That Wacky Redhead

[stevep]

The movies update may take a little while. As you all know, 'tis the season to be jolly, and that omnipresent being known as RL is threatening to intervene on my progress with this timeline. So it could be as late as Tuesday or Wednesday. Then again, it could be ready as early as tonight, though I doubt it. In other words, expect it between those two extremes.

And the update after that, the first part of my long-awaited carrot to British readers, should be ready no later than Christmas Day. Though, considering that I appear to have a large contingent of British readers already, this leads me to make one of two conclusions: Either you're enjoying my timeline anyway, even before I've deployed my big surprise, which makes me wonder if I should even present it at all; or, you're reading only in anticipation of my surprise, and if you find it disappointing, you'll all leave and never come back

Whatever the case may be, that's what you can expect in the next week. Thank you everyone, for your continued support, and feel free to keep the questions and answers coming! I'll still be here to respond to them

Brainbin

Sounds an interesting next week and be intrigued to find out what the carrot for me is. However I will refuse to comment on them for about a fortnight, simply because I'll be away at my mum's for the holidays from Tuesday. So will catch up when I get back. Have the thread subscribed, just not sure how much of the discussion I'll remember then.

Steve

 

[Glen]

So what cartoon gets shown/produced in place of ST:TAS ITTL?

 

[neamathla]

So what cartoon gets shown/produced in place of ST:TAS ITTL?

What else, but Cat Trek.

 

[Glen]

What else, but Cat Trek.

U scare me.

 

[Glen]

What else, but Cat Trek.

U scare me.

 

[The Professor]

U scare me.

U scare me.

*plays soothing music and makes tea*

There there. The bad neamathla has gone.

 

[phx1138]

So what cartoon gets shown/produced in place of ST:TAS ITTL?

"Pigs in Space"?

 

[Brainbin]

First things first: thank you to everyone for 10,000 views! It means a lot to me that this esoteric little timeline seems to have caught on, and I hope you all continue to enjoy reading what I have planned in the year ahead, both literally and figuratively speaking

Second things second:

Dare I say, these are almost as good as the updates? The conversation is often as thought-provoking.

Oh, go on

I'm suggesting only that we, the audience, be free to speculate. On the off-chance we give you a good idea, so much the better. I would never, never, ever suggest you give away the surprises. (An occasional teasing hint, OTOH...)

Fear not; hints will come, in their own delightfully obtuse manner. Go on back and take a look at my responses on page 1, for example

And OTL there's been a fair bit of nonsense in opposition to powersats, not least cost & the prospect of cooking birds in flight. (None of the proposals I've seen would rely on output that "hot".)

You don't think that would stop the hysteria, do you? Look at Three Mile Island IOTL. Assuming Microwave Power gets the OK ITTL, be prepared for a very similar reaction to even the slightest setback or miscalculation.

The right "type", & often as much, the right name. Whatever you think of his acting, how many roles has Tom Cruise gotten simply by being Tom Cruise? By doing nothing more than having a successful last film? How many actresses have seen their careers disappear after one bad film? (And, typically hypocritcal Hollywood, how many actors haven't, who should have?) (This is getting into Hollywood's tendency to put the blame on the actor for bad directing &/or script &/or production... Frex: was it Kristy Swanson's fault "Buffy" was a turkey? Or Halle's that "Catwoman" was? Not really...)

I agree, men are much more able to shrug off failure than women in Hollywood. But then, the careers of male actors in general are more durable, and certainly have greater longevity.

I don't mean to go that far, just to say a black character indistinguishable in POV from a white one is no more a true portrayal than the "Hollywood Indian", & should be shunned for the same reasons.

Well, it depends on the setting. If you're depicting a post-racial society, then shouldn't the POV be indistinguishable, by definition?

I was thinking of the finale, only. Absent somebody not being able to handle the schedule (or Shat's ego) any more & deciding to "get on the shuttle" (to borrow a phrase).

My point was, I don't think it would have occurred to Nimoy, because he certainly had plenty of opportunities to suggest this possibility IOTL before TWOK... and yet he never did. And he always defers credit for the idea to Harve Bennett, so it didn't even occur to him then.

