WI 'Star Trek' made by British commercial TV?

Specifically, Lew Grade's British commercial TV production house, ITC.

Let's say the POD is Gene Roddenberry moving his family to Europe in the late fifties to work as a script doctor on international co-productions. There were a lot of Hollywood studio movies and independent pictures being filmed in Great Britain and on the Continent at this time--just think of any American WWII movie from that era and there's a good chance it was shot at Pinewood or Shepperton Studios in England. A number of Hollywood stars like Errol Flyn and Jack Palance were making films in France and Italy. Not to mention that a certain actor from TV westerns was about to make his bigscreen break-through in movies shot in Spain*...

Anyway, by the middle of the sixties Roddenberry is living and working in London. He's introduced to Gerry and Sylvia Anderson, and gets to talking with them about producing a live action version of the sci-fi super marionette programs they've been making, Stingray and FireballXL5. The Andersons aren't yet ready to go into grownup drama, but their business partner Lew Grade is interested in Roddenberry's idea of a show that combines elements of Flash Gordon with Horatio Hornblower. So, in 1965, ATV on Britain's commercial network ITV commissions the first ten episodes of the new space adventure program, produced by Gene, executive produced by Lew.

The concept of the show is very much like OTL, this ain't no Limeyfied 'Trek'. In fact, Grade sees this show and the Andersons' Thunderbirds as the perfect twin set of colour productions he can sell to the American networks as they move away from black & white broadcasting, so much so that respectable British opinion will complain that he is manufacturing nothing but lowest common denominator pap full of American accents**. There are, however, some differences in Star Trek filmed at Pinewood from TOS we know and love. The ship is the FSS Enterprise (Federation Star Ship), and the 'unified Earth' themes of our timeline's show are even more advanced. Kirk in this series is not as specifically American as OT's Kirk, though he's still probably played by a Canadian actor (though not Shatner, unfortunately. A more restrained actor like Leslie Neilsen circa Forbidden Planet is likely to be cast as the hero). The characters of Spock and Scotty and Sulu are unchanged--however, Uhura is more ethnically African, a product of the legacy of 'benign' UK imperialism in Kenya. Bones is probably a Frenchmen or Briton (if he's French maybe he's Bones MacDonald, a descendant of Napolean's marshal, or somesuch Roddenberry nonsense in the same vein as the way Picard got his name).

Instead of SoCal backdrops when filming on location, the series has English woods and moors to 'beam down' onto. There are some quarries, of the type used in 'Doctor Who', that can substitute for more barren worlds.

This all seems quite doable, though unless it's as popular as Roger Moore's The Saint there won't be as many episodes produced as OTL's 'Trek' (the Andersons' Space: 1999 had a run of 48 programs). But then we get to the first of two problems with this ATL show. Judging by what was produced by British commercial TV for export to America in OTL, how good would a Roddenberry-Grade production be?

I've already mentioned the Thunderbirds, but in live action sci-fi the shows ITC is best remembered for are The Prisoner, UFO, The Champions and Space: 1999. I've only watched full episodes of the first show, and I see how it's a classic. But the other three? Well, what I've seen and heard of '1999' makes me think that there was a lot left to be desired in the quality of writing commissioned by ITC. Perhaps there just wasn't the talent in the UK to come up with dozens of storylines comparable to what was done in Hollywood with TOS. Or, alternately, because there won't be as many episodes as Roddenberry delivered to NBC, maybe the quality ITL is higher overall.

But TOS was big on a kind of scientific plausibility. That's not what Patrick McGoohan was aiming at with The Prisoner, while the adventures of Moonbase Alpha are really closer to what Irwin Allen's shows were about. Despite Gene's best efforts perhaps an ITC 'Trek' is closer to the '80 Battlestar Galactica in style.

But the biggest difference in this trans-Atlantic version of TOS is that it won't have the cultural impact of a truly American show. I don't see how it captures the imagination of fandom like the original did, at least not as broadly within the US. And it won't become a franchise, not unless the relentlessly confident Roddenberry gets to do a follow-up series filmed in Hollywood for one of the networks. Maybe this is the best way to guarantee a Phase Two goes on the air in the seventies? Also, the topical social liberalism (first interracial kiss, etc) will not be as immediate if the show isn't made within American culture. (Hmmm, the wiki article I link to says, "Although supportive of the produced shows, the consistent drive for success at home and abroad led to various artistic differences for Grade with McGoohan and Anderson, leading to the departure of both." If Gene works with Lew as these people did, eventually falling out with the tycoon, then this might put the kybosh on both ground breaking themes and sequels.)



*Clint Eastwood. But your knew that.

**I've read that most of the American accents in Thunderbirds are performed by Australian actors, Ray Barrett and Bary Humphries being two of them.
 

MacCaulay

Banned
I like your idea of filming it at Pinewood Studios. If it was done there, then chances are we'd have seen more shows set in interior locations, since the stages there were even more massive than at Desilu.

For a good example, take a look at the D7 Space Station in Trouble with Tribbles (probably one of the larger sets they did in TOS), then compare it to the interiors (and most of the "exteriors") from Aliens, which were filmed at Pinewood.
 
I like your idea of filming it at Pinewood Studios. If it was done there, then chances are we'd have seen more shows set in interior locations, since the stages there were even more massive than at Desilu.

For a good example, take a look at the D7 Space Station in Trouble with Tribbles (probably one of the larger sets they did in TOS), then compare it to the interiors (and most of the "exteriors") from Aliens, which were filmed at Pinewood.

You're a quick man!

