In 1975 CBS once aired a situation comedy called Doc starring Bernard Hughes as Doctor Joe Bogart, an elderly practicing doctor who treated dysfunctional patients as well as his more dysfunctional family at home. The show did well in the ratings due to it being on Saturday nights between All In The Family and The Jeffersons, but CBS thought it could do better.
The next season the producers fired the entire supporting cast and only kept Hughes, but instead of being a family man he worked in a clinic with new supporting cast members as they wrote out his family. They had Joe become a widower and his daughter and son in law move away to another location to explain their absence. Thus creating upset with the loyal viewers and as CBS was hoping for better ratings the show flopped instead.
Buck Rogers is another one where the first season had Buck Rogers on Earth fighting evil in space and did well, but in the second season they attempted to improve the show thus changing format to Buck Rogers out in the galaxy instead of earth fighting against evil, thus turning away what loyal viewers they had and gaining none from the revamp.
Dallas was another but was lucky enough to stay on despite if fell after that Dream Season nonsense as many viewers did not like wiping away an entire season as if it never happened so they stopped watching. Though some will argue it fell when Patrick Duffy left in Season 9 and Phillip Capice the show's producer was changing storylines thus driving away viewers and almost causing Larry Hagman, the lead star. to almost quit. This is one of the few exceptions to the rule of being not being cancelled because Dallas was on for 9 previous years and had popularity with fans whether watching or not. Rogers and Doc were newbees so to speak and did not.
What shows out there started out good in the first season, where the networks or producers were not happy, changed the format in the next season, and then brought down the show to cancellation despite nothing being wrong in the first place?
Quote from: roadman65 on November 26, 2019, 12:51:21 PM
In 1975 CBS once aired a situation comedy called Doc starring Bernard Hughes as Doctor Joe Bogart, an elderly practicing doctor who treated dysfunctional patients as well as his more dysfunctional family at home. The show did well in the ratings due to it being on Saturday nights between All In The Family and The Jeffersons, but CBS thought it could do better.
The next season the producers fired the entire supporting cast and only kept Hughes, but instead of being a family man he worked in a clinic with new supporting cast members as they wrote out his family. They had Joe become a widower and his daughter and son in law move away to another location to explain their absence. Thus creating upset with the loyal viewers and as CBS was hoping for better ratings the show flopped instead.
Buck Rogers is another one where the first season had Buck Rogers on Earth fighting evil in space and did well, but in the second season they attempted to improve the show thus changing format to Buck Rogers out in the galaxy instead of earth fighting against evil, thus turning away what loyal viewers they had and gaining none from the revamp.
Dallas was another but was lucky enough to stay on despite if fell after that Dream Season nonsense as many viewers did not like wiping away an entire season as if it never happened so they stopped watching. Though some will argue it fell when Patrick Duffy left in Season 9 and Phillip Capice the show's producer was changing storylines thus driving away viewers and almost causing Larry Hagman, the lead star. to almost quit. This is one of the few exceptions to the rule of being not being cancelled because Dallas was on for 9 previous years and had popularity with fans whether watching or not. Rogers and Doc were newbees so to speak and did not.
What shows out there started out good in the first season, where the networks or producers were not happy, changed the format in the next season, and then brought down the show to cancellation despite nothing being wrong in the first place?
Isn't this widely known as "jumping the shark" ? ;)
I agree on Buck Rogers.
Lost in Space had a lot of potential before Johnathan Harris started chewing the scenery.
The Coy and Vance Duke period comes to mind. They never did explain how Bo and Luke were able to leave to go racin' when their probation prohibited them from leaving Hazzard County.
The classic example, Firefly. Show is very good, but Fox, in their infinite wisdom, showed it out of order and placed the real first episode third. Executive meddling at its worst, before a show could even get off the ground properly.
Any show that fires an actor or actress for quasi-political/philosophical reasons. (ABC, multiple shows)
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 26, 2019, 02:57:13 PM
The Coy and Vance Duke period comes to mind. They never did explain how Bo and Luke were able to leave to go racin' when their probation prohibited them from leaving Hazzard County.
I didn't mind the Coy and Vance switch...