There are, not least directing. IDK if "actor-director" was near as common then as now.

IMDb tells us that Nimoy's first directorial credit IOTL dates to 1973... for an episode of "Night Gallery". Just some food for thought

To be clear, if I wasn't, I had in mind not "Desilu as ILM" but "'ST' as idea factory", which attracts talent, & said talent (possibly) coalesces into an alt-ILM (or something like it), only in the '60s, rather than on OTL schedule. Given there's more SF being made, with the success of "ST" TTL, an "idea factory" to respond to all their needs isn't outrageous. If it's also making producers think about SF films they didn't otherwise, so much the better for *ILM.

Intriguing suggestion. We'll have to see where the effects crew of Star Trek find themselves after the show wraps production.

Ah, well. A flaw in the concept I'd fix if I were doing a TL (& didn't decide to completely change everything).

Fun fact: this POD is just about the latest possible to save Star Trek, and keep the first and second seasons largely intact - while, at the same time, laying the foundations for a much stronger third season and beyond.

(or, indeed, "Enemy Within", which for some reason I keep calling "Wolf in the Fold").

No, no, "Wolf in the Fold" is "The One With Piglet"

Each individual episode is good on its own merits, but the cumulative effect is poisonous. As David points out (& you see this in "Sliders", too, for the same reasons), it means Kirk & Co have to lose their communicators. Once is a mistake, twice is bad luck; more than that, they're idiots. The transporter requies it every time.

Funny, I believe Sulu was in contact with the crew in "The Enemy Within". And Kirk and Spock were talking in "The Doomsday Machine". And the problem in "Obsession" was that the explosion was affecting the transporters. Granted, they were cut off in "Mirror, Mirror", but that was a parallel universe. Would you like to try again?

And I'm coming up with these off the top of my head. Surely Gene, Gene L., & D.C. could've, too...

They're good ideas, but this is where you and I will have to agree to disagree. That the transporters alone can be responsible for all of these plot elements indicates how useful it is as a writing tool; for this reason alone, I doubt the writers would ever eliminate it. Indeed, I've heard it said that the transporters are more integral to Star Trek than the actual starships! Not sure if I'd go that far...

Nor was saying "Let's head back to the shuttle/landing craft." out of bounds, even if we don't see it. Nor am I entirely convinced there's a need: do you need to see Friday's car to know he uses it?

Star Trek is about exploring strange new worlds; seeing the means of exploring these worlds is obviously going to be weighted differently. I think a more apt comparison would be this: No, we don't need to see Friday's car, but we do need to see Friday's badge.

As for disliking Kyle, no. Not a particular fan, either, tho. I'd rather, as I imagine you've guessed, they'd cast a Security Officer as a regular, instead. How much need is there for a guy to stand at the transporter station, really? (I know, until there's a crisis, which is, what, every other episode?)

And that's why they need him so often But seriously, as I've said before, clearly the staff liked Winston, because they kept bringing him back. Given more money, they'd bring him back more often. I think he'd make a pretty good straight man, given the quirkiness of Scotty, Chekov, and TTL Sulu, whose serial hobbyist personality is re-established (to the point of giving him an actual catchphrase ITTL: "Well, I've always been a fan of...").

Neither. Enjoying the TL doesn't preclude liking a surprise, & should it not be as surprising as you thought, I, for one, am liking it enough not to care. I'll be here anyhow.

Thank you

With that in mind, in the spirit of the season, hoist a glass to friends & enjoy the company. Best of the season to all. And don't drink & beam.

Indeed. Season's greetings to one and all! Eat, drink, and be merry. And remember, if you're teetotal, or almost entirely teetotal, be sure to do the right thing and appoint yourself the Designated Transporter Chief

Sounds an interesting next week and be intrigued to find out what the carrot for me is. However I will refuse to comment on them for about a fortnight, simply because I'll be away at my mum's for the holidays from Tuesday. So will catch up when I get back. Have the thread subscribed, just not sure how much of the discussion I'll remember then.

Have a wonderful time, Steve! It's always best to spend this time of year with loved ones

So what cartoon gets shown/produced in place of ST:TAS ITTL?

Excellent question. The answer for now is, simply, "Whatever Filmation can get their grubby hands on".

