Sci-Fi Channel Documentary

The one Mfmdpt is referring to is a different doc., though one I haven't seen.

They made two shows- one focusing on the fans ala: Trekkies for DS fans, and the other was a 'behind the scenes on the phenomenon' show.

Now, the behind the scenes doc originated as something with more integrity, at least, how I saw it evolve. I was interviewed twice, several months apart, and the first time they were the usual, very positive questions. The second time, it really felt like they were trying to get as many 'edgy' and controversial comments as possible. In fact, several times, I felt they were trying to steer me into a kind of performance which I now realize was meant to put Dan Curtis in a bad light and make me come off like an obsessed loser. I have a feeling they were going to use that latter kind of material in the other 'Trekkies-'-esque doc.

In the time between the shows, from what I recall, Sci-fi rejected the assembly or rough edit of that proposed show. At the time I think there was a making of classic series idea being worked on, and they dropped it after an episode or two.  A couple of new producers were brought in to supervise the program, do new interviews and steer it towards something more nasty and tabloid-oriented.

It was a nasty piece of junk...and I wish all that footage from my session was trashed, though since the master tapes were retained by the third party production company, I'm sure they still exist.

The one Mfmdpt is referring to is a different doc., though one I haven't seen.

They made two shows- one focusing on the fans ala: Trekkies for DS fans, and the other was a 'behind the scenes on the phenomenon' show.

OK - now I'm getting confused. The show I was referring to was the Sciography program that was shown during the 2002 banquet. Wasn't the documentary that contained your restoration segment and my Seaview segment the Sciography program? I thought the program about the DS fans was called Sci-Luv and that was the one that was shown on Friday at the 2002 Fest? I haven't seen either. I've only gotten reports from friends who saw them. And that's been more than enough. 

The second time, it really felt like they were trying to get as many 'edgy' and controversial comments as possible. In fact, several times, I felt they were trying to steer me into a kind of performance which I now realize was meant to put Dan Curtis in a bad light and make me come off like an obsessed loser. I have a feeling they were going to use that latter kind of material in the other 'Trekkies-'-esque doc.

I agree. My experience was that executive producer Andy Schatzberg, who conducted the questioning off camera from an actual script that he'd written, certainly tried his best to steer me into a performance and that he was searching for edgy or even ludicrous comments. Or at least comments that would have made me look ludicrous. But I didn't let him get away with it.

At the time I think there was a making of classic series idea being worked on, and they dropped it after an episode or two.   A couple of new producers were brought in to supervise the program, do new interviews and steer it towards something more nasty and tabloid-oriented.

There was. The SciFi Channel aired a show about the original Battlestar Galactica, but a follow-up about Babylon 5 got shelved.  As I recall it, Schatzberg wasn't involved in the Battlestar Galactica show, though I could swear he'd said he had been in the one about Babylon 5. But he definitely said that the DS Sciography program was intended as a pilot for a new series on SciFi. Obviously that series never manifested, which is defintely for the best.

And if the stories Schatzberg told me about how they had ambushed Anne Rice with the 1970PT tape and how they intended to reference the von Bulow incident are any indications, I'd say "nasty and tabloid-oriented" was definitely a part of their mission statement for the show. 

It was a nasty piece of junk...

Exactly my feeling.

and I wish all that footage from my session was trashed, though since the master tapes were retained by the third party production company, I'm sure they still exist.

OMG - do you mean footage of my rant might really still exist? If only that could show up somewhere someday. Not because of my part in it, but because his responses to me that would be heard off camera would leave little doubt as to what Schatzberg was mostly about. 

The DS documentary was especially disappointing to me because I saw the debut episode of "Sciography" in August, 2000 and enjoyed it very much.  It was about another of my favorite shows, "Quantum Leap", and unlike what we saw at the Fest, this show was very informative and respectful.  It featured interviews with the actors, producers, and writers, video footage from a QL convention, and a chronology of the series.  Potentially touchy issues were glossed over.  It was a very pro-fan and pro-show program, not trashy at all.  IIRC, the next episode set to air was "Battlestar Galactica", and then DS, but I don't even know if the BSG Sciography ever did turn up.

Mainly, the problem with the DS Sciography was that it focused too much on certain actors' substance abuse problems (things that are common knowledge among fans but that don't really need to be spotlighted) rather than discussing the merits of the show itself.  However, the people who were reflecting on these incidents in the interviews were actors who were not even working on DS at the same time as the actors they were talking about, so obviously what they were saying was hearsay.  Other events were exaggerated or outright falsified (a rivalry between Frid and Selby that never really happened except in the minds of teen magazine publishers).  Also, the program was filled with inaccuracies in spelling ("Laura Parker" instead of "Lara Parker") and actor-character portrayals (Roger Davis played Roger Collins?) If the makers of this 'documentary' couldn't even go to the trouble of spelling an actress's name properly or correctly crediting an actor, how could we possibly be expected to believe that the rest of their information was accurate?  