...but of course I think I was still in a single-digit age at the time. :D
Top Gear. After Clarkson was dismissed and Hammond and May departed with him, it has never been again what used to be. In fact I consider it a different show from 2016 onwards, even if the format has been essentially the same.
The Real Ghostbusters was an awesome cartoon until someone decided to make it kid friendly and focus on Slimer. I suspect parents complaining about how dark the show was kids probably played a hand.
Quote from: US71 on November 26, 2019, 12:59:55 PM
Lost in Space had a lot of potential before Johnathan Harris started chewing the scenery.
Lost In Space was on the verge of cancellation before Jonathan Harris started chewing the scenery. It aired opposite Batman beginning in 1966, and the producers felt that it had to bring in campy humor, as well as more color and more Dr. Smith and the robot, in order to compete. It worked, to a point.
Quote from: Brandon on November 26, 2019, 03:18:31 PM
The classic example, Firefly. Show is very good, but Fox, in their infinite wisdom, showed it out of order and placed the real first episode third. Executive meddling at its worst, before a show could even get off the ground properly.
According to Wikipedia, "Serenity" (the episode, not the movie) was one of the
last episodes to air, not the third. Or was "Our Mrs. Reynolds" supposed to be first?
In any case, I'm pretty sure this thread is supposed to be about series that started good and then became bad due to executive meddling, not just cases where executive meddling was an issue in general. Otherwise I could go into detail about how Star Trek: Voyager and Star Trek: Enterprise were hurt by the executives forcing the shows to be clones of Star Trek: The Next Generation rather than allowing them to properly embrace their premises (this resulted in things that made little sense, such as Voyager staying in nearly pristine condition throughout the series despite being stranded in the Delta Quadrant, as well as wasted plot potential).
Quote from: vdeane on November 26, 2019, 09:26:40 PM
Quote from: Brandon on November 26, 2019, 03:18:31 PM
The classic example, Firefly. Show is very good, but Fox, in their infinite wisdom, showed it out of order and placed the real first episode third. Executive meddling at its worst, before a show could even get off the ground properly.
According to Wikipedia, "Serenity" (the episode, not the movie) was one of the last episodes to air, not the third. Or was "Our Mrs. Reynolds" supposed to be first?
In any case, I'm pretty sure this thread is supposed to be about series that started good and then became bad due to executive meddling, not just cases where executive meddling was an issue in general. Otherwise I could go into detail about how Star Trek: Voyager and Star Trek: Enterprise were hurt by the executives forcing the shows to be clones of Star Trek: The Next Generation rather than allowing them to properly embrace their premises (this resulted in things that made little sense, such as Voyager staying in nearly pristine condition throughout the series despite being stranded in the Delta Quadrant, as well as wasted plot potential).
Unstable molecules ? ;)
For me, it would be House. I'm not even sure what the hell happened that last season.
SpongeBob simply went down the drain after Hillenburg retired. The show has regressed immensely since at least season 4 and has turned from a show that all audiences can get a laugh from to a show that is pure cringe.
Quote from: vdeane on November 26, 2019, 09:26:40 PM
Otherwise I could go into detail about how Star Trek: Voyager and Star Trek: Enterprise were hurt by the executives forcing the shows to be clones of Star Trek: The Next Generation rather than allowing them to properly embrace their premises (this resulted in things that made little sense, such as Voyager staying in nearly pristine condition throughout the series despite being stranded in the Delta Quadrant, as well as wasted plot potential).
Neither of those series reached their full potential because of the belief that season-long story arcs would not be well-understood by the audience, because of the unwillingness to move on from episodic television. Remember, you had to actually tune in each week to see the show, and that re-runs weren't available on demand. So, there was a bit of 'dumbing-down' so that any person who just tuned in randomly would get the gist of what was happening.
Re-do a series like
Voyager today and it would be a hell of a lot better. For what it's worth, though, both series were pretty good IMO.
You could add Doctor Who during the Colin Baker era. While there was some good stories (The Two Doctors for example), The decision by the BBC to expand Doctor Who to 45 Minutes for one season (season 22), as well as scrap the original season 23 stories for the season 23 "The Trial of a Timelord" story arc all but doomed the first series (1963-89). This was at the time "Doctor Who" was still doing multi-part serials. When the series was brought back in 2005, the BBC did more single 45 Minute episodes rather than serials.
