MovieChat Forums > Land of the Lost (1974) Discussion > Longer seasons for Land of the Lost?

Longer seasons for Land of the Lost?

posted 14 years ago by Glimfeather
9 replies | jump to latest

When "Land of the Lost" aired on the NBC network 17 episodes were made for the first season, 13 were made for the second, and 13 for the third. It almost seems like each season was a mini-series, although it was never intended to be that. Many TV shows during the 1970's had 24, 26, or more episodes. Was it because of the budget limitations for a Saturday morning children's TV show? One wonders there would have been more episodes and a higher budget if the series had been made for a prime time audience, although it still could have been a children's show made for that time slot.

[–] moundshroud 14 years ago

The number of episodes was pretty typical for Saturday morning tv at the time.

The Kroffts' other Saturday morning series also opened with a first season of 17 episodes, subsequent seasons (which were rare for their shows) were usually 12 or 13 episodes. I believe LotL was the longest-running of the Kroffts' series. LotL's main competition at the time was the Hanna-Barbera cartoon The Valley of the Dinosaurs which only ran for one season of 16 episodes.

The relatively brief seasons of Saturday morning programs back then was basically due to the networks. They believed that kids enjoyed repetition, so there was no point in ordering large numbers of new episodes of any given series. The new Saturday morning line-ups were announced with great fanfare by the networks: Lots of advertising, big spots in TV Guide, and usually a kick-off show during Friday night's prime time schedule (that's where I got my first glimpse of LotL - they presented the scene where Grumpy grabbed and killed Spot while Will and Holly watched - I was hooked from that moment!). I recall the following Monday on the school bus, the kids would always talk about which were the hot new shows and which were the duds. But the new season would be short lived, usually running from September through the end of the year. After that it would be repeats 'til the next season. And the networks were correct: We must have enjoyed the repetition as we would be glued to the TV sets (in our pajamas and on a complete Crunchberry sugar buzz), regardless of whether we were watching reruns or original episodes.

I doubt that LotL would have flown as a prime time series during the 70s. The mid-70s was a rather weak period for sci-fi on TV. It would have to be a full hour program of course, and it's doubtful that any network would want to cough up a budget to do it right - I'd even question if the technology was available to do it right. What few sci-fi shows there were in prime time were just adventure shows with a slight sci-fi twist (the whole Bionic craze of the period comes to mind) but most importantly they could be produced on a budget similar to that of the police dramas.

[–] Glimfeather 14 years ago

Lost in Space ran for three full seasons in the 1960's in prime time, and it was mostly a children's show. I don't know if Land of the Lost, which had better stories, would have survived as evening fare from the networks. In its beginning it was more like Star Trek, which barely made it in prime time and ran for three seasons. But then maybe the loyalty of the fans would have helped to keep the show on the air, as what happened with Star Trek.

[–] moundshroud 14 years ago

Lost in Space and Star Trek are two valid comparisons for a prime time LotL series in the 70s. The problem with both of those series is that they were very expensive for their time, as would a prime time LotL. Expensive series are expected to perform in the ratings and are subject to network meddling.

LotL was very close in spirit with Star Trek, since Trek is where David Gerrold got the idea to bring in actual sci-fi writers to script the episodes. Of course by the mid-70s, Star Trek had become a hit in syndication. One would think that the networks would be knocking at Gene Roddenberry's door for another successful sci-fi series, and indeed they were. Roddendberry produced four made-for-TV movies during this period, all of which were also pilots for sci-fi TV series. None of them were picked up. He also attempted a reboot of the live-action Trek series but it also fell through (it was to be the cornerstone of a Paramount network which never materialized until UPN decades later). If Roddenberry couldn't get a sci-fi series sold to network TV, the Kroffts would really have an uphill battle pitching LotL as a prime-time show - after all these guys were known for the likes of H.R. Pufnstuf and Lidsville.

Another drawback would be a greater threat of cancellation. As a children's program, the Kroffts got a 17-episode commitment from NBC which enabled Gerrold to structure the season without fear of mid-season cancellation. Most of the few prime time sci-fi series of that era got knocked off halfway through the season, like Logan's Run or Planet of the Apes (which coincidentally starred Ron "Uncle Jack" Harper). Realistically, the mid-70s was not a great time to launch a new sci-fi series.

