Glen

Moderator
I think 1972 goes to Humphrey. I think Reagan is finishing out his term as governor that year. I think that inflation and the fall out from the Yom Kippur war with Democrat fatigue and an open field will favor a Republican winning. Reagan will have finished his terms as governor and will run and win in my opinion. Have to look further to see if he is likely to get second term or not though I favor a second for him.
 
I think 1972 goes to Humphrey. I think Reagan is finishing out his term as governor that year. I think that inflation and the fall out from the Yom Kippur war with Democrat fatigue and an open field will favor a Republican winning. Reagan will have finished his terms as governor and will run and win in my opinion. Have to look further to see if he is likely to get second term or not though I favor a second for him.

Actually, his second term doesn't end until January, 1975, so he'd be half-way through his second term.
 

Glen

Moderator
Actually, his second term doesn't end until January, 1975, so he'd be half-way through his second term.

Exactly - he serves two terms as governor as IOTL finishing in 1975 and then is free to run for the presidency in1976. Wins in '76, possibily in 1980 but would depend what he did in office to turn around economy. Also how he handles the Iran situation.
 
Exactly - he serves two terms as governor as IOTL finishing in 1975 and then is free to run for the presidency in1976. Wins in '76, possibily in 1980 but would depend what he did in office to turn around economy. Also how he handles the Iran situation.

Who knows- if the Wacky Redhead butterflies away Nixon, who knows how she affects the Late 70's Mess.:D
 

Glen

Moderator
I am still curious how much Dwsilu gets involved in motion pictures ITTL versus OTL.
 
DTF955Baseballfan said:
3 of the 4 main German characters were played by Jews - and Robert Clary was in a concentration camp
:eek: I did not know that.:cool::cool:
DTF955Baseballfan said:
if at first he doesn't want to do it since he fought in WW 2
It had been over 20yr. I suspect the actor, the professional, would overrule that.
DTF955Baseballfan said:
they can always have him as the superspy Nimrod who keeps ordering Burkhalter to send people to Stalag 13
... it could be that Klink, Burkhalter, or even Hochstetter:eek: was actually an Allied agent. The look on Hogan's face when he found out with any of them would be priceless.:D)
:D:D Hochstetter is funniest.:D Better still if Burkhalter was in on it, without knowing Hochstetter was a spy: "We knew you were an idiot, Klink, that's why you were assigned here.":p
Glen said:
...with the changing of who wins the presidency in 1968, it really has no choice but to deal with politics.
I'm not a huge fan of the political stuff, but I'd tend to agree. Who runs things has impact on how the country looks & feels, & that changes the cultural dynamics. Without Nixon, you don't get "All the President's Men". Nor do you get "Sirotta's Court" IMO. (OK, not a huge cultural impact.:rolleyes: I liked it.:p) You probably don't get "Parallax View", either.
 
3 of the 4 main German characters were played by Jews
Werner Klemperer was the son of Otto Klemperer, who was a jew. He and his father fled in 1933. He only accepted the role of Oberst Klink, if Klink always looses against Hogan.
John Banner was an Astrian jew who had to flee after Anschluss in 1938.
Leon Askin was also an Austrian jew. Working as an actor in Düsseldorf he had been arrested in 1933 and fled to Paris after the Austrian consul intervened in his behalf. In 1935 he returned to Austria. In march 1938 he again fled to Paris leaving his parents behind (they were murdered in Treblinka). He only escaped the same fate because his visa for the USA arrived before France was conquered.

And that's the reason they played their characters that way. It was their revenge.
 
I posted a link to this on Bravofleet. I'm not sure how many people will see that, but one person replied: "Wow! That was good reading! He has a lot of insight on the behind the scenes stuff too."
 
In light of the 27 :)eek:) posts that have been made since my last one, I'm not going to do my normal quote-and-reply response. It would take me far too long to do, and since the last dozen posts or so have been a discussion, I would just be repeating myself anyway. I do want to thank all of you for such an avid interest in my timeline, and that you felt it merited so many posts. I won't argue with that :)

A lot of the Star Trek-related questions, with regards to every aspect of production, as well as the fates of the actors portraying those beloved characters, will be addressed in the two upcoming coda updates. So you'll just have to wait until then for the answers.

We'll hear more about Lucas shortly.

One thing I want to nip in the bud right now - there will not be a continuation of "Hogan's Heroes", in any form. I'm sorry, but you can't win them all, especially in a zero-sum medium like television. Saving Star Trek (along with, perhaps, other shows that will be discussed later) inevitably makes it harder to save other programs, and indeed makes it likelier that they'll be cancelled. That's just the way it goes.

So now let's get to the main topic of discussion: politics.

From the very beginning, I did not want this to be a political timeline. If you want to read a "Humphrey wins" timeline or discussion, you can probably find upwards of a dozen of them on this site. It's been done. I think that focusing on politics more heavily than I have thus far would do a disservice to the original intent of this timeline, and it would needlessly repeat everything that's already been said in many, many other threads. So those of you who don't really care for the politics, or even actively dislike them - and I know you're out there - don't worry; it's not going to get any worse than it already is.

Now, obviously, I will have to cover politics to some extent, as this is a pop culture timeline. And that's going to be how I will continue to approach politics in the future - with regards to their relevance to popular culture. Like I said before, naming Humphrey's Secretary of the Interior would require a great deal of hassle on my part, for something completely immaterial to the story that I'm trying to tell.