What else, but Cat Trek.

Thank you for the contribution, neamathla! ...I think

U scare me.

U scare me.

Oh my, Glen, looks like you made a double post! Perhaps you had better talk to a moderator about that

(In all seriousness, is there an in-joke or something that I'm missing here? The posts were made hours apart...)

*plays soothing music and makes tea*

There there. The bad neamathla has gone.

Indeed. Also, I hope you made enough tea for everyone, Professor. I take mine with milk and honey, thank you

"Pigs in Space"?

Another Muppets reference! Take a shot, everyone!

Thank you for all your comments! I have some good news; it looks like the next update will be ready tomorrow! So until then!

 

[Glen]

Oh my, Glen, looks like you made a double post! Perhaps you had better talk to a moderator about that

(In all seriousness, is there an in-joke or something that I'm missing here? The posts were made hours apart...)

Well, I actually posted that the first time while walking from my car on my Kindle. Then, several hours later, I accidentally hit the back button a few times and then my enter button, and thus was the several hour apart double post born.

 

[neamathla]

U scare me.

Hey, in the early 70's we had take our Trek where we could get it. It was probably some kids first intro James Thurber.

 

[The Professor]

Indeed. Also, I hope you made enough tea for everyone, Professor. I take mine with milk and honey, thank you

No worries. I've also made some with gin for those who cannae change the laws of physics

 

[Brainbin]

A Night At The Movies

During the late 1960s, the American motion picture industry had been undergoing a dramatic change from the status quo of the previous few decades. This could be attributed to the fall of the fabled studio system, which had kept Hollywood running like a well-oiled machine; it had rivaled even television in terms of its efficiency, and dwarfed it greatly in terms of sheer scale. The term "studio system" referred to the apparatus by which an oligarchy of Hollywood conglomerates controlled all the means of film production and distribution. As each conglomerate during the Golden Age owned both a studio and a theatre chain, they all had complete control over which theatres would show which films at which times. The courts interpreted this as a violation of existing antitrust laws in a landmark 1948 decision, and one-by-one, each of the conglomerates was subsequently dismantled.

As the creative control exercised by studios weakened, a new generation of writers and directors began to take inspiration from stylistic movements around the world, such as the French New Wave; as well as individuals, including the Japanese director, Akira Kurosawa. The final stumbling block between the dying days of Old Hollywood and the era that would replace it, which naturally came to be called New Hollywood, was the Hays Code. This was an instrument of censorship that had been in force since 1934. The "Miracle Decision" of 1952, yet another key court ruling with regards to the industry, recognized motion pictures as art; this overturned a ruling that had been made in 1915, during the infancy of the medium, regarding them as solely the end products of a business. From that point forward, compulsory censorship was technically illegal; though it wasn't until 1968 that the Motion Picture Association of America, which created and enforced the Hays Code, finally replaced it with a "voluntary" ratings system, following in the footsteps of many of the other Western Democracies.

The MPAA Ratings System sorted all films into four categories: G (for General Audiences), M (Mature Audiences), R (Restricted), and X (Adults Only); however, audiences were confused by the ambiguity of these ratings, resulting in M being replaced by GP (General Audiences – Parental Guidance Suggested), in 1970. [1] Only films rated R and X were to refuse younger audiences – under age 17 – admission, though children would be allowed into an R-rated film if they had parental supervision. All of these ratings were trademarked by the MPAA, meaning that only they would be allowed to designate films with said ratings – except for the X-rating, until 1970. [2]

If any single film could be said to have heralded the beginning of the New Hollywood era, it would be 1967's Bonnie and Clyde. Replete with French New Wave influences, it was the beginning of a revolution, led by Young Turk figures such as Warren Beatty, that film's star, producer, and uncredited script doctor. Other popular, envelope-pushing movies of this era included Midnight Cowboy, the first X-rated film to receive the Academy Award for Best Picture [3], The Graduate, Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, Easy Rider, and Five Easy Pieces.

