TOS: Deviations

[Riley]

If you're like me (and old Trek fan who's been a fan for decades) you are probably obsessed with Star Trek to some extent. As a result, you find yourself contemplating how things might have gone differently both in front of and behind the camera.


For the purposes of this thread, we can talk about both possible deviations in story and characterization and deviations in creative and executive decisions.

I have a few "what ifs" to kick things off:

- Several things happen differently behind the scenes (primarily, NBC is more supportive and Gene Coon sticks around) and TOS isn't canceled after season three. Since that season would be much better as a result, how long might the show have run? I think it would have made five seasons to close out the five-year mission. After that, maybe TV movies or a motion picture to tap into the success of Star Wars.

- Roddenberry's idea for TNG isn't as far-flung as what we got; instead, he jumps ahead to the first Enterprise without Kirk and his crew: the Enterprise-B. The studio loves this because the sets, costumes, and props from the films can be used, keeping production costs low. Would this first captain after Kirk be like Picard or completely different? Also, would spin-offs happen if this show is successful and how would they be changed by the change in era?

- How might the film series have continued if The Final Frontier had been more successful and Paramount hadn't been so insistent on "passing the baton?" How many TOS films could have realistically followed TFF? A lot of folks mention the age of the cast, but they were clearly in good enough health for at least one more movie. As for the characters themselves, it's the 23rd century. Kirk is only 60 in TUC and we know Bones lives on into his 120s and possibly beyond.

 

[Grant]

You must have faith....

 

[Kor]

As the show continues into the 1970s, hairstyles become longer and shaggier with bigger sideburns, as we saw with Bonanza.

Kor

 

[Nerys Myk]

Roddenberry's idea for TNG isn't as far-flung as what we got; instead, he jumps ahead to the first Enterprise without Kirk and his crew: the Enterprise-B. The studio loves this because the sets, costumes, and props from the films can be used, keeping production costs low. Would this first captain after Kirk be like Picard or completely different? Also, would spin-offs happen if this show is successful and how would they be changed by the change in era?

Assuming it's still filmed in 1987 onward. Not much. Dates are pretty meaningless in Star Trek. The TNG of the 2290s would roll out the same as the TNG of the 2360s. The biggest difference would be no handwavium for TOS character/actors showing up.

How might the film series have continued if The Final Frontier had been more successful and Paramount hadn't been so insistent on "passing the baton?" How many TOS films could have realistically followed TFF? A lot of folks mention the age of the cast, but they were clearly in good enough health for at least one more movie. As for the characters themselves, it's the 23rd century. Kirk is only 60 in TUC and we know Bones lives on into his 120s and possibly beyond.

The smart thing, which they started in TMP/TWOK is to phase out the old cast and bring in new characters. Ilia, Decker and Saavik should have stayed on (or their equivalents) Not sure the ego of the actors and the recationary and conservative nature of fandom would allow that. OTOH, they did accept TNG. At any rate Sulu, Chekov and Uhura should have moved up and out.

 

[Grant]

Biggest misstep of the TOS movies was sticking with the cast until the bitter end. The original cast should have become mentors for younger crew persons and a good amount of characters should have been tried out and kept or discarded depending on fan reaction and charisma and acting abilities. Having the older actors basically get one minor "showcase" scene in each movie while focusing on the big three until they could hardly walk (or fit thru a door) was silly.
After Voyage Home (new ship, new crew), they could have introduced younger actors and still had a few movies to transition over.

 

[StarCruiser]

That would work better on TV, much like as was done with the original "Law & Order" - new characters come in and sometimes go. Older characters leave and so on.

I've always thought that Star Trek would have been better off had it premiered in 1967 instead of 1966. The Moon Landing boosted enthusiasm for space exploration (for a while) and the original show might have run 4-5 seasons into the early 1970's.

 

[Greg Cox]

In an alternate world, Jeff Hunter is signing autographs at conventions to this day.

 

[Riley]

Biggest misstep of the TOS movies was sticking with the cast until the bitter end. The original cast should have become mentors for younger crew persons and a good amount of characters should have been tried out and kept or discarded depending on fan reaction and charisma and acting abilities. Having the older actors basically get one minor "showcase" scene in each movie while focusing on the big three until they could hardly walk (or fit thru a door) was silly.
After Voyage Home (new ship, new crew), they could have introduced younger actors and still had a few movies to transition over.

It's a shame you had to result to ageism and fat shaming to get your point across. The TOS actors were still vital enough to perform realistically in their roles even after TUC. It's the future, after all, and they didn't have to be involved in mindless action set pieces like the TNG crew embarrassingly found themselves.

 

[Grant]

LOL. Great argument.

 

[Riley]

Assuming it's still filmed in 1987 onward. Not much. Dates are pretty meaningless in Star Trek. The TNG of the 2290s would roll out the same as the TNG of the 2360s. The biggest difference would be no handwavium for TOS character/actors showing up.


The smart thing, which they started in TMP/TWOK is to phase out the old cast and bring in new characters. Ilia, Decker and Saavik should have stayed on (or their equivalents) Not sure the ego of the actors and the recationary and conservative nature of fandom would allow that. OTOH, they did accept TNG. At any rate Sulu, Chekov and Uhura should have moved up and out.