All that said, I do have every intention of continuing my "Appendix B" series of serious political interludes. But they'll be infrequent (say, one every two or three cycles) and crafted to supplement all my other updates, to give them a context. But I do have an ace up my sleeve. There is a television series on the air, starting in 1971, that is acutely politically conscious. In discussing it, I can provide insight into the political situation of TTL while at the same time talking about aspects of popular culture. I think it's a reasonably fresh and unusual approach to this well-worn material, and it's how I'll be covering the 1972 Presidential Election - without actually covering it ;)

I have already decided on all of the Presidential Election victors up to 1988 - it's interesting to read your thoughts on potential candidates, and see how close they are to what I have planned. The destinies of other political figures have also been substantially changed, and some of them may also come up over the course of this timeline. I'll even share one of them with you now: in 1970, Rep. George Bush, a Republican from Texas, was elected to his third term in Congress, where he served on the House Ways and Means Committee.

Thank you all for your support and advice with regards to politics. Feel free to continue with your political discussions - they're a lot of fun for me to read, knowing what's actually going to happen ITTL :D I simply ask you to respect my timeline's present direction and emphasis.

I posted a link to this on Bravofleet. I'm not sure how many people will see that, but one person replied: "Wow! That was good reading! He has a lot of insight on the behind the scenes stuff too."
Thank you for sharing this timeline elsewhere, Your Imperial Majesty! And welcome, Bravofleet readers. There's more Star Trek to come!

Including in the very next update, when we'll discuss the crossover with Doctor Who. It should be ready in the next couple of days.
 
All that said, I do have every intention of continuing my "Appendix B" series of serious political interludes. But they'll be infrequent (say, one every two or three cycles) and crafted to supplement all my other updates, to give them a context. But I do have an ace up my sleeve. There is a television series on the air, starting in 1971, that is acutely politically conscious. In discussing it, I can provide insight into the political situation of TTL while at the same time talking about aspects of popular culture. I think it's a reasonably fresh and unusual approach to this well-worn material, and it's how I'll be covering the 1972 Presidential Election - without actually covering it ;)

I wondered if Norman's OTL masterwork would survive the redhead-releated butterflies. Guess that answers the question. Now the question is how the somewhat less grim zeitgeist affects the show's content...
 

Glen

Moderator
In light of the 27 :)eek:) posts that have been made since my last one, I'm not going to do my normal quote-and-reply response. It would take me far too long to do, and since the last dozen posts or so have been a discussion, I would just be repeating myself anyway. I do want to thank all of you for such an avid interest in my timeline, and that you felt it merited so many posts. I won't argue with that :)

A lot of the Star Trek-related questions, with regards to every aspect of production, as well as the fates of the actors portraying those beloved characters, will be addressed in the two upcoming coda updates. So you'll just have to wait until then for the answers.

We'll hear more about Lucas shortly.

I look forward to these.

One thing I want to nip in the bud right now - there will not be a continuation of "Hogan's Heroes", in any form. I'm sorry, but you can't win them all, especially in a zero-sum medium like television. Saving Star Trek (along with, perhaps, other shows that will be discussed later) inevitably makes it harder to save other programs, and indeed makes it likelier that they'll be cancelled. That's just the way it goes.

I love Hogan's Heroes! I also agree that there is nothing in this timeline's changes that would make me think it would have a different fate from OTL.

As to other series being cancelled or nipped in the bud, I will take it one step further and suggest that the early to mid 1970s will actually be less friendly to fantasy and horror and even comic book superheroes (unless they are couched in science fiction terms, like the way many twilight zone and outer limits episodes were). Reason? The success of sci-fi while an expansion in part will also take some of the available market for escapism and 'otherworldly' entertainment away from such shows - at least until we have a backlash against 'scientifical' fiction and its constraints in favor of fantasy in the 1980s.;)

So now let's get to the main topic of discussion: politics.

From the very beginning, I did not want this to be a political timeline. If you want to read a "Humphrey wins" timeline or discussion, you can probably find upwards of a dozen of them on this site. It's been done. I think that focusing on politics more heavily than I have thus far would do a disservice to the original intent of this timeline, and it would needlessly repeat everything that's already been said in many, many other threads. So those of you who don't really care for the politics, or even actively dislike them - and I know you're out there - don't worry; it's not going to get any worse than it already is.

Now, obviously, I will have to cover politics to some extent, as this is a pop culture timeline. And that's going to be how I will continue to approach politics in the future - with regards to their relevance to popular culture. Like I said before, naming Humphrey's Secretary of the Interior would require a great deal of hassle on my part, for something completely immaterial to the story that I'm trying to tell.

All that said, I do have every intention of continuing my "Appendix B" series of serious political interludes. But they'll be infrequent (say, one every two or three cycles) and crafted to supplement all my other updates, to give them a context. But I do have an ace up my sleeve. There is a television series on the air, starting in 1971, that is acutely politically conscious. In discussing it, I can provide insight into the political situation of TTL while at the same time talking about aspects of popular culture. I think it's a reasonably fresh and unusual approach to this well-worn material, and it's how I'll be covering the 1972 Presidential Election - without actually covering it ;)

I have already decided on all of the Presidential Election victors up to 1988 - it's interesting to read your thoughts on potential candidates, and see how close they are to what I have planned.


