Star Trek in the late 70s/early 80s instead of 60s?

the_lyniezian

Banned
Just been thinking about the 'you in charge of Star Trek' thread and looking at certain other sci-fi TV series around the time.

Supposing after NBC reject Gene Rodenberry's proposals for Star Trek entirely, and the whole thing gets put on the back-burner for some time, but eventually he tries again and the show is finally granted the go-ahead at least a decade or more later?

What difference might this make? I was thinking partly along the lines of stronger female roles beginning to emerge, and possibly some of the other prejudices existing very much in the '60s (race?) being less prevalent by then. (Seeing as the original pilot got rejected partly because of having a female first officer, too radical for the 60s, and the other issues like the Kirk/Uhura inter-racial kiss whicheventually cropped up anyway...)

At the same time, though, you had Star Wars, and a lot of the shows (Battlestar Galactica, Buck Rogers even) which seemed to rip off it. How will something like the Star Trek we know even fare in the light of this?

Also, how will no Star Trek influence TV sci-fi as we know it up to this point? Will executives be even less keen?
 

BlackWave

With Star Wars proving that scifi sells, I think Roddenburry will likely jump straight to TNG, given that the executives around this time aren't likely to constrain him so much.
 

the_lyniezian

Banned
BlackWave said:
With Star Wars proving that scifi sells, I think Roddenburry will likely jump straight to TNG, given that the executives around this time aren't likely to constrain him so much.
Click to expand...

I supose it could work a lot more like TNG, but I'm sure even then it would have a lot different 'feel' a decade early. Maybe more like alow budget verion of the films? Maybe the crew ideas change altogether?

The trouble with Star Wars 'proving' that sci-fi sells, is that it also proves that sci-fi with lots of action and space battles sells. Whilst TOS had a few of them, the show tended to be somewhat more humanitarian and a bit more thoughtful and chalenging than just being about defeating the bad guys. With no example to follow, what chance a jumped-the-gun TNG?
 

BlackWave

the_lyniezian said:
I supose it could work a lot more like TNG, but I'm sure even then it would have a lot different 'feel' a decade early. Maybe more like alow budget verion of the films? Maybe the crew ideas change altogether?

The trouble with Star Wars 'proving' that sci-fi sells, is that it also proves that sci-fi with lots of action and space battles sells. Whilst TOS had a few of them, the show tended to be somewhat more humanitarian and a bit more thoughtful and chalenging than just being about defeating the bad guys. With no example to follow, what chance a jumped-the-gun TNG?
Click to expand...

Well, obviously the casting will be different--in what way, I have no idea, given the butterflies involved. Remember also that Close Encounters around this time was also a financial success, and that wasn't exactly full of zap-pow action. Plus, it wasn't like TNG was devoid of the occasional space skirmish or phaser fights either--but really, it all would depend on how Roddenburry would sell it to the executives. If he does it right, then, well...
 

Landshark

Does no one remember what a snooze fest the first season of TNG was? It's quite possible that it wouldn't have survived it's first season if it hadn't been Star Trek. Of course this is also around the time that Paramount was thinking of launching it's own TV network with Star Trek: Phase 2 as it's centre piece so that could give you some ideas as to how Roddenberry was thinking at that time.
 

grdja83

Hopefully, being filled after Apollo and Skylab, it wont be so childish and naive. Star Trek pretends to be solid SF, while its complete divorce from reality or plausibility is as great as Star Wars or whatever.

"SF" as in "modern summer blockbusters" is almost exclusively about heroes and big explosions, amount of "SF" in it is silly low.
 

Mark E.

BlackWave said:
With Star Wars proving that scifi sells, I think Roddenburry will likely jump straight to TNG, given that the executives around this time aren't likely to constrain him so much.
Click to expand...

It would not be the same. A new TOS might have elements of TNG, but it would lack a message very crucial to TNG and Roddenberry's idealism: the Klingons are now in the Federation!

Without Star Trek, television viewers (and producers) are left without a major sci-fi series set more than a few decades in the future. Here is what they have to work with:

Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea (1964-1968), set about a decade into the future, one of producer Irwin Allen's most successful efforts.

Lost In Space (1965-1968) Set 32 years in to the future, this Irwin Allen production would be criticized for a tacky lack of accuracy with respect to the most basic scientific detail. Its third season (1967-68) reflects an influence from Star Trek (1966-69).