One thing for certain, if the show had been a prime time series in the 70s, there would be some changes. I strongly suspect Mrs. Marshall or another older female character would have been along for the ride. The studio jungles would probably be exchanged for location shooting (like the 1991 LotL series) making the LotL look a lot like southern California. We'd likely see guns in the hands of some characters if not the Marshalls themselves (the Civil War soldier in the original series was supposed to have a gun, but the network forced them to change it to a cannon). I'm not sure how the dinosaurs would be handled. In the 70s, the only choices were stop-motion, a guy in a rubber suit, or horns and fins attached to lizards. None of those options would be very satisfactory for an adult audience.

It's quite likely that if the Kroffts had pitched a prime time series rather than a Saturday morning show, we may now have - like Roddenberry's efforts - a one-shot made-for-tv LotL movie and not much more. It would just be an oddity in the Kroffts' catalogue. Yes, I would have liked to have seen LotL as a prime time show in the 70s, but in the long run the kids series format may have served the show better.

[–] Glimfeather 14 years ago

I guess we are fortunate to have Land of the Lost as it was. Some sophisticated science fiction fans have called it "campy", but that may be because they don't see beyond the special effects. Yet there were shows like Lost in Space that made it as prime time offerings even though some people despised their campiness. Land of the Lost, like Star Trek, was much better in stories and concepts. But it didn't have as many episodes as either Star Trek or Lost in Space.

[–] moundshroud 14 years ago

LotL does appear "campy" on the surface... cheap production design, stop-motion dinosaurs, acting mostly on a soap opera level. It really may have only worked as a kid's show because kids were able to effortlessly look past the surface and see the stories and characters. I was in the age range of 9-12 years old when the show aired, which was old enough that the rational side of mind told me things like "that's a jungle set," "those are stop-motion dinosaurs," "the Sleestaks are guys in rubber costumes." But the imaginative part of my mind filled in the gaps so I could follow the stories and get invested in the characters.

[–] AlfredTheGreat (471) 5 years ago

I don't think you could have moved LOTL to prime time without changing the essence of what it was. The violence was very minimal given the setting therefore placing the main characters in very little jeopardy. The Sleestack were always very beatable in the end making them poor adversaries from an adult point of view. Making the show more violent would have made parents concerned about pre-teens watching the show. An adult audience would have been bored with a 12 year old Holly so she would have been made as a 16 plus year old with post puberty feelings. As you have hinted at the show was best as an effort aimed at 10-15 year olds with those older peaking in as a guilty pleasure.

[–] rship1 14 years ago

I didn't think the reason for fewer episodes on Saturday morning TV shows was repetition. I thought that it was because not every kid got to glue themselves to the TV every saturday morning. So the viewer had a better chance at seeing every episode each season.
For example, I never got to see the last episode of 'Here Comes The Grump' http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0063910/trivia because I was being filmed to appear on a local TV show that day.

[–] moundshroud 14 years ago

Unfortunately I forget the source, but I recall reading somewhere that kids tolerated the repetetion of repeat programs moreso than adults. So while the ratings of most of the prime-time tv series took a dive during the summer, the ratings on kids' shows remained more consistant even during repeats. Therefore, the networks did not see it as necessary to order long seasons of childrens' shows, just enough to "jump start" their new season.

It worked well for the production companies too. For instance, the Kroffts managed to turn 17 episodes of H.R. Pufnstuf into five-and-a-half years of TV airings: two years on NBC, one year on ABC, then two-and-a-half in syndication.

[–] Fletcherj119 11 years ago

There was an article in Starlog magazine back in the 70's or the early 80's explaining why the Star Trek cartoon had so few episodes. Back in the 70's 13 episodes was the standard minimum for the average TV series (for a prime time program 13 would normally be the episode number for a mid-season replacement). But 13 was typical for a Saturday morning kids show. The article pointed out that repeats were viewed much more by kids than adults. They mentioned how the Speed Buggy cartoon ran for two full seasons with just the initial 13 episodes and the ratings remained consistent.