I heard that the original Sciography producer who was responsible for the QL episode had moved on to other projects and that his replacement took the series in the direction of an expose.  I don't know if there's any truth to this, but I can easily believe it since the tone of the two episodes was so different.

ProfStokes

The DS documentary was especially disappointing to me because I saw the debut episode of "Sciography" in August, 2000 and enjoyed it very much.  It was about another of my favorite shows, "Quantum Leap", and unlike what we saw at the Fest, this show was very informative and respectful.  It featured interviews with the actors, producers, and writers, video footage from a QL convention, and a chronology of the series.  Potentially touchy issues were glossed over.  It was a very pro-fan and pro-show program, not trashy at all.  IIRC, the next episode set to air was "Battlestar Galactica", and then DS, but I don't even know if the BSG Sciography ever did turn up.

The Battlestar Gallactica installment aired a month before Quantum Leap's in July, 2000; I only saw the former and didn't have a problem with it.  Babylon 5's was scheduled for September 2000 with the DS installment in line to air 4th, but neither of these two made it to airtime.

It's interesting that Sci-Fi ran two respectful Sciography installments, decided that didn't work, hired new producers, shelved both their attempts - with at least the DS one having turned out mostly trashy, and then canceled the series outright. Sort of makes one wonder what the hell type of concept was Sci-Fi looking for?  :-   A middle ground of respectful trash would certainly be an oxymoron. 

I'm sure we can all agree, though, that we're really glad that the DS installment never aired...

a couple of years ago(before i was a member of this board)i attended a party at the upstate n.y. home of artist rob pruitt(the house itself something straight out of d.s.)where they were supposed to air a documentary about the show.there were several fans there(besides alot of hipsters drinking beer)but unfortunately the person who supposedly had a tape of this documentary never showed up.

i don't know if this was a copy of the documentary under discussion here.

but please,we are all going on the same gossip.yes,a certain actress had an affair with a certain married,rich and soon-to-be-accused-of-his-wife's-attempted-murder man.yes,a ceratin actor left the show during a period of alcoholism.yes,another actors' death frequently gets called into question.

but what's with all the scandal and secrecy?where is all the drama here really coming from?

MB, I don't know who produced the first two documentaries for SciFi (they hired an outside production company for the DS documentary).  The taping started out quite well but then the producer got wind of some gossip and went for that, stretching it every which way possible and then was really p.o.'d when a major member of the cast didn't want to be in it at all.  The latter I witnessed first-hand.  The producer then decided to go in the more tabloid direction.   Too bad the entire experience seemed to make SciFi want to not participate anymore.  I don't know why they simply didn't hire someone else to produce the documentary.  

Nancy

Sure, there's backstage drama on every show since the actors, like everyone else, have personal lives to live and that can creep into professional work as well.  However, the issue with the documentary was that it was going on half-truths and gossip, not fact which is not what the documentary was commissioned to be about.   It's a matter of public record about some husband problems Joan Bennett had and Alexandra Moltke's involvement in the Van Bulow case.  That's nothing new.  I saw unedited parts of the documentary and what was objectionable were statements made about individuals that were not a matter of public record or even know to be a fact. That was one reason some of the actors reacted the way they did.  It concerned some of their friends from the show.

I know from an associate with SciFi is that such a documentary would not thrill most DS fans but turn them off SciFi for airing an obvious tabloid piece.  Then there is potential legal action for making statements that are not true publicly.  There are always people who get off on that type of thing but by and large, the DS audience is not to thrive on a tabloid presentation of its show.  From a producer's standpoint who knows the audience, I would never present such a documentary to the DS audience.   The reaction would not be favorable. 

DS fans tend to respect the actors, their private lives and dislike anyone trashing the show or the performers on any level, particularly on unsubstantiated gossip. DS is relatively small fandom but nonetheless a devoted one.  DS fandom is very different from other fandoms in many respects and one of those differences is that fans in general are not looking for dirt.  They like hearing about the fun things that go wrong and that sort of thing but not trash.  At least this has been my observation over the years. 

The scandal of the DS documentary is that the producers wanted to air material that was not substantiated just for the sake of shock. 

Nancy

but what's with all the scandal and secrecy?where is all the drama here really coming from?

Mainly, the problem with the DS Sciography was that it focused too much on certain actors' substance abuse problems (things that are common knowledge among fans but that don't really need to be spotlighted) rather than discussing the merits of the show itself.

