characters." There then follows an analysis of audience engagement with BONANZA characters. (It's fairly obvious why sf would have a need to be anthology more than westerns, police, or medical shows.)
>
> These paragraphs were preceded by a Roddenberry quote in all caps about what bad sf does. Perhaps the critic did not read the small print carefully, and got the wrong impression. (I did not read the large print carefully. I was about to write a lot trying to excuse Roddenberry as talking colloquially, but I see he said, "tendency" rather than "ALL".) Earlier critics, without our instant access to knowledge, can be forgiven for not being aware that STAR TREK producer Robert H. Justman, who appears several times in the book, was also involved in THE OUTER LIMITS, and would have at least been an influence on Gene not to dis that show.
>

The words "Tom Corbett, Space Cadet" just popped into my mind for some
reason.

On Wed, 6 Apr 2022 11:57:19 -0500, "Michael F. Stemper"
<michael.stemper@gmail.com> wrote:

>The first episode of _Lost in Space_ aired 1965-09-15.
>
>The first episode of _Star Trek_ aired 1966-09-08, not quite
>a year later.
>
>The first episode of _The Time Tunnel_ aired 1966-09-09, the
>very next day.

Wonder if I still have my copy of the Time Tunnel book? I bought a lot
of 'teen books' back in the day though I wasn't a teenager yet in
1966. I think I saw it on one of my shelves about a year ago.

In article <i58s4h9evjqo01n1rmq963rfjebgstg5k5@4ax.com>,
The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>On Wed, 6 Apr 2022 11:57:19 -0500, "Michael F. Stemper"
><michael.stemper@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>The first episode of _Lost in Space_ aired 1965-09-15.
>>
>>The first episode of _Star Trek_ aired 1966-09-08, not quite
>>a year later.
>>
>>The first episode of _The Time Tunnel_ aired 1966-09-09, the
>>very next day.
>
>Wonder if I still have my copy of the Time Tunnel book? I bought a lot
>of 'teen books' back in the day though I wasn't a teenager yet in
>1966. I think I saw it on one of my shelves about a year ago.

There were actually two "Time Tunnel" books by Murray Leinster.
The first one was an original novel that had nothing to do with the show.
The second one was a a TV show tie-in which apparently they tossed his
was as part of "don't give us any grief for ripping off your title for our
show".
--
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..

On Wednesday, April 6, 2022 at 8:45:21 PM UTC-6, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:

> There were actually two "Time Tunnel" books by Murray Leinster.
> The first one was an original novel that had nothing to do with the show.
> The second one was a a TV show tie-in which apparently they tossed his
> was as part of "don't give us any grief for ripping off your title for our
> show".

And the TV tie-in proved so popular that he wrote a sequel, Time-Slip.

John Savard

On Tuesday, April 5, 2022 at 11:36:52 AM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote:

> As well, he thought that all this stuff about how Star Trek first
> brought "real" science fiction to the TV screen was overblown.
> The Outer Limits did it before, and it did it better.

The reason why I asked this question was that the answer
would have helped with some introductory remarks I make
about the significance of the television series Star Trek
on this page

http://www.quadibloc.com/chess/ch050501.htm

wherein I propose an alternative set of rules for the
game of 3D chess played in the show, as well as giving
a brief and incomplete description of the existing rules.

John Savard

Jack Bohn <jack.bohn64@gmail.com> schrieb:
> Quadibloc wrote:
>>
>> Possibly, what I read was _not_ a book review of that book, but a commentary
>> on either the TV series or its fandom, in which that book was held up as an
>> example as what was wrong with it.
>>
>> And the _main_ thrust of the essay, whatever it was, was that Star Trek
>> wasn't so great, because The Outer Limits did it before, and better, contrary
>> to what the Whitfield book falsely claimed, in his opinion.
>
> From chapter 2 of the book:
> "The third myth involved the belief that it was impossible to
> weave continuing characters into television science fiction. Until
> STAR TREK, all television's science fiction had been anthologies.

"Star Trek" had its first regular episode on September 8, 1966.

"Doctor Who" had its first episode on November 23, 1963.

"Raumpatrouille" had its first regular episode on September 17,
1966 (so Star Trek beat it by a a bit more than a week).

On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 8:31:57 AM UTC-6, Thomas Koenig wrote:
> "Doctor Who" had its first episode on November 23, 1963.

But that was also a children's show.

