On Sat, 11 Apr 2026 19:56:17 -0400, Ubiquitous wrote:
Television executives had gambled big. $9 million and a 14-episode
run to bring Logan's Run back to the small screen. But crippling
budget constraints, a fractured writers' room, and the cultural
shockwave of Star Wars turned this promising dystopian series into
one of the most magnificent failures in 1970s sci-fi history.
Was that before or after it turned into a villain-of-the-week type
series? Was there any chance of an actual story arc, leading to a
final conclusion? Or were they just going to milk the idea for as many >episodes as they could manage?
Lawrence =?iso-8859-13?q?D=FFOliveiro?= <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Sat, 11 Apr 2026 19:56:17 -0400, Ubiquitous wrote:
Television executives had gambled big. $9 million and a 14-episode
run to bring Logan's Run back to the small screen. But crippling
budget constraints, a fractured writers' room, and the cultural
shockwave of Star Wars turned this promising dystopian series into
one of the most magnificent failures in 1970s sci-fi history.
Was that before or after it turned into a villain-of-the-week type
series? Was there any chance of an actual story arc, leading to a
final conclusion? Or were they just going to milk the idea for as many >>episodes as they could manage?
Exactly! The Fugitive template was the industry standard back then. It
gave networks a safe, episodic structure, but it certainly sacrificed
the tension of the original film.
| Sysop: | Jacob Catayoc |
|---|---|
| Location: | Pasay City, Metro Manila, Philippines |
| Users: | 4 |
| Nodes: | 4 (0 / 4) |
| Uptime: | 496007:27:14 |
| Calls: | 178 |
| Files: | 605 |
| D/L today: |
7 files (18,398K bytes) |
| Messages: | 70,065 |