I am glad to hear you know the presidents until 1988 - I think some of our speculation and comments were fueled by fear that this would be overlooked without prompting - but you now have reassured so we will just keep doing it to see who guesses right.:D

BTW, someone asked about Chappaquiddick being butterflied away. I suspect that Brainbin is trying to keep this a 'butterfly lite' timeline, where most of the changes only occur when they can be reasonably (if occasionally tenuously) traced back to the POD through a causal chain. I think that is reasonable (also allows greater chance of keeping focus on pop culture). That being said, I don't see anything in that event that is likely changed by the changes in the timeline. Kennedy is likely to go to that sailing regatta regardless, and there's nothing else likely to perturb those events so much as to cancel them from our POD.

The destinies of other political figures have also been substantially changed, and some of them may also come up over the course of this timeline. I'll even share one of them with you now: in 1970, Rep. George Bush, a Republican from Texas, was elected to his third term in Congress, where he served on the House Ways and Means Committee.[/QUOTE]

Yep, that one is a very logical result of dreaming Carol Lombard causing Lucille Ball to choose to stay on as CEO for Desilu and who thus in turn fights harder to get the lead in to Laugh-In for Star Trek causing the founder of Laugh-In to leave in a snit causing Nixon to not show up on Laugh-In which shifts just enopugh support away from him in a less than 1% vote to lose the election, and thus as he is not President he will not encourage (cajole) George HW Bush into running for Senate so he stays in the House, winning his seat easily, and continuing his work in Congress on the House side. (See - I was paying attention!)

Thank you all for your support and advice with regards to politics. Feel free to continue with your political discussions - they're a lot of fun for me to read, knowing what's actually going to happen ITTL :D I simply ask you to respect my timeline's present direction and emphasis.

I shall endeavor to do so.

Thank you for sharing this timeline elsewhere, Your Imperial Majesty! And welcome, Bravofleet readers. There's more Star Trek to come!

Yep, good one, Bravofleet!

Including in the very next update, when we'll discuss the crossover with Doctor Who. It should be ready in the next couple of days.

You said that a couple of days ago, Brainbin! I hope you actually meant in a day!!:eek:
 
Brainbin said:
In light of the 27 :)eek:) posts that have been made since my last one, I'm not going to do my normal quote-and-reply response.
:( Getting lazy?:p
Brainbin said:
One thing I want to nip in the bud right now - there will not be a continuation of "Hogan's Heroes", in any form.
I confess a trifle of disappointment. Not even giving them a wrap/sendoff episode?:(
Brainbin said:
inevitably makes it harder to save other programs, and indeed makes it likelier that they'll be cancelled.
I'd be interested knowing why you think so.
Brainbin said:
From the very beginning, I did not want this to be a political timeline.
...

Now, obviously, I will have to cover politics to some extent, as this is a pop culture timeline. And that's going to be how I will continue to approach politics in the future - with regards to their relevance to popular culture.
Allow me to say, I don't think anyone wants it to be anything but what you want. Me? I only ask you to consider the politics & how they bear on your main themes, & that appears to be where you're going.

So, frex, how out of synch would Archie be (& how much more in synch Meathead) TTL: more than OTL, I wager. Or dealing with OTL issues in other venues: wWithout "MASH", the "returning vet" stories are liable to turn up elsewhere (& did anyhow OTL); TTL, I can imagine more sympathetic treatment, so the OTL spate of crazed killers doesn't obtain. Which would butterfly "Rambo" & could also butterfly "The Stunt Man".:eek::( Or, as mentioned, what things are unlikely to get made at all in the changed climate? Which does impact what you do deal with: frex, what film does Warren Beatty make instead of "Parallax View"? And does that butterfly out another project? Or entirely butterfly somebody's career?:eek:

An aside, & not a demand: have you thought about changes in music? Things like musical guest stars on the likes of "The Tonight Show"? Even very small changes like who does a theme song, or the words? (Yes, I recall the "MTM Show" theme. That was equivocal, IMO.;)) I do realize rewriting the theme to *"AitF" might be more than you want to do...;) (TBH, I don't see changing "Glen Miller" to "Sinatra" is substantive, & without changing the melody, too, changing out "Herbert Hoover" is problematic. Swapping "Oldsmobile" for "LaSalle" has implications for standards of living, with LaSalle a "junior Caddy", which might make more sense given Archie is working class. OTOH, maybe the producers don't want to endorse a surviving brand...;) DeSoto? Or pick a model name? And yes, I do remember the theme.;))
Brainbin said:
I can provide insight into the political situation of TTL while at the same time talking about aspects of popular culture. I think it's a reasonably fresh and unusual approach to this well-worn material, and it's how I'll be covering the 1972 Presidential Election - without actually covering it ;)
:) Works for me.;)
Brainbin said:
I simply ask you to respect my timeline's present direction and emphasis.
Unreservedly.:cool: My rule: get all the advice you can, & if you disagree, ignore it.;) (A rule I think I stole from Norman Spinrad.:p) You have to be happy with it. It's got your name on it.
Mal-3 said:
how the somewhat less grim zeitgeist affects the show's content
Seeing the conflict in values, & the relatively unchanged economic & social conditions compared to OTL, all central to the show, I don't see the differences being big. I can believe Arch would be considered an even worse bigot than he was OTL, if he's no different, but the culture at large is. What might be big is how successful the show is, & how many spinoffs (if any) there are, as well as how successful they are. And earlier (& more successful?) "Jeffersons"? "Maude"? Or early cancellation because Arch is just too much for the society to bear?:eek::(