I have to admit I hadn't considered that Pinewood might have meant better production values, though I think that's where McGoohan's show was filmed, and it has a real high quality Bond-like feel to it.
 
Instead of SoCal backdrops when filming on location, the series has English woods and moors to 'beam down' onto. There are some quarries, of the type used in 'Doctor Who', that can substitute for more barren worlds.

The timing is interesting. Starting in 1965, I wouldn't be surprised if this *Star Trek is influenced somewhat by Dr Who. Not necessarily the use of quarries for filming [1], but some of the costume design and special effects. They may even get some of the scripts written by people such as Terry Nation.

Cheers,
Nigel.

[1] IMS most of the Hartnell episodes were shot on sets rather than on location.
 
If we're talking late 60s then the UK TV and film industry already has a number of talented SFX teams (2001 was shot in the UK), we also have a number of excellent studios with large sound stages and there are several American born actors who've made their homes and careers here (Ed Bishop for Kirk, perhaps?). If you really want a Canadian Kirk how about Keir Dullea? I'm sure he'd have jumped at the opportunity to spend a few more years in the UK and avoid flying back to Canada.

Writing talent may be a problem, but not insurmountable. US Trek (TOS) made use of a number of literary SF authors (Harlan Ellison, D.C. Fontana, etc) and the UK isn't short of those... Imagine Star Trek episodes written by Arthur C C, Michael M and Brian A. Remember: The Enterprise is just a vehicle to transport the characters to the story most of the time, not the story itself.

As far as the number of episodes goes, don't forget that The Avengers was averaging around 26 one hour episodes per season by 1964. If you ameliorate the cost of the standing sets over 26 episodes I'm sure it would be within the means of a company as well funded as ITC to produce at least one series. And being outrageously British didn't do The Avengers any harm when it came to being sold to a US network. So Trek UK should have even less problems.

Casting? Well... We could have a properly Scottish Scotty (subtitles provided For the American audience :p) for one. Not sure who that'd be though.
 
Not if he's still Bond :p

And even if he isn't he's far too famous to play a supporting character in a TV show circa 67.
 
Very interesting.

ST:TOS was very much just the American Dr.Who though; wacky adventures in space without all the seriousness of latter Trek. To have it made in Britain...I'd think you'd need to have ITV wanting to seriously compete with Who harder; make Who more of a success.
Also I'm not sure but I believe that competition between the stations may not have been as hueg then. Anyone?
And ITVs regionalism...hmm....

I'd like to hope for a Irishman in the crew here. Make him best friends with a upper class speaking Englishman too.
 
You know, I'm thinking the character of Mr Sulu wouldn't have existed in this timeline, given the still recent memories of Japanese conduct in the Far East colonies.
 
You know, I'm thinking the character of Mr Sulu wouldn't have existed in this timeline, given the still recent memories of Japanese conduct in the Far East colonies.

True.
He could easily be Chinese though. There'd likely be quite a few Chinese actors floating around in Britain too where there's not so many Japanese. Or perhaps he could even be Asian- a tonne of Indians and Pakistanis to be found.
 
Perhaps the United Federation of Planets would be the United Commonwealth of Planets?
Kirk could be slightly less violent, maybe he's a monarchist and he only punches people out if they insult the queen.:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Kirk would definitely be British. Perhaps even Lord Kirk?? And then they'd have to throw in a Cowboy with a heavy Texan accent as his sidekick to use all clichés possible, and be able to sell the show in America!!:D
 
True.
He could easily be Chinese though. There'd likely be quite a few Chinese actors floating around in Britain too where there's not so many Japanese. Or perhaps he could even be Asian- a tonne of Indians and Pakistanis to be found.

Err.. AFAIK, "Sulu" was chosen to be a generic asian, not specifically Japanese. Sure, the actor was Japanese, but I don't believe the character was. Also, why would the Brits be more worried about Japanese than the US? Pearl Harbor had a much bigger impact on the American psyche than anything the Japanese did to the Brits. Sure, they lost Singapore (which was huge, I agree), but that was more due to pre-war ineptness on the Brits' part than Japanese betrayal. Certainly the Brits had Singapore and Hong Kong mistreatment of PoWs, but the US had the Bataan Death March. Again, I suspect the emotional impact is stronger for the States.
 
Err.. AFAIK, "Sulu" was chosen to be a generic asian, not specifically Japanese. Sure, the actor was Japanese, but I don't believe the character was. Also, why would the Brits be more worried about Japanese than the US? Pearl Harbor had a much bigger impact on the American psyche than anything the Japanese did to the Brits. Sure, they lost Singapore (which was huge, I agree), but that was more due to pre-war ineptness on the Brits' part than Japanese betrayal. Certainly the Brits had Singapore and Hong Kong mistreatment of PoWs, but the US had the Bataan Death March. Again, I suspect the emotional impact is stronger for the States.

I never said the Brits would have more of a worry about Japanese; my concern is purely that there isn't a very big Japanese-British community from which to draw a actor, especially back then. Since he's representing all Asia then a Asian as opposed to a Oriental looks more likely given the size of the minorities in the UK.
But........Yeah. There is truth is that. I'd think the impression the British had of the Japanese was a lot worse than that of the US. It wasn't the loss of Singapore or Hong Kong or anything, average people couldn't give a damn about that. Its the way they treat all the British people they captured during this.
Also Britain was largely cut off from post-war Japan, it wasn't involved in the reconstruction and rehabilitation the way the US was. To Britain Japan remained the dishonourable, evil murderers of the war. The elderly even today remain very iffy about the Japanese.
 
Top