The Time Tunnel (1966-67), Set two years into the future, this Irwin Allen production skillfully skirted technical detail as time travelers moved from period to period through a "broken" time machine. The series ended after one year, as it was costly to produce and reliant on stock footage of period movies. It retained a sci-fi label, though a near copy, Voyagers! (1982-83) was dubbed "fantasy."

2001: A Space Odyssey: Not a TV show, but the 1968 film depicts space stations crafts that we still think, more than 40 years later, will resemble those of the first missions past Mars.

The Six Million Dollar Man (1974-1978): The "bionic" man was essentially set in present time with plot lines of a "high-tech" crime drama.

Space: 1999 (1975-1977): The show drew upon concepts from 2001 and Lost In Space. It would have been aired a year or more earlier if its British producers could have marketed it to an American TV network.

Americans saw Space: 1999 under syndication, but without Star Trek, suppose a US network took it on, as distinctly superior to any existing genre of space adventures. Now, suppose Roddenberry successfully markets an updated version of Star Trek to a competing network in 1976, before Star Wars.

The new "original" Star Trek would be a refined version of TOS, without the need to avoid issues over civil rights and an ongoing US war. Then, in 1977, Star Wars brings an instant push to revise the visual effects. Of course, the need for an antagonist (the Klingons) would be greater than ever. One good point: the make-up would be a little better.
 

Mr Qwerty

Nobody seems to be asking the question of what American science fiction would be like without Star Trek as it was. Would Star Wars, Close Encounters (yuk), ET, Battlestar Galactica, 1999, etc. have been the same, or made at all?
 

BlackWave

Mr Qwerty said:
Nobody seems to be asking the question of what American science fiction would be like without Star Trek as it was. Would Star Wars, Close Encounters (yuk), ET, Battlestar Galactica, 1999, etc. have been the same, or made at all?
Click to expand...

Star Wars is a difficult question, as Lucas was more inspired by Flash Gordon and Kurosawa than anything else, so it depends on how generous the studio would be feeling. Close Encounters and ET I think weren't related much to Star Trek, BSG was more cashing in on the success of Wars, and I don't know about 1990.
 

Mark E.

Mr Qwerty said:
Nobody seems to be asking the question of what American science fiction would be like without Star Trek as it was. Would Star Wars, Close Encounters (yuk), ET, Battlestar Galactica, 1999, etc. have been the same, or made at all?
Click to expand...

I agree with Black Wave. Star Wars, Close Encounters, ET, BSG, etc. come from fiction lines quite detached from Star Trek. Did we forget Planet of the Apes?

The key is to how much Space: 1999 had been influenced by Star Trek. The OTL American reaction was "not as good as Star Trek" Without TOS, the reaction might have been "better than Lost In Space." We must remember the early seventies was a nearly "dead" period for new space adventures in America. If Lost In Space had filled the role taken by Star Trek in re-runs, the demand for something new would be there.

Both Space: 1999 and Lost In Space depicted environments where the crews were out of control of their fates. Now, Roddenberry comes along and presents a concept set in the 23rd century, where the characters are in control of their mission. The crew consists of Americans, a Russian, an Asian, and African, an extraterrestrial, etc.; working in harmony. The character conflict between Spock and Dr. McCoy was needed to show that they were still not perfect. Enterprise is devoted to exploration first, while the moon landings and joint Apollo-Soyuz missions are fresh in the minds of the audience.

If Star Trek debuts in 1976 (ten years after OTL), it will be much more like TOS than TNG. When Star Wars comes out the following summer, the series will add a few more episodes with conflict.

There will likely be Star Trek motion pictures. But some of the following of the original series was based on a unique gap between the original series, movies and TNG. According to Wikipedia:

"Star Trek" is a rare instance of a television series gaining substantially in popularity and cultural currency long after cancellation (see main article, Cultural influence of Star Trek).
Click to expand...

In short, its re-runs filled a void of television without new space adventures from 1970 to 1975. Without that void, its following might not be there. So, if the original series lasts until 1980 and culminates with a movie, when or will there be a TNG? Putting the Klingons in the Federation is a focal point of the producer's idealism. But the first year of TNG was handicapped with somewhat poor character development and Eugene Wesley Roddenberry's decision to cast his younger self as a teenage boy. Would the series go off before Roddenberry dies in 1991? If not, the whole Star Trek franchise goes a different direction.
 

grdja83

Mark E. said:
It would not be the same. A new TOS might have elements of TNG, but it would lack a message very crucial to TNG and Roddenberry's idealism: the Klingons are now in the Federation!

Without Star Trek, television viewers (and producers) are left without a major sci-fi series set more than a few decades in the future. Here is what they have to work with:

Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea (1964-1968), set about a decade into the future, one of producer Irwin Allen's most successful efforts.