In the vein of politics impinging on pop culture, some questions for your consideration. Does the Drug War begin? Continue? How is this handled in TV? How is free love? Hippies? Smoking? (Cigarette ads?:p) I'm less interested in the answers than in seeing how you'd do it, & where.;) Feel free to sneak in the answers.:p

Glen said:
I will take it one step further and suggest that the early to mid 1970s will actually be less friendly to fantasy and horror and even comic book superheroes (unless they are couched in science fiction terms, like the way many twilight zone and outer limits episodes were). Reason? The success of sci-fi while an expansion in part will also take some of the available market for escapism and 'otherworldly' entertainment away from such shows - at least until we have a backlash against 'scientifical' fiction and its constraints in favor of fantasy in the 1980s.;)
I don't think so. Broader exposure means larger market generally, & horror, fantasy, & SF have crossed so much, there wouldn't be huge distinctions for most of the audience, nor, IMO, the producers.
Glen said:
BTW, someone asked about Chappaquiddick being butterflied away. I suspect that Brainbin is trying to keep this a 'butterfly lite' timeline, where most of the changes only occur when they can be reasonably (if occasionally tenuously) traced back to the POD through a causal chain.
That makes sense to me. Absent a reason something would change it... I suppose I'm of the view there's "inertia" in events, & changing them can take real effort. TTL, I see any changes outside pop culture being a product of how TV treats things: that is, does, frex, *"All in the Family" make Humphrey more popular with less ridicule than Nixon got OTL? Does, frex, Richard Prior's comedy change how people react enough to change an election's outcome? Does, frex, Springsteen do Carson, get a touch more popular, & have his music ultimately lead to the defeat of Jimmy Carter? IDK. It seems to me these outcomes are possible butterflies deriving from the changed pop culture. There are undoubtedly others.
Glen said:
Brainbin said:
1970, Rep. George Bush, a Republican from Texas, was elected to his third term in Congress, where he served on the House Ways and Means Committee.

Yep, that one is a very logical result ...[Nixon] is not President he will not encourage (cajole) George HW Bush into running for Senate so he stays in the House
This is the kind of thing I mean: impact that isn't immediately apparent.
 
Last edited:
I wondered if Norman's OTL masterwork would survive the redhead-releated butterflies. Guess that answers the question. Now the question is how the somewhat less grim zeitgeist affects the show's content...
As already revealed, the show will be known ITTL as Those Were the Days. The change in title alone is a clue as to how this show will be different from the All in the Family of OTL. The question you ask is an excellent one, which will be answered in great detail in the upcoming post about the show, as it's going to be its primary focus.

I look forward to these.
I certainly have no shortage of material to work with when it comes to the science-fiction update! Thank you all for your contributions!

Glen said:
As to other series being cancelled or nipped in the bud, I will take it one step further and suggest that the early to mid 1970s will actually be less friendly to fantasy and horror and even comic book superheroes (unless they are couched in science fiction terms, like the way many twilight zone and outer limits episodes were). Reason? The success of sci-fi while an expansion in part will also take some of the available market for escapism and 'otherworldly' entertainment away from such shows - at least until we have a backlash against 'scientifical' fiction and its constraints in favor of fantasy in the 1980s.;)
That's a very astute observation. Even in OTL, of all the genre fiction, science-fiction has always had the shiniest pedigree, the loftiest aspirations - there is a certain snobbishness there. Science-fiction becoming popular through the more intellectual and "pure" Star Trek, rather than the "science-fantasy" space opera of Star Wars, might result in a wedge being driven between it and the other "genre" categories, one that doesn't really exist IOTL. It's something to think about in the years ahead.

Glen said:
I am glad to hear you know the presidents until 1988 - I think some of our speculation and comments were fueled by fear that this would be overlooked without prompting - but you now have reassured so we will just keep doing it to see who guesses right.:D
Some of you have been warmer, some of you have been colder. That's all I'm going to say on the matter ;)

Glen said:
BTW, someone asked about Chappaquiddick being butterflied away. I suspect that Brainbin is trying to keep this a 'butterfly lite' timeline, where most of the changes only occur when they can be reasonably (if occasionally tenuously) traced back to the POD through a causal chain. I think that is reasonable (also allows greater chance of keeping focus on pop culture). That being said, I don't see anything in that event that is likely changed by the changes in the timeline. Kennedy is likely to go to that sailing regatta regardless, and there's nothing else likely to perturb those events so much as to cancel them from our POD.
My rationale for Chappaquiddick is thus: even if it doesn't happen that day, something like it is likely to happen in the near future, because Kennedy - without getting into the moral implications of the situation too deeply, as it's obviously a very loaded topic of discussion - "learned" from the experience IOTL, and thereafter avoided such high-risk activities. Assuming it doesn't happen, he wouldn't have.