1970 saw the release of three major war films, the first batch of such films that could be called "modern", having been produced under the new, relaxed censorship laws, and following the conclusion of an unpopular overseas quagmire: Patton, a biography of the eponymous WWII general; Tora! Tora! Tora!, a historical recreation of the events surrounding Pearl Harbor, seen from both the American and the Japanese perspectives; and, finally, M*A*S*H, ostensibly an adaptation of a novel set during the Korean War, but more obviously a transparent critique of certain, more recent foreign entanglements.

Tora! Tora! Tora!, an American-Japanese co-production, was praised for its ambition and historical faithfulness, but many critics failed to find the film sufficiently entertaining. Audiences certainly weren’t in any rush to see a very dry, expository documentary-style film, especially not one that portrayed the Japanese – defeated only 25 years earlier – in a sympathetic light. Perhaps the most interesting tidbit related to the film was who was originally intended to direct the Japanese segments – none other than Akira Kurosawa. However, an auteur of his caliber found himself chaffing in such a tightly-controlled, restrictive environment, and he and the studio soon parted ways.

Patton, covering the theatre on the opposite side of the world from the Pacific, starred George C. Scott as General George S. Patton, perhaps the most talented general officer of the entire war, and certainly one of the most controversial. A mostly positive portrayal of Patton, his philosophy, and his exploits, it also took great pains to detail his many flaws. One of the biggest hits of the year, it was universally praised for Scott's indelible performance as Patton, including by those who personally knew the general, who all claimed that he had truly captured his essence. The film was a smash hit, the third-biggest of 1970 [4], behind only the melodramatic Love Story, and the seminal disaster movie, Airport. All three films were nominated for the Academy Award for Best Picture of that year.

And finally, there was M*A*S*H. Directed by an iconoclastic New Hollywood figure named Robert Altman, he took the script – written by veteran Ring Lardner, Jr. – and figuratively tore it to shreds, largely improvising the film’s dialogue. Disliked by the cast and by executives, Altman remained entrenched as director, but the end result – though critically well-received – was a failure at the box-office.

At the Academy Awards – also known as the Oscars – ceremony recognizing the best in film for 1970, held on April 15, 1971, Patton was given the award for Best Picture. For his portrayal of the eponymous character of Patton, the Oscar for Actor in a Leading Role was awarded to George C. Scott, who famously refused the award, calling the entire proceedings a "meat parade". He did formally ask the Academy to present his Oscar to the Patton Museum many years after the fact; they duly complied, and it remains there to this day. [5] M*A*S*H, on the other hand, went home empty-handed. [6] Seen by many as a needlessly provocative and irreverent piece, its failure capsized the career of once-promising director Altman, who became the first casualty of New Hollywood, and was scapegoated not only by the studio, but by certain members of the cast, including stars Elliot Gould and Donald Sutherland. [7]

The late 1960s, moving into the 1970s, marked an era of great creativity and exploration for the art of cinema in the United States, and this fertile period would eventually reach television, as well. The future of New Hollywood with regards to these two very diverse media would naturally meet two very different fates…

---

[1] IOTL and ITTL, GP would also be replaced, by the more familiar PG (Parental Guidance), in 1972.

[2] The X-rating was never trademarked by the MPAA in OTL. This resulted in its use by promoters who wanted to give their films an identifiably "adult" label. The pornography industry – which reached its mainstream peak in this decade – took full advantage, inventing the XXX "rating" to indicate "hardcore" releases. This discredited the X-rating, resulting in the NC-17 rating that replaced it in 1990.

[3] And, IOTL, the only X-rated film to win the award.

[4] IOTL, Patton was "only" the fourth-biggest hit of 1970, behind M*A*S*H at #3. Note that, IOTL, the four top-grossing movies of the year were all also nominated for Best Picture.

[5] Scott did give this instruction to the Academy, who ignored it because it was not submitted in writing. IOTL, the Oscar is displayed at the Virginia Military Institute, which Patton attended.

[6] The film received one Oscar IOTL: the award for Best Adapted Screenplay. As all the dialogue was improvised, this is often considered one of the more dubious Oscars (in terms of eligibility, that is, and not subjective merit). An important note: either screenplay award (Adapted or Original, depending on the source material) is sometimes viewed as a "consolation" prize, or as an award to the "real" best picture of the year, which cannot actually be awarded Best Picture for various political reasons.