John Savard

On Wed, 6 Apr 2022 11:57:19 -0500, "Michael F. Stemper"
<michael.stemper@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 06/04/2022 09.55, Quadibloc wrote:
>> On Wednesday, April 6, 2022 at 8:04:53 AM UTC-6, jack....@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> From chapter 2 of the book:
>>> "The third myth involved the belief that it was impossible to weave continuing characters
>>> into television science fiction. Until STAR TREK, all television's science fiction had been
>>> anthologies.
>>
>>> "Yet, Roddenberry noted, virtually every other television series on the air, with mass
>>> audience appeal, had a cast of familiar, continuing characters." There then follows
>>> an analysis of audience engagement with BONANZA characters. (It's fairly obvious
>>> why sf would have a need to be anthology more than westerns, police, or medical
>>> shows.)
>>
>> These paragraphs are (with one glaring exception) a reasonable and factual
>> statement of the issue at hand...
>
>> What were "Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea", "Captain Video", "Tom
>> Corbett, Space Cadet" and "My Favorite Martian", chopped liver? Well, no,
>> they weren't, but they certainly weren't _serious_ science fiction either,
>> which Star Trek at least approached being in some of its better episodes.
>
>The first episode of _Lost in Space_ aired 1965-09-15.

I didn't much like the TV show and I liked the movie even less. But
tastes vary.

I /do/ remember "prominent child psychologists" worrying about leaving
the Mother out in space between two episodes having a negative impact
on the children watching, however.

>The first episode of _Star Trek_ aired 1966-09-08, not quite
>a year later.
>
>The first episode of _The Time Tunnel_ aired 1966-09-09, the
>very next day.

Wasn't that the one whose /trailers/ promised us battles with bad guys
from the future while the /shows/ were all obviously "educational"
disguised as science fiction to lure the kids?

IOW, a typical Greatest Generation scam.

>I say nothing about the quality of any of these, but they
>all had "cast[s] of familiary, continuing characters."

Indeed they did.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 9:42:06 AM UTC-6, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Apr 2022 11:57:19 -0500, "Michael F. Stemper"
> <michael...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >The first episode of _The Time Tunnel_ aired 1966-09-09, the
> >very next day.

> Wasn't that the one whose /trailers/ promised us battles with bad guys
> from the future while the /shows/ were all obviously "educational"
> disguised as science fiction to lure the kids?

No. In this respect, The Time Tunnel was a lot like Doctor Who. It started
out by having many episodes set in historical times, with the odd episode
involving alien monsters, and gradually changed over to dump the historical
episodes and stick to the more popular alien monsters.

John Savard

On Wednesday, April 6, 2022 at 12:57:24 PM UTC-4, Michael F. Stemper wrote:
> On 06/04/2022 09.55, Quadibloc wrote:
> > On Wednesday, April 6, 2022 at 8:04:53 AM UTC-6, jack....@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> >> From chapter 2 of the book:
> >> "The third myth involved the belief that it was impossible to weave continuing characters
> >> into television science fiction. Until STAR TREK, all television's science fiction had been
> >> anthologies.
> >
> >> "Yet, Roddenberry noted, virtually every other television series on the air, with mass
> >> audience appeal, had a cast of familiar, continuing characters." There then follows
> >> an analysis of audience engagement with BONANZA characters. (It's fairly obvious
> >> why sf would have a need to be anthology more than westerns, police, or medical
> >> shows.)
> >
> > These paragraphs are (with one glaring exception) a reasonable and factual
> > statement of the issue at hand...
> > What were "Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea", "Captain Video", "Tom
> > Corbett, Space Cadet" and "My Favorite Martian", chopped liver? Well, no,
> > they weren't, but they certainly weren't _serious_ science fiction either,
> > which Star Trek at least approached being in some of its better episodes.
> The first episode of _Lost in Space_ aired 1965-09-15.
>
> The first episode of _Star Trek_ aired 1966-09-08, not quite
> a year later.
>
> The first episode of _The Time Tunnel_ aired 1966-09-09, the
> very next day.
>
> I say nothing about the quality of any of these, but they
> all had "cast[s] of familiary, continuing characters."
>
I think Roddenberry was talking about fighting what he called "the third myth" during the period when he was trying to get "Star Trek" started - which was well before Time Tunnel or Lost In Space were broadcast, and in fact (because Star Trek took a long time to be developed) before Time Tunnel or LiS were even in development. I suspect that Roddenberry believed that without his efforts to begin production of Star Trek, Time Tunnel and LiS wouldn't have been produced (I don't know if that's true, but I think that Star Trek pre-production was well underway before either of the others were developed).

On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 5:55:02 PM UTC-6, Andrew Love wrote:

> I think Roddenberry was talking about fighting what he
> called "the third myth" during the period when he was
> trying to get "Star Trek" started - which was well before
> Time Tunnel or Lost In Space were broadcast,

There is a bit in The Making of Star Trek where Gene Roddenberry recalls
that he was trying to pitch Star Trek to CBS, and the fellow from CBS was
asking him a lot of questions abouit how he could make a science-fiction
show that looked good, and yet could be made for a realistic budget.

At the end of the interview, he was turned down with the remark 'we have
one of our own we like better', so Gene Roddenberry's conclusion was that
the guy from CBS was just picking his brains for ways to trim the costs of
producing Lost in Space.

John Savard