Quote from: cwf1701 on November 26, 2019, 11:35:57 PM
You could add Doctor Who during the Colin Baker era. While there was some good stories (The Two Doctors for example), The decision by the BBC to expand Doctor Who to 45 Minutes for one season (season 22), as well as scrap the original season 23 stories for the season 23 "The Trial of a Timelord" story arc all but doomed the first series (1963-89). This was at the time "Doctor Who" was still doing multi-part serials. When the series was brought back in 2005, the BBC did more single 45 Minute episodes rather than serials.
The budget (what there was) was cut to near nothing. Plus the guy in charge of the BBC at the time had a long-standing grudge with Colin and basically tried to do everything he could to destroy Baker and the show. So it was part budget, part writing and a lot of politics.
"Ren and Stimpy" went downhill fast after the show's creative force, John Kricfalusi, was canned by Nickelodeon. He was also the voice of Ren; after he left, Billy West (Stimpy) took over Ren's voice as well. The post John K shows were painful to watch.
Quote from: vdeane on November 26, 2019, 09:26:40 PM
Quote from: Brandon on November 26, 2019, 03:18:31 PM
The classic example, Firefly. Show is very good, but Fox, in their infinite wisdom, showed it out of order and placed the real first episode third. Executive meddling at its worst, before a show could even get off the ground properly.
According to Wikipedia, "Serenity" (the episode, not the movie) was one of the last episodes to air, not the third. Or was "Our Mrs. Reynolds" supposed to be first?
Wikipedia says that "Serenity" was the last to air on FOX (three more episodes were shown on the Sci-Fi Channel), which is odd since it was supposed to be the
pilot episode.
You are both right and more. The two hour episode (the last aired by FOX) was to have been the pilot, but the executives at FOX determined they wanted a different beginning, so that is how the other episode was crafted. They still showed them out of order.
Concerning Buck Rogers, the strike at the start of the second season didn't help, as well as the fact that star Gil Gerard was putting some white powder up his nose from his salary and asked for some things in the series. They torpedoed some liked actors for season two with no reason given, changed Twiki's voice (then changed it back), and had God-awful costumes for some of the crew (ie Wilma Deering).
If you want to check some other meddling by network executives, check out "Crusade" on TNT. They also had two pilots that were made due to network demands, and a change in uniforms demanded by the network (actually that was a good request) and the original uniforms were made into an on-screen joke.
Quote from: US71 on November 26, 2019, 11:56:33 PM
Quote from: cwf1701 on November 26, 2019, 11:35:57 PM
You could add Doctor Who during the Colin Baker era. While there was some good stories (The Two Doctors for example), The decision by the BBC to expand Doctor Who to 45 Minutes for one season (season 22), as well as scrap the original season 23 stories for the season 23 "The Trial of a Timelord" story arc all but doomed the first series (1963-89). This was at the time "Doctor Who" was still doing multi-part serials. When the series was brought back in 2005, the BBC did more single 45 Minute episodes rather than serials.
The budget (what there was) was cut to near nothing. Plus the guy in charge of the BBC at the time had a long-standing grudge with Colin and basically tried to do everything he could to destroy Baker and the show. So it was part budget, part writing and a lot of politics.
Also remember how Doctor Who was axed for a year during the Colin Baker era.
Quote from: Rothman on November 27, 2019, 01:24:18 PM
Quote from: US71 on November 26, 2019, 11:56:33 PM
Quote from: cwf1701 on November 26, 2019, 11:35:57 PM
You could add Doctor Who during the Colin Baker era. While there was some good stories (The Two Doctors for example), The decision by the BBC to expand Doctor Who to 45 Minutes for one season (season 22), as well as scrap the original season 23 stories for the season 23 "The Trial of a Timelord" story arc all but doomed the first series (1963-89). This was at the time "Doctor Who" was still doing multi-part serials. When the series was brought back in 2005, the BBC did more single 45 Minute episodes rather than serials.
The budget (what there was) was cut to near nothing. Plus the guy in charge of the BBC at the time had a long-standing grudge with Colin and basically tried to do everything he could to destroy Baker and the show. So it was part budget, part writing and a lot of politics.
Also remember how Doctor Who was axed for a year during the Colin Baker era.