But you're right; causal chains are very important to me as a writer, because they insulate this timeline from claims of implausibility. (And, at the same time, getting Humphrey into office gives me a whole rabble of butterflies, ready to unleash upon the world in its hour of need.)

Glen said:
Yep, that one is a very logical result of dreaming Carol Lombard causing Lucille Ball to choose to stay on as CEO for Desilu and who thus in turn fights harder to get the lead in to Laugh-In for Star Trek causing the founder of Laugh-In to leave in a snit causing Nixon to not show up on Laugh-In which shifts just enopugh support away from him in a less than 1% vote to lose the election, and thus as he is not President he will not encourage (cajole) George HW Bush into running for Senate so he stays in the House, winning his seat easily, and continuing his work in Congress on the House side. (See - I was paying attention!)
I'm very impressed, good sir :cool: You have it exactly. Indeed, you may find that Nixon, who had his fingers in a whole lot of cookie jars, had a similar effect on quite a number of election results. Not that I'll share any more of them now - why spoil the fun? ;)

Glen said:
You said that a couple of days ago, Brainbin! I hope you actually meant in a day!!:eek:
Actually, I said "in the next few days". A couple is less than a few :cool:

:( Getting lazy?:p
No, I just figured that the readers of this thread might want an official response sometime before the wee hours of this morning :eek:

phx1138 said:
I confess a trifle of disappointment. Not even giving them a wrap/sendoff episode?:(
Most shows didn't get one in those days.

phx1138 said:
I'd be interested knowing why you think so.
Simple. There are only so many timeslots. Keeping one show alive occupies that timeslot, forcing other, weaker shows to be cancelled to free up other timeslots, or prevents new shows from being developed, because there's no room for them. Also, giving a show better ratings naturally threatens the two (or three, or four, or even more, depending on how long an episode runs, and what's running against it) shows on the other two networks. This is why I've often described the television industry as zero-sum.

phx1138 said:
An aside, & not a demand: have you thought about changes in music? Things like musical guest stars on the likes of "The Tonight Show"?
The only substantive comment I've made about music in this entire timeline to date is that the Beatles have broken up on schedule, as most Beatles experts seem to hold the opinion that they were doomed without Brian Epstein, and I won't argue with that. And yes, he died in August 1967, which is technically after my POD; but the butterflies won't be reaching Britain until early 1969.

phx1138 said:
Even very small changes like who does a theme song, or the words? (Yes, I recall the "MTM Show" theme. That was equivocal, IMO.;)) I do realize rewriting the theme to *"AitF" might be more than you want to do...;)
We'll be hearing more about the theme song (including whether or not it's changed) in the update for Those Were the Days.

phx1138 said:
Unreservedly.:cool: My rule: get all the advice you can, & if you disagree, ignore it.;) [...] You have to be happy with it. It's got your name on it.
I like that philosophy :D

phx1138 said:
Seeing the conflict in values, & the relatively unchanged economic & social conditions compared to OTL, all central to the show, I don't see the differences being big. I can believe Arch would be considered an even worse bigot than he was OTL, if he's no different, but the culture at large is. What might be big is how successful the show is, & how many spinoffs (if any) there are, as well as how successful they are. And earlier (& more successful?) "Jeffersons"? "Maude"? Or early cancellation because Arch is just too much for the society to bear?:eek::(
I actually have some very strong opinions on what made All in the Family successful IOTL: how it affected people; why it remains popular today; what worked about it and what didn't; what the producers and writers got right and what they got wrong. I think they'll become clear over the course of my updates about Those Were the Days, by highlighting those subtle differences.

phx1138 said:
In the vein of politics impinging on pop culture, some questions for your consideration. Does the Drug War begin? Continue? How is this handled in TV? How is free love? Hippies? Smoking? (Cigarette ads?:p) I'm less interested in the answers than in seeing how you'd do it, & where.;) Feel free to sneak in the answers.:p
Those are all interesting things to think about. I'll do my best :p

The Doctor Who crossover update should be ready today or tomorrow.
 
That's a very astute observation. Even in OTL, of all the genre fiction, science-fiction has always had the shiniest pedigree, the loftiest aspirations - there is a certain snobbishness there. Science-fiction becoming popular through the more intellectual and "pure" Star Trek, rather than the "science-fantasy" space opera of Star Wars, might result in a wedge being driven between it and the other "genre" categories, one that doesn't really exist IOTL. It's something to think about in the years ahead.

Though there could still be some rift between the truly "snobbish" sci-fi people and Star Trek fans, with the former trying to push ST into the realm of fantasy becasue "real sci-fi requires only one are where one must suspend disbelief." And, Star Trek's transporters, faster than light speed, and a few other thigns will be cited as making it fantasy.

However, there is a certain element of realism that the ST fans can throw back that they couldn't in OTL; they can't claim that Dr. McCoy's medical abilities are total fantasy like they could in OTL with Spock's Brain part of the canon. (I have this great line in a ST:TNG crossver fic I helped someone else with where they go to the universe of a sitcom, but where each other is fictional int he other's universe. And someone is sort of starting to buy into it until they realize that Spock's Brain happened, at which point they are *really* shocked:eek::D)

So, it's probably going to be a little easier for Star Trek fans to argue it's not fantasy than they could OTL. Plus, I'm not sure, perhaps it was only after the Star Wars success that it wound up being labelled as fantasy by some.