This is another possibility I considered for TNG. TVH could have been the final movie before a return to TV, introducing new crew members that would eventually take the reigns as Kirk and his crew are promoted or move on. The question is, would Shatner have allowed Kirk to retire? I think Nimoy and the rest would have been ready to move on after a few seasons, especially since television production is so much more demanding than film. Maybe Shatner would have eventually moved on, though hopefully without Kirk's death.

After season one, Sulu getting the Excelsior would make sense, followed by Chekov and Uhura moving on as well. Maybe Chekov goes with Sulu as his XO and Uhura gets her own ship. The new characters that would eventually take over would have to be incredibly well-drawn and developed for a baton passing to work, though.

 

[JLA]

In an alternate world, Jeff Hunter is signing autographs at conventions to this day.

Yes, I would've liked that.

 

[BillJ]

The TOS actors were still vital enough to perform realistically in their roles even after TUC.

It was never realistic that they all served together for as long as they did…

 

[Riley]

It was never realistic that they all served together for as long as they did…

Realistic relative to what, exactly? 20th/21st century naval regulations? It's clear that after TMP, Kirk's crew was moving on. Sulu was up for captain of Excelsior, Chekov was XO of Reliant, Spock was captain of Enterprise, and Bones, Uhura, and Scotty may have had other duties outside of serving on training missions. They all chose their loyalty to Kirk and friendship with Spock over their careers in Star Trek III, which led to each of them likely not getting offers after the whale probe crisis despite charges being dropped. Three years later, Sulu was captain of Excelsior and it seems everyone was doing something else before being assigned to one last mission with Kirk.

As for after TUC, they could have all been reunited for one or two more missions.

 

[Noname Given]

As the show continues into the 1970s, hairstyles become longer and shaggier with bigger sideburns, as we saw with Bonanza.

Kor

ST:TMP gives a good idea of what Trek on TV would have looked like in the 70s Disco era.

 

[BillJ]

Realistic relative to what, exactly? 20th/21st century naval regulations? It's clear that after TMP, Kirk's crew was moving on. Sulu was up for captain of Excelsior, Chekov was XO of Reliant, Spock was captain of Enterprise, and Bones, Uhura, and Scotty may have had other duties outside of serving on training missions. They all chose their loyalty to Kirk and friendship with Spock over their careers in Star Trek III, which led to each of them likely not getting offers after the whale probe crisis despite charges being dropped. Three years later, Sulu was captain of Excelsior and it seems everyone was doing something else before being assigned to one last mission with Kirk.

As for after TUC, they could have all been reunited for one or two more missions.

McCoy from The Undiscovered Country:

For twenty-seven years I have been ship's Surgeon aboard the U.S.S. Enterprise.

While they may have been away from the Enterprise, it seems that they were all kept close by. Even during various refits/layovers.

 

[Ssosmcin]

If I want realistic military SF, I won't watch Star Trek. I didn't even want it to be realistic. I didn't want to see movies with a mostly new cast because everyone else "got on with their careers." These were reunion movies. The point of which is to spend time with the characters you loved watching. And even so, four of the six movies began with some kind of re-gathering of the crew:

TMP - everyone got promoted or left but came back for this mission
TWOK - Enterprise was being used as a training ship and it's not 100% clear how many of the crew are actually doing tours on her. Kirk is an admiral, so he's not. Spock is a teacher, but there's no other Captain, so he's probably it. Chekov is gone, the rest could just be helping out as a favor to Kirk for one last cruise on the old girl. Even though the Excelsior dialog was cut, Sulu was clearly coming back to help out, and McCoy commented on putting an "experienced crew back on the ship."
TSFS - they were pretty much being disbanded until Kirk gathered them back up to Search for Spock.
TVH - TFF - the only two films where they were together at the start
TUC - all were getting ready to retire or move on as the Enterprise was being decommissioned.

That was all more than enough "realism" for me. As far as I am concerned, since I grew up with them, these characters are Star Trek (I don't love the "franchise" I love the 1960's TV series), so seeing them in new adventures every 2 or 3 years from 1979 - 1991 were some of the most exciting times of my Star Trek Fandom. I didn't need a bunch of new crew members distracting me from that. The other TV show reunions did that more than enough. I give the movie guys credit for not doing that to Star Trek.

 

[Nerys Myk]

I think the "minor four" were falsely elevated to "essential" status by fandom through reruns and conventions. All were easily replaced over the run of TOS from time to time. (Guess that belongs over in "Unpopular Opinions)

 

[Poltargyst]

In an alternate world, Jeff Hunter is signing autographs at conventions to this day.

In that alternate world, Star Trek is never as popular as it was in our world, and Hunter wouldn't be signing autographs to this day.

 

[Poltargyst]

(I don't love the "franchise" I love the 1960's TV series)

Interesting. That resonated with me. Maybe that's true for me too, although I did like DS9.

 

[Dr Helen Noel]

Would Shatner have kept his TOS hair for longer or would the TJ curly from the movie era have taken over in the later seasons.