18 months. Michael Grade didn't like the show, plus he didn't like Colin Baker, either.
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on November 26, 2019, 10:29:48 PM
Quote from: vdeane on November 26, 2019, 09:26:40 PM
Otherwise I could go into detail about how Star Trek: Voyager and Star Trek: Enterprise were hurt by the executives forcing the shows to be clones of Star Trek: The Next Generation rather than allowing them to properly embrace their premises (this resulted in things that made little sense, such as Voyager staying in nearly pristine condition throughout the series despite being stranded in the Delta Quadrant, as well as wasted plot potential).
Neither of those series reached their full potential because of the belief that season-long story arcs would not be well-understood by the audience, because of the unwillingness to move on from episodic television. Remember, you had to actually tune in each week to see the show, and that re-runs weren't available on demand. So, there was a bit of 'dumbing-down' so that any person who just tuned in randomly would get the gist of what was happening.
Re-do a series like Voyager today and it would be a hell of a lot better. For what it's worth, though, both series were pretty good IMO.
Deep Space Nine was serialized back then, but it also wasn't a flagship show for a brand new TV network, either. IMO a lot of modern television is a bit TOO serialized. I think DS9 struck a good balance - long plot arcs that progress over the series, but most episodes could still be enjoyed standalone.
Enterprise's problem is that the executives tried to make a TNG clone and shove in the Temporal Cold War plot rather than embrace its prequel status. While I do enjoy season 3, what makes season 4 better than what came before isn't that it made most episodes part of multi-part stories - it was that it decided to embrace being a prequel and tell the story of how we got from First Contact to TOS.
Similarly, one of Voyager's problems is setting up this whole situation with the Maquis crew merging into Voyager's crew and the potential for conflict that had - and then never did anything with it (aside from the second episode, which is probably a remnant of the original plans for the series before the executives got involved) because the executives wanted a TNG clone, so anything relating to conflict within the crew and exploring what being stranded in the Delta Quadrant meant for ship provisions and repairs was either given lip service or dropped. While the latter can be blamed on being too episodic, the former probably could have still been done even in an episodic format.
Quote from: vdeane on November 27, 2019, 10:24:46 PM
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on November 26, 2019, 10:29:48 PM
Quote from: vdeane on November 26, 2019, 09:26:40 PM
Otherwise I could go into detail about how Star Trek: Voyager and Star Trek: Enterprise were hurt by the executives forcing the shows to be clones of Star Trek: The Next Generation rather than allowing them to properly embrace their premises (this resulted in things that made little sense, such as Voyager staying in nearly pristine condition throughout the series despite being stranded in the Delta Quadrant, as well as wasted plot potential).
Neither of those series reached their full potential because of the belief that season-long story arcs would not be well-understood by the audience, because of the unwillingness to move on from episodic television. Remember, you had to actually tune in each week to see the show, and that re-runs weren't available on demand. So, there was a bit of 'dumbing-down' so that any person who just tuned in randomly would get the gist of what was happening.
Re-do a series like Voyager today and it would be a hell of a lot better. For what it's worth, though, both series were pretty good IMO.
Deep Space Nine was serialized back then, but it also wasn't a flagship show for a brand new TV network, either. IMO a lot of modern television is a bit TOO serialized. I think DS9 struck a good balance - long plot arcs that progress over the series, but most episodes could still be enjoyed standalone.
Enterprise's problem is that the executives tried to make a TNG clone and shove in the Temporal Cold War plot rather than embrace its prequel status. While I do enjoy season 3, what makes season 4 better than what came before isn't that it made most episodes part of multi-part stories - it was that it decided to embrace being a prequel and tell the story of how we got from First Contact to TOS.
Similarly, one of Voyager's problems is setting up this whole situation with the Maquis crew merging into Voyager's crew and the potential for conflict that had - and then never did anything with it (aside from the second episode, which is probably a remnant of the original plans for the series before the executives got involved) because the executives wanted a TNG clone, so anything relating to conflict within the crew and exploring what being stranded in the Delta Quadrant meant for ship provisions and repairs was either given lip service or dropped. While the latter can be blamed on being too episodic, the former probably could have still been done even in an episodic format.
Closest Voyager ever came to "conflict" was Seska.