(And if you really need the link, http://www.fanfiction.net/s/2041064/1/bSometimes_b_They_bGrow_b_bUp_b_bWay_b_bToo_b_Fast
it's story about how the TNG Enterprise battles aliens who make these suddenly aging them, the 2 Darrens in Bewirtched, etc., with special appearance by Mork who accidentally altered the space-time contiuum in Happy days to impact Chuck Cunnignham. :D Though the story originates with them changing Chrissy on Growing pains, where she went from 2 to 7 in one summer.)
 
DTF955Baseballfan said:
Though there could still be some rift between the truly "snobbish" sci-fi people and Star Trek fans, with the former trying to push ST into the realm of fantasy becasue "real sci-fi requires only one are where one must suspend disbelief." And, Star Trek's transporters, faster than light speed, and a few other thigns will be cited as making it fantasy.
You might. IMO, the argument will be more between the "hard SF" & "soft SF" camps (the difference between "Destination Moon" &, IDK, "Scanners"), with the fantasy crowd populated with believers in dragons. (I might say, even magic, if it relied on systematic laws, could be handled as SF.)
Brainbin said:
As already revealed, the show will be known ITTL as Those Were the Days. The change in title alone is a clue as to how this show will be different from the All in the Family of OTL. The question you ask is an excellent one, which will be answered in great detail in the upcoming post about the show, as it's going to be its primary focus.
Awaiting eagerly.;)
Brainbin said:
That's a very astute observation. Even in OTL, of all the genre fiction, science-fiction has always had the shiniest pedigree, the loftiest aspirations - there is a certain snobbishness there. Science-fiction becoming popular through the more intellectual and "pure" Star Trek, rather than the "science-fantasy" space opera of Star Wars, might result in a wedge being driven between it and the other "genre" categories, one that doesn't really exist IOTL. It's something to think about in the years ahead.
I've never gotten that sense at all. I do think you get demanding fans, when it's hard SF. (Think Ringworld, frex: where else would fans have noticed the Ringworld was unstable, & worked it out?:eek:) I also think, tho, the fandom is very welcoming of interesting ideas (maybe demanding of good & original ones, but even so). And I may be in the minority who will accept horror-themed material, tho TBH I don't think so.

Fantasy, OTOH, has never seemed to be excluded. There's a different fanbase, & the crossover between the Tolkeins & the Heinleins is mightily small, but I've never noticed the other clan being pushed out of the tent.;)
Some of you have been warmer, some of you have been colder. That's all I'm going to say on the matter ;) (Did I explain the difference already? Or was that another thread?:eek:)

There's also a substantial crossover with mystery fans, who are just as demanding of credibility. It's very common to see fans of Niven & Heinlein also being fans of, say, John D. MacDonald or Marcia Muller. (Looking at it, I didn't realize: Godwulf Manuscript was 1973, & the first Nameless, The Snatch, was 1971.:eek::cool::cool:)
Brainbin said:
But you're right; causal chains are very important to me as a writer, because they insulate this timeline from claims of implausibility.
Let me say, you need not avoid the longshots, necessarily. OTL, Carter becoming POTUS or the Mets winning a Pennant might be on very long odds; TTL, maybe not...since it's already a distinctly different TL. With the right chain of events, & explanation, you could get the Bills a Super Bowl ring.:p (You might have to have The Marlboro Man get "accidentally" run over by a Harley Davidson, tho.:p {FYI: Mulder called him that exactly once. Then the lawers got a call...:p })
Brainbin said:
No, I just figured that the readers of this thread might want an official response sometime before the wee hours of this morning :eek:
:eek: Irony does not translate well in text at all.:eek:;)
Brainbin said:
Most shows didn't get one in those days.
Nor now, I know. Just kind of hoping you'd be a kindly dictator.:p
Brainbin said:
Simple. There are only so many timeslots. Keeping one show alive occupies that timeslot, forcing other, weaker shows to be cancelled to free up other timeslots, or prevents new shows from being developed, because there's no room for them. Also, giving a show better ratings naturally threatens the two (or three, or four, or even more, depending on how long an episode runs, and what's running against it) shows on the other two networks. This is why I've often described the television industry as zero-sum.
Understood. IDK if I entirely agree, but I haven't exactly studied all the shows that were on the air, & got cancelled, in this period, so I can't say which ones survived because of "ST" being dropped & which might get dropped for "ST" doing noticeably better. I suppose I'd wonder, & this really is unknowable, if a show with weak ratings on, say, Monday, would do as poorly, worse, or better on another night. (I suppose I tend to default to handwaving in shows I like.:rolleyes::p I don't need no stinking Neilsens.:p)
Brainbin said:
The only substantive comment I've made about music
Just offering food for thought, as always.
Brainbin said:
We'll be hearing more about the theme song (including whether or not it's changed) in the update for Those Were the Days.
:cool:
Brainbin said:
I like that philosophy :D
It really has to be the way a creator works. Somebody has to have final say, or you get a camel.:rolleyes:
Brainbin said:
I actually have some very strong opinions on what made All in the Family successful IOTL: how it affected people; why it remains popular today; what worked about it and what didn't; what the producers and writers got right and what they got wrong. I think they'll become clear over the course of my updates about Those Were the Days, by highlighting those subtle differences.
Since I really don't,;) I look forward to seeing how your "AitF" differs from the one I remember.:) And from the one I might've done, if I'd been Norman Lear in 1971.:p (Which, as ITV broadcasting god:cool::p Murray Walker would cogently point out, I am not.:p {Needless to say, IMO, among racing commentators, there is Murray, & there is everyone else.;)})

Which reminds me: do you forsee butterflies affecting racing films at all? It's a bit late for "Grand Prix", so it's still a soap opera masquerading as a racing movie:rolleyes: (even tho it's still got the best damn race footage I've ever seen:cool::cool:), but "Winning" was '69 (debut of a really quite young Richard Thomas, later John Walton, Jr:cool:), & "Le Mans" '71.