Lost In Space (1965-1968) Set 32 years in to the future, this Irwin Allen production would be criticized for a tacky lack of accuracy with respect to the most basic scientific detail. Its third season (1967-68) reflects an influence from Star Trek (1966-69).

The Time Tunnel (1966-67), Set two years into the future, this Irwin Allen production skillfully skirted technical detail as time travelers moved from period to period through a "broken" time machine. The series ended after one year, as it was costly to produce and reliant on stock footage of period movies. It retained a sci-fi label, though a near copy, Voyagers! (1982-83) was dubbed "fantasy."

2001: A Space Odyssey: Not a TV show, but the 1968 film depicts space stations crafts that we still think, more than 40 years later, will resemble those of the first missions past Mars.

The Six Million Dollar Man (1974-1978): The "bionic" man was essentially set in present time with plot lines of a "high-tech" crime drama.

Space: 1999 (1975-1977): The show drew upon concepts from 2001 and Lost In Space. It would have been aired a year or more earlier if its British producers could have marketed it to an American TV network.

Americans saw Space: 1999 under syndication, but without Star Trek, suppose a US network took it on, as distinctly superior to any existing genre of space adventures. Now, suppose Roddenberry successfully markets an updated version of Star Trek to a competing network in 1976, before Star Wars.

The new "original" Star Trek would be a refined version of TOS, without the need to avoid issues over civil rights and an ongoing US war. Then, in 1977, Star Wars brings an instant push to revise the visual effects. Of course, the need for an antagonist (the Klingons) would be greater than ever. One good point: the make-up would be a little better.
Click to expand...

Ahem! You forgot Doctor Who.
 

Mark E.

grdja83 said:
Ahem! You forgot Doctor Who.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, Doctor Who did not have mainstream appeal in the United States. Most Americans never heard of the series in the sixties and seventies, as it was confined to obscure time slots on public television stations. Though popular in Britain, it had little impact on American science fiction, at least on major television.

The concept of portal time travel was depicted in The Time Tunnel (1966) and Voyagers! (1982) Both series were canceled after one year because the effects demanded by prime time American viewers were too costly. Not until post-Star Wars did Stargate/Hypergate/Wormhole (portal travel sci-fi) get a lasting presence in the American market.

The concept, though, did make it to local American TV shows in the sixties. One example was The Foreman Scotty Show in Oklahoma City from 1957 to 1968. A local children's show contained seven minute adventure segments, for a total of 35 minutes per week. Foreman Scotty (actually station manager Steve Powell of WKY-TV) played a gun-toting, cowboy-hatted rancher (this is Oklahoma). On the ranch was a mysterious cave that acted as a portal for time travel. The foreman and his two ranch hands would travel through the cave, that would open into various new times and worlds. They would face foes who might want to take over the world, prolong World War I, or otherwise wreck havoc. Of course, they would win, return and usually spend a month in a "less stressful" setting. The show was low budget, and its props were no more complicated than those of a high school play. I don't think any episodes survive today.
 

Mark E.

neopeius said:
"Galaxy Quest" is about the best imagining of a Trek in the late 70s/early 80s there is. :)
Click to expand...

That and a short-lived comedy called QUARK! (1979) would have been butterflied away.

The more I think about it, the more I feel Star Trek would never have emerged with anything close to its OTL popularity if it had been released later. Even with better effects, TOS would have been occluded by the rash of sci-fi stories following the Star Wars explosion.

When TOS finished out in 1969, Roddenberry and Paramount Pictures knew it had a following and aggressively marked the re-runs internationally. That market simply would not have been the same a decade later because there was competition.

So, it's either original schedule or no significant series.
 

the_lyniezian

Banned
Mark E. said:
That and a short-lived comedy called QUARK! (1979) would have been butterflied away.

The more I think about it, the more I feel Star Trek would never have emerged with anything close to its OTL popularity if it had been released later. Even with better effects, TOS would have been occluded by the rash of sci-fi stories following the Star Wars explosion.

When TOS finished out in 1969, Roddenberry and Paramount Pictures knew it had a following and aggressively marked the re-runs internationally. That market simply would not have been the same a decade later because there was competition.

So, it's either original schedule or no significant series.
Click to expand...

If you managed to make it in around 1975 or 76, you at least avoid the Star Wars effect, though. How might it play out then? (Would the culture have changed enough for the female Number One character for instance? Maybe they could play up the feminist angle?)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top