Yes, I thought that was very disappointing too that the documentary was not about the creation and evolution of DS then and over the years.

However, the people who were reflecting on these incidents in the interviews were actors who were not even working on DS at the same time as the actors they were talking about, so obviously what they were saying was hearsay.

Exactly.  And actionable in a court of law which is the last thing SciFi or anyone else would have wanted.

 Other events were exaggerated or outright falsified (a rivalry between Frid and Selby that never really happened except in the minds of teen magazine publishers).  Also, the program was filled with inaccuracies in spelling ("Laura Parker" instead of "Lara Parker") and actor-character portrayals (Roger Davis played Roger Collins?) If the makers of this 'documentary' couldn't even go to the trouble of spelling an actress's name properly or correctly crediting an actor, how could we possibly be expected to believe that the rest of their information was accurate?  

I can tell you this much - I was the person who was approached numerous times by the SciFi producer about getting Frid to participate and when Frid declined, the producer was angry and became threatening not only to me but others associated with the project.  The producer actually threatened to take the documentary in a tabloid direction in that one instance.  Lord knows what other instances stoked the fire along the way.

I heard that the original Sciography producer who was responsible for the QL episode had moved on to other projects and that his replacement took the series in the direction of an expose.  I don't know if there's any truth to this, but I can easily believe it since the tone of the two episodes was so different.

I heard that too, Prof. Stokes.  That's why I believe the producer hired to do the DS documentary was not involved in the first two documentaries SciFi made.

Nancy

Hmmm. You might be right there, Mike. I've never seen the Sci-Luv doc and wasn't present at the Fest screening. I had seen a tape of the Sciography ep. a couple of months before, but I don't remember your segment being in it, so I assumed it was in the Sci-Luv one...

I'm told that the one aired at the fest was edited down from the appalling one that I saw, or at least that was going to be the plan and they didn't get a chance to do it.

Well, two cast members walked out: Marie Wallace and KLS. KLS has said that John Karlen did too, but did anyone see him walk out? I didn't notice him leaving his seat.

I was fortunate enough to find myself seated at the same table as John Karlen (an entertaining experience which I hightly reccomend!  LOL!) at that particular banquet, and he hung around longer than Marie Wallace and KLS (and at one point during the screening emphatically stated "Bulls---!"), but by the end of the screening he was gone.  I don't know exactly when he left because I was turned around in my seat facing the screen and he was behind me, but when I turned back around at the end he was already gone.

From what I've read here, what really is scandalous is how the producers of this thing tried to make the actors and actresses seem scandalous when obviously there was nothing to scandalize.  From reading memories, such as those written by The Lovely and Talented Kathryn Leigh Scott, while some of the performers were already long-established thespians (such as Joan Bennett, Thayer David and Grayson Hall), many were just new to the industry and struggled every day to make a living.  It was a job, and after a day of shooting, they headed out onto the streets of Manhattan to go home, maybe having to stop at a food store first, or pick up their dry cleaning, and then do all the mundane things of life, attempting to make ends meet and get stuff done.  I'm picturing someone like TLATKLS or Kate Jackson sitting in a laundramat, mulling over a script, a handful of coins in the pocket, while filled washers and dryers are tumbling nearby, or David Selby or Joel Crothers hammering away at a backed-up radiator in their apartment trying to get the heat to kick in.  In-between that, they're doing other dramatic jobs to further their careers, or otherwise just trying to keep a roof over their heads and food on the table.  Just when were they suppose to find the time or money to party all night, take drugs, have salacious affairs or participate in in-crew battles?  Good that this "documentary" ended up going nowhere.

Gerard

I've been able to hear many stories about behind the scenes goings-on from actors on the show and even for that day, there was not anything particularly scandalous - maybe a little sad, some personal situations, but that's the extent of it.  You'd be hard pressed to point to anything overtly scandalous even by the standards of that day, let alone this area.

Nancy

From what I've read here, what really is scandalous is how the producers of this thing tried to make the actors and actresses seem scandalous when obviously there was nothing to scandalize. 

Just as a clarification for anyone who might not have checked out the link to the topic from '02 (and to show that the program wasn't entirely trashy):

... the Sciography documentary, originally scheduled to be shown the previous evening, aired.  Let me begin by bringing up what was good about it-- Michael Miozza's Seaview segment was fantastic, as was Christine Domaniecki's interview-- she's very pretty, and discussed winning a role on DS, an experience she said led to the happiest day of her life, and Darren's restoration piece was also very well done. ...

 

And BTW, for those who might not remember, Christine Domaniecki won the Miss American Vampire promotional contest for hoDS and she appeared in Ep #1126 as a barmaid:

Oh scandal, schmandal.
 
The real story is here:

The Globe