And thinking of "The Waltons", do I see a more G-rated TV universe? An earlier "Waltons"? (Looking at the WP page, I see that's not really an issue...:eek: I had the sense it debuted later OTL.) An earlier &/or slightly different "Rockford" (OTL at Universal)?
Brainbin said:
Those are all interesting things to think about. I'll do my best :p
If I give you even one good idea, or lead you to find one, I call it a good day indeed.:)
 
Last edited:

Glen

Moderator
phx when I talkedabout sci fi squeezing out fantasy I was also thinking in the plans of television execs.
 
Doctor Who and the Enterprise
Doctor Who and the Enterprise (1970-71)

"Any suggestions, Bones?"
"Me? I’m a doctor, not… not the Doctor."


- Captain James T. Kirk and Dr. Leonard "Bones" McCoy, "Lords of Time and Space, Part II" / "Starship from the Future", Episode 3

In initial preparation for the crossover, it was agreed on all sides that, in hopes of appealing to the American audience, the Doctor's new companion (an audience surrogate character) would also be American. However, there would be no additional time for the BBC or the producers of Doctor Who to conduct a casting call in the USA, and they did not want to entrust that responsibility to NBC or Desilu. Therefore, the natural solution was to hire an American expatriate living in London. In a stroke of good fortune, they hit upon a promising candidate very early on, after having started their search by looking at young women connected to the BBC.

Connie Booth [1] was married to John Cleese, a member of the Monty Python troupe, who starred in "Monty Python's Flying Circus" on the BBC. Booth had appeared on the program, but had relatively little television experience otherwise. Cleese personally vouched for her abilities, and she did have the advantage of being fresh-faced - ideal for an audience surrogate. Booth agreed to commit to the program for at least two seasons of episodes, and to return to her native land for filming. Her character was given the name Linda Johnson [2] - initially "Jackson", but it was changed at the last minute because of the similarity to British actress Glenda Jackson.

The final script was credited to four people: Gene Coon; D.C. Fontana; Doctor Who Story Editor Terrance Dicks; and frequent writer Robert Holmes. Clearances with the Writer's Guild of America were extremely cumbersome to arrange, though fortunately it was one of the few tasks that could be tackled well in advance of all the others. Many of the other Star Trek writers had a hand in the script, particularly the scenes dealing exclusively with the crew of the Enterprise. The shooting schedule was another logistical nightmare, but eventually it was settled that those scenes with only the Star Trek characters would be shot first, followed by the location scenes with both sets of characters, followed by the on-set scenes, and finally, pickup shots in London (mainly those set within the Doctor's peculiar vehicle, the TARDIS). Those scenes not featuring any characters from Doctor Who were shot in May, three weeks in advance of the arrival of the principals from London. In the closing days of that month, six - and only six - people arrived in Hollywood: Dicks; Holmes; director-producer Barry Letts; Jon Pertwee, who played the Doctor; Booth; and Roger Delgado, chosen to portray the main villain.

Actually, the situation was somewhat more complicated than that. The writers had planned for an over-arcing villain who would serve as the antagonist of each serial for the entire eighth season: a fellow Time Lord, like the Doctor, who was created as his equal and opposite. They were willing to compromise on the casting of the Doctor's new companion - obviously, they would have preferred a British woman - but they were resolute on Delgado for the part of the Master. It was later noted by several members of the Star Trek crew that the Master somewhat resembled the nefarious Klingon Captain Kor, the primary antagonist of their own program.

After the filming in Hollywood at the Desilu studios and in the backlot, the cast and crew of Doctor Who returned to London to film the TARDIS scenes. The plot called for Spock and Scotty to investigate the mysterious craft, so Leonard Nimoy and James Doohan were able to take an all-expenses paid trip to England for a few days. [3] Those scenes were directed by Letts, who was credited (in the United States) for the second part of the two-parter; Marc Daniels, who directed the American footage, was credited for the first part. In the UK, both directors were jointly credited for all four episodes of the arc, even though no footage by Letts appeared in either of the first two episodes. Altogether, the shooting schedule was 16 days, completed (with the footage flown back to Hollywood, along with Nimoy and Doohan) by mid-June. The first part of the two-parter was due to air on September 14, 1970, in the United States; and the first of the four-episode arc on January 2, 1971, in the United Kingdom. [4] As per the agreement between Desilu and the BBC, the American studio handled all aspects of post-production (with the help of the necessary sound effects from the BBC library), with the exception of the music; as the soundtrack styles for the two programs were distinctly different, they would have to continue to be scored separately.