I wouldn't be surprised if that's why they made her a Cardassian spy... to create a loophole to Gene Roddenberry's rule on no crew conflict.
Quote from: vdeane on November 27, 2019, 10:43:03 PM
I wouldn't be surprised if that's why they made her a Cardassian spy... to create a loophole to Gene Roddenberry's rule on no crew conflict.
Roddenberry never could realize that good realistic conflict between people is basically a constant throughout history and makes good literature and subsequently television. That always bothered me as well as the big red reset button that was pushed so often.
No proof, but my gut feeling as to why the last 2 seasons of Game of Thrones seemed like a major downgrade from previous seasons, was due to HBO's new Corporate Lord, AT&T
Of course, the fact that the show writers got ahead of the source material novels means the story to tell was not fully established, so that could also be on the writers as well
ABC's decision to change the style (and cast) of Scrubs for season 9. Because of the move, most fans do not recognize there even being a season 9 and claiming the show ended after season 8.
Quote from: US71 on November 27, 2019, 10:35:25 PM
Quote from: vdeane on November 27, 2019, 10:24:46 PM
Similarly, one of Voyager's problems is setting up this whole situation with the Maquis crew merging into Voyager's crew and the potential for conflict that had - and then never did anything with it (aside from the second episode, which is probably a remnant of the original plans for the series before the executives got involved) because the executives wanted a TNG clone, so anything relating to conflict within the crew and exploring what being stranded in the Delta Quadrant meant for ship provisions and repairs was either given lip service or dropped. While the latter can be blamed on being too episodic, the former probably could have still been done even in an episodic format.
Closest Voyager ever came to "conflict" was Seska.
There's a bit of a conflict in "Learning Curve" where Tuvok is trying to train some of the Maquis crew members. I thought there were a few other bits of conflict in the first season?
Quote from: KeithE4Phx on November 26, 2019, 07:29:22 PM
Quote from: US71 on November 26, 2019, 12:59:55 PM
Lost in Space had a lot of potential before Johnathan Harris started chewing the scenery.
Lost In Space was on the verge of cancellation before Jonathan Harris started chewing the scenery. It aired opposite Batman beginning in 1966, and the producers felt that it had to bring in campy humor, as well as more color and more Dr. Smith and the robot, in order to compete. It worked, to a point.
To flesh out the above a tad more: the initial plan was to have the Dr. Smith character killed off after the first few episodes; hence the original reason for the
Special Guest Star billing for Harris.
Even before the
Batman series debuted (which actually had a shorter run than
Lost In Space); the decision to not only keep the Dr. Smith character around but to reinvent him as well was already in the pipeline. One needs to remember that the show originally aired at 7:30 on Wednesday evenings; so networks may have had some issues with having the Smith character being too dark & sinister for its air-time back then.
Harris not only played a significant role in reinventing his Smith character but Irwin Allen essentially gave him carte blanche with the role; Harris was allowed to rewrite his character's dialogue.
From what I've read, the series' 1968 cancellation boiled down to money. The special effects used, explosions & all, costed a pretty penny (the coin, not Angela Cartwright).
CBS proposed a budget cap for the show's potential 4th season production & Allen essentially refused to accept the terms of said-cap.
________________________________
Back to the topic at hand:
One show that definitely lost its way was
Person of Interest. The show's plotline initially involved only Finch, Reese, Carter & Fosco; but in later seasons, more characters were added and the storylines went all over the place & became more of a challenge to follow. My mother loved the show when it first came out but lost interest in the show in its later seasons due to the changes.
One show that became a victim of a timeslot change was
CSI-Miami. To make room for the then-new rebooted
Hawaii Five-0 in the fall of 2010; CBS moved its long-running
CSI-Miami series from its Monday night 10 PM timeslot to Sunday nights at 10 PM. Unfortunately, such a move coming on the heels of football season meant that all Sunday evening shows were preempted when games were being played/showed. As a result, a preempted 10 PM show wouldn't be aired until well over an hour later at times. By the time football season was over, the damage was already done & the series wound up being cancelled.
Have to agree about Person of Interest. Although some new characters were welcome, the last couple of seasons were pretty lost and even bland.
You could even say that after Taraji Henson left that was the start of the decline.
