Supertrain

Supertrain was the most expensive series ever aired in the United States at the time. The production was beset by problems, including a model train that crashed. NBC paid $10 million for a total of three sets of trains, all different sizes.

"There's a full size train with two story cars 64 feet long, 26 feet wide, and 22 feet high. There's a mid-size version built at a scale of 1 1/4 inches to the foot - a size large enough to create realistic medium-distance details. And for long shots, there's a baby Supertrain at 1/4 inch scale, here seen at its outdoor location in Los Angeles that may eventually be the greatest train set of all: acres of miniature towns and landscapes are being built around its 3,000-foot track."[1]

While the series was heavily advertised during the 1978-1979 season, it received poor reviews and low ratings. The 2-hour premiere was out-rated by a 2-hour special of Charlie's Angels, and received a 21.8 rating and 32 share, ranking it 17th for the week.[3] Despite attempts to salvage the show by reworking the cast, it went off air after only three months. NBC, which had produced the show itself, with help from Dark Shadows producer Dan Curtis, was unable to recoup its losses from the high production costs. This, combined with the U.S. boycott of the 1980 Summer Olympics the following season (whose coverage NBC was to have carried, costing the network millions in ad revenue), nearly bankrupted the network.[4] For these reasons, Supertrain has been called one of the greatest television flops.[5] The show finished 69th out of 114 shows during the 1978-79 season, with an average 15.7 rating and 25 share.[6][7]

Before the show aired in the U.S., NBC sold it directly to the BBC, the first foreign web to pick up the series. "For two runs, BBC reportedly coughed up more than $25,000 per hour seg, which if not a record series price in this market is close to it."[8] the BBC was planning to air Supertrain in the fall of 1979, after the series premiered in the U.S. in February. By selling the show to international markets, NBC hoped to offset its own development costs. After the failure of the series in the United States, the BBC never aired the show.

In 2002, TV Guide ranked Supertrain number 28 on its "50 Worst TV Shows of All Time" list.[9]

In the May 19, 1979, edition of TV Guide, the show received criticism from Robert MacKenzie. He compares the futuristic train to his traditional ideas of a Pullman locomotive and describes the environment as "bigger, gaudier, and noisier, including the passengers."[10] He goes on further to describe the amenities of the train and the "marvel, cinematically" of the set design and train itself. Mackenzie's flaw with the show was its reliance on the extravagant train to wow the audience, and the lack of character depth or entertaining plot. "When the early ratings proved disappointing, NBC took the series off the air for emergency surgery. The 'All New Supertrain' appeared April 14 looking remarkably like the old Supertrain", which shows NBC's attempts to fix the show's flaws mid-season.[10] He summarizes his opinion on the newly changed episodes by stating, "This tale d-r-a-g-g-e-d even more than previous episodes despite the attempt to glamorize it with models in bikinis and Peter Lawford playing his usual shopworn sophisticate."[10]

Supertrain was critiqued by the Telefilm Review in the February 9, 1979, edition of Variety. The article begins, "NBC's highly-promoted new 'Supertrain' series features a slick new train of tomorrow, with a script from yesterday...it seeks to overwhelm, but underwhelms instead."[2] By emphasizing the train as the main character, the character plots and stories of each episode seem like more of a second thought. Telefilm predicted the show's failure in its review: "Without better scripts, the train's trek may well end in 13 weeks. More emphasis on characters, less on the train, is in order."[2] The show lasted just over 12 weeks. The choices of the producer, Dan Curtis, were harshly criticized, saying he was "neglecting characterizations for the sake of camera angles, and his contribution is a sorrowful one."[2]