With regards to the plot,
the Enterprise encounters a mysterious source of unusual waves of temporal distortions. To Mr. Spock's surprise, the source appears to be moving at warp speed. Kirk orders Scotty to fire up the engines in pursuit, and the ship does indeed catch up with the mysterious vessel (said to be "smaller than one of our shuttles"). In following the peculiar entity, Sulu notes that the chronometer is moving backward; they are travelling through time. It eventually becomes clear that they have followed the machine to Earth, in the "early 1970s" (the year is deliberately left ambiguous). Arriving in the United States, several crew members beam down, in an attempt to determine the source of these waves. While conducting their investigation, they encounter an enigmatic individual who claims that he can be of some assistance; he calls himself "the Doctor", working on behalf of the United Nations Intelligence Taskforce. Though the library computer aboard the Enterprise provides the history of UNIT, it does not discuss the "Doctor", who refuses to provide his real name; and tricorder scans reveal him to be non-human. Kirk becomes increasingly frustrated with their so-called ally, until he finally reveals the truth about himself: he is a Time Lord, and he believes that their quarry is another Time Lord; far more malevolent than he.

The Master is not content to spend time in hiding; he begins launching attacks against the good people of the United States, with the help of recurring adversaries, the Autons. [5] During the course of the adventure, a young female bystander named Linda Johnson finds herself embroiled in the crossfire. With continued tensions between the Doctor and the crew of the Enterprise, both sides part company, attempting to seek out the Master on their own terms. The Doctor is able to find the Master first; but in tracking him down, little does he know that he too is being followed, by Johnson. It's all for naught, however, as the two of them find themselves caught in a trap. Their rescue comes from an unlikely, but at the same time, entirely expected source: the Enterprise. The crew beams down, rescuing the Doctor and his companion, but allowing the Master to escape. Captain Kirk and the Doctor finally put their differences behind them, with the Enterprise bidding the Doctor and his new companion farewell, departing Earth to take a slingshot back to their own native time.

American and British audiences naturally had different responses to the crossover. American audiences, being unfamiliar with the Doctor, weren't entirely sure what to make of him. The character of Linda, though intended as an audience surrogate, did not prove entirely successful in this role, given that the viewers already identified with the crew of the Enterprise. However, audiences were intrigued not only by certain aspects of the Doctor, but also by the character of the Master. They noted his resemblance to Kor, and that he seemed a good deal more clever and devious. The promise of continued clashes between the Doctor and the Master in the future provided the narrative hook that made further adventures an appealing prospect. British audiences also had mixed reactions, though for different reasons. By early 1971, the third season of Star Trek was being broadcast on the BBC, and viewers were therefore familiar with the crew of the Enterprise. However, they were even more familiar with the Doctor, and seeing the adventure being told from their perspective, rather than his, made little sense to them. Despite this, fan reception was very positive, as they were aware that they were watching history in the making. Seeing Captain Kirk, Spock, Bones, and Scotty all interacting with the Doctor was a thrill to them.

Starting in the summer of 1970, Desilu sold the earlier seasons of Doctor Who into syndication [6], in anticipation of the crossover that fall. Surprisingly, the show became a sleeper success; that, plus mostly good reaction to the actual two-part episode, convinced NBC to buy the rest of the eighth season from the BBC. Doctor Who would begin airing in a weekly timeslot in September of 1971, Mondays at 8:00 PM.

---

[1] Yes, I've just cast Polly Sherman as a Doctor Who companion.


[2] Linda was the second-most common name for baby girls in the US in the 1940s and 1950s; Johnson is the second most common surname in the United States (it ranks seventh in the UK). The most common names, Mary and Smith, were deemed too generic. At least, when used in combination. Perhaps one or the other, when combined with a slightly more interesting name, could be useful.

[3]
One publicity photo was taken by Letts, and features the two of them in the TARDIS along with Pertwee and Booth.

[4] In both cases, the first of these episodes functions as the season premiere.

[5] The Autons, automated mannequin creatures, were the featured adversaries in the OTL serial that this crossover replaced: "Terror of the Autons". They were added here to raise the stakes, and because they were easy for Desilu costumers and prop masters to fabricate.

[6] Many of these off-the-dial UHF stations that carried Doctor Who at the oddest hours are the same ones that, IOTL, decided to make room for that little show about boldly going where no man has gone before.

---

So there you have it! Doctor Who is coming to America - on one of the Big Three networks, in a weekly timeslot! And as far as the tone of the crossover, think "Terror of the Autons" meets "Assignment: Earth". Far from the best for either show, given the inevitable clash of characteristics, but considered an important piece of television history even in the present day of TTL. As it should be...
 
Last edited:
Glen said:
phx when I talkedabout sci fi squeezing out fantasy I was also thinking in the plans of television execs.
Noted. Knowing the average suit, tho, hard SF will appeal far less than soft SF or fantasy, since it doesn't require understanding hard things, like the Grandfather Paradox, or what a supernova is, or the speed of light.:rolleyes:
 
I'll be the first to comment on the Doctor Who/Star Trek crossover, and I thought it was excellent! Well, the update was, the actual episode was probably mediocre, but hey, I think that's what Brainbin was going for.

And it doesn't matter, because now Cyberman, Silurians, and Daleks are canon in the Star Trek universe.:D
 
Top