Quote from: PHLBOS on December 02, 2019, 10:10:06 AM
Quote from: KeithE4Phx on November 26, 2019, 07:29:22 PM
Quote from: US71 on November 26, 2019, 12:59:55 PM
Lost in Space had a lot of potential before Johnathan Harris started chewing the scenery.
Lost In Space was on the verge of cancellation before Jonathan Harris started chewing the scenery. It aired opposite Batman beginning in 1966, and the producers felt that it had to bring in campy humor, as well as more color and more Dr. Smith and the robot, in order to compete. It worked, to a point.
To flesh out the above a tad more: the initial plan was to have the Dr. Smith character killed off after the first few episodes; hence the original reason for the Special Guest Star billing for Harris.
It had always been my understanding that Harris held out for Special Guest Star because he was not content to be just another name scrolling by on the credits.
Quote from: US71 on December 02, 2019, 12:49:03 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on December 02, 2019, 10:10:06 AM
Quote from: KeithE4Phx on November 26, 2019, 07:29:22 PM
Quote from: US71 on November 26, 2019, 12:59:55 PM
Lost in Space had a lot of potential before Johnathan Harris started chewing the scenery.
Lost In Space was on the verge of cancellation before Jonathan Harris started chewing the scenery. It aired opposite Batman beginning in 1966, and the producers felt that it had to bring in campy humor, as well as more color and more Dr. Smith and the robot, in order to compete. It worked, to a point.
To flesh out the above a tad more: the initial plan was to have the Dr. Smith character killed off after the first few episodes; hence the original reason for the Special Guest Star billing for Harris.
It had always been my understanding that Harris held out for Special Guest Star because he was not content to be just another name scrolling by on the credits.
Such may have been a latter reason for having such continue for the show's entire 3-year run; but not originally.
Quote from: vdeane on November 27, 2019, 10:24:46 PM
Enterprise's problem is that the executives tried to make a TNG clone and shove in the Temporal Cold War plot rather than embrace its prequel status. While I do enjoy season 3, what makes season 4 better than what came before isn't that it made most episodes part of multi-part stories - it was that it decided to embrace being a prequel and tell the story of how we got from First Contact to TOS.
They went too far trying to retcon various things in Enterprise; especially in season 4. Who cares if Worf has a bumpy head while Kirk was punching smooth-domed Klingons? We didn't need an explanation for that. It was dumb. We get it, makeup was expensive and budgets were small. That's why I applaud Discovery for having a different look for Klingons, but not wasting our time explaining why. Because it doesn't matter.
I've always wondered if some TV executive had a hand in Voyager transitioning from Kes to Seven of Nine halfway through the series. It really seems like the kind of thing a suit would push for. "Hey you know that chick with the tom boy haircut and the raspy voice? What if we replace her with a tall blonde with huge cans? And have her wear a catsuit!"
It seemed pretty obvious that Jeri Ryan and the catsuit were brought in to keep the series going by targeting that ever elusive demographic of lonely 25-45 year old single males.
I nominate the early 2000's iteration of Dragnet with Ed Oneill as Detective Joe Friday. Great gritty, intense emotional scripting with young adults watch how Al Bundy absolutely nailed his new role, sadly season 2 had Oneill office bound directing an ethnically diverse detective team, including Eva Longoria in her first big role. Season 2 is unwatchable and only had about 6 episodes. It was a Wolf Production on ABC on at 10 PM Saturday. Great opening credits.
Quote from: triplemultiplex on December 02, 2019, 04:33:06 PM
They went too far trying to retcon various things in Enterprise; especially in season 4. Who cares if Worf has a bumpy head while Kirk was punching smooth-domed Klingons? We didn't need an explanation for that. It was dumb. We get it, makeup was expensive and budgets were small. That's why I applaud Discovery for having a different look for Klingons, but not wasting our time explaining why. Because it doesn't matter.
An explanation wouldn't have been needed, if not for a mistake the producers made in the Deep Space Nine episode Trials and Tribble-ations where they had the characters comment on the different appearance of the Klingons, thereby canonizing the fact that they looked different (rather than just letting everyone accept that they always looked like the did in the movies and later shows and just didn't have the budget to show that). They thought it would just be a funny comment, not realizing that the fans take all episodes seriously. Then after Enterprise had finally fixed this mistake, Discovery comes in and blows the issue up again (and the explanation they came up with in season 2 for why their look for the Klingons changed from season 1 was little more than a hand wave that makes no sense in the context of every other show; issues like these make it hard for me to consider modern Trek as the same level of canon as everything that came before Enterprise was cancelled).
Quote
I've always wondered if some TV executive had a hand in Voyager transitioning from Kes to Seven of Nine halfway through the series. It really seems like the kind of thing a suit would push for. "Hey you know that chick with the tom boy haircut and the raspy voice? What if we replace her with a tall blonde with huge cans? And have her walk around it a catsuit!"
It's worth noting that originally they were going to kill off Harry Kim (hence why he was attacked by Species 8472), but then Garrett Wang was named sexiest man of the year and the producers hastily changed that to write Kes out of the show. Jennifer Lien didn't even know she was leaving until she read the script for The Gift! This is also the real-world reason why they encounter the Krenim at the same time in both the show and in the Before and After timeline, even though in the show they should be 10 years closer to home thanks to Kes.
Space 1999 got also this, season 2 was in production when Gerry and Sylvia Anderson divorced and they hired Fred Fredberger as the director aka "terminator" and some cast changes didn't helped either.
Btw, does shows who did network switch or channel hop as TV Tropes might said for example Get Smart from NBC to CBS or Diff'rent Strokes from NBC to ABC would fit this category as well?
Quote from: Stephane Dumas on December 03, 2019, 10:00:51 AMBtw, does shows who did network switch or channel hop as TV Tropes might said for example Get Smart from NBC to CBS or Diff'rent Strokes from NBC to ABC would fit this category as well?
Such would be more on a case-by-case basis & dependent upon whether or not the show did better or worse following said-station/network switch.
Quote from: vdeane on December 02, 2019, 09:20:56 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on December 02, 2019, 04:33:06 PM
They went too far trying to retcon various things in Enterprise; especially in season 4. Who cares if Worf has a bumpy head while Kirk was punching smooth-domed Klingons? We didn't need an explanation for that. It was dumb. We get it, makeup was expensive and budgets were small. That's why I applaud Discovery for having a different look for Klingons, but not wasting our time explaining why. Because it doesn't matter.
An explanation wouldn't have been needed, if not for a mistake the producers made in the Deep Space Nine episode Trials and Tribble-ations where they had the characters comment on the different appearance of the Klingons, thereby canonizing the fact that they looked different
I guess you could argue that the actual
original Trouble With Tribbles TOS episode did this though... given that a Klingon was so easily able to blend in and sabotage the grain, and was only outed by a tribble's reaction to him.
Now, one could go down a hypothetical rabbit hole and say that THAT Klingon was altered in some way to look human, and the other Klingon's "looked like Klingons" - but the original episode never made an effort to explicitly point that out (I'm sure it's cause they didn't have any idea that Klingons would ever not look like humans at some point).
I guess it's just my opinion that the original episode sort of canonized that Klingons did look mostly like humans (to the characters) back then.
Well, Trials and Tribble-ations did include a line from Dax saying "surgeon does nice work", but even using only TOS, it's not implausible. A similar thing was done with Kirk for The Enterprise Incident, and the show didn't make a huge deal about that, so it's not like such alterations are unheard of.
Quote from: vdeane on December 02, 2019, 09:20:56 PM
It's worth noting that originally they were going to kill off Harry Kim (hence why he was attacked by Species 8472), but then Garrett Wang was named sexiest man of the year and the producers hastily changed that to write Kes out of the show.
Must've been a slow year. :-D
The guy's far from ugly, don't get me wrong, but sexiest man? :hmmm:
Quote from: triplemultiplex on December 04, 2019, 09:27:43 AM
Quote from: vdeane on December 02, 2019, 09:20:56 PM
It's worth noting that originally they were going to kill off Harry Kim (hence why he was attacked by Species 8472), but then Garrett Wang was named sexiest man of the year and the producers hastily changed that to write Kes out of the show.
Must've been a slow year. :-D
The guy's far from ugly, don't get me wrong, but sexiest man? :hmmm:
It might have been something else (another source I saw today said People magazine's "50 most beautiful people" list). Something along those lines.