[7] Taking a big risk and making a bold gamble can only be successful when it pays off. When it doesn't, well… IOTL, Sutherland and Gould also spoke very poorly of Altman and attempted to have him fired; though ITTL they were vindicated, IOTL, they were not. Gould personally apologized to Altman; Sutherland did not, and the actor and director never worked together again.

---

In addition to giving you a primer on the creative atmosphere of Hollywood in this era, I've also shared with you some very important exposition that justifies one of the biggest butterflies to hit American television. Granted, it was only logical given what I've revealed so far, but I thought I should mention it now anyway, especially since one of my readers has specifically asked after it.


Yes, this means that "M*A*S*H", the series, will not exist ITTL. Why would anyone want a show, based on a flop movie, which itself satirized an overseas conflict that has already ended? So now I've killed two beloved 1970s series. Although one could say that "M*A*S*H" killed itself, given the antics of the film’s auteur director blowing up in its face. Well, Suicide is Painless, apparently…

 

[phx1138]

Oh, go on

Seriously. You're getting at hard issues, & making me think about it, if only to say where I stand. Of all the things I like about this site (& they are many), it's doing that I like best. So, my thanks.

Fear not; hints will come

You don't think that would stop the hysteria, do you? Look at Three Mile Island IOTL. Assuming Microwave Power gets the OK ITTL, be prepared for a very similar reaction to even the slightest setback or miscalculation.

Probably not. Thing is, that is strictly hysteria. Powersats, designed correctly, simply can't have the failures of TMI or Chernobyl.

I agree, men are much more able to shrug off failure than women in Hollywood. But then, the careers of male actors in general are more durable, and certainly have greater longevity.

It's the underlying sexism that I'm getting at. Hollywood won't allow a woman more than about 1 terrible film. And who was it said, for women in Hollywood, there are only 3 ages: babe, D.A., & "Driving Miss Daisy"...

Well, it depends on the setting. If you're depicting a post-racial society, then shouldn't the POV be indistinguishable, by definition?

Maybe. IMO, experience & history will govern POV, & may (not will, necessarily) always. In the same way, frex, a Jewish POV will vary from a Protestant one. Black would, too.

My point was, I don't think it would have occurred to Nimoy, because he certainly had plenty of opportunities to suggest this possibility IOTL before TWOK... and yet he never did. And he always defers credit for the idea to Harve Bennett, so it didn't even occur to him then.

I'm not saying any of them would ask for a death scene, necessarily, only not oppose one. Especially if the show's going off the air anyhow. Of if they're quitting it.

IMDb tells us that Nimoy's first directorial credit IOTL dates to 1973... for an episode of "Night Gallery". Just some food for thought

As I said, directing is an option. With TOS lasting longer, & a different team on "Night Gallery" TTL, who's to say Leonard doesn't join them as a regular director?

We'll have to see where the effects crew of Star Trek find themselves after the show wraps production.

I can wait.

Fun fact: this POD is just about the latest possible to save Star Trek, and keep the first and second seasons largely intact - while, at the same time, laying the foundations for a much stronger third season and beyond.

So chosen carefully...? With bigger & more numerous butterflies if changes were made earlier...

No, no, "Wolf in the Fold" is "The One With Piglet"

I do know that. Brain fade.

Funny, I believe Sulu was in contact with the crew in "The Enemy Within". And Kirk and Spock were talking in "The Doomsday Machine". And the problem in "Obsession" was that the explosion was affecting the transporters. Granted, they were cut off in "Mirror, Mirror", but that was a parallel universe. Would you like to try again?

Nitpicker. How many times were they held by hostiles who took their gear? More than twice. (It was the "surrounded by Indians" I meant.)

In "Enemy Within", I don't recall any supplies being beamed down to the damn planet with the freezing crewmen... Surely there was no hazard to inanimate objects? The question I have there, & in "Mirror Mirror" & "Second Chances" is, how does the transporter "double" somebody? Or send you to an alternate dimension?

That the transporters alone can be responsible for all of these plot elements indicates how useful it is as a writing tool

Tool, or crutch? I'm seeing crutch: the writers create a really, really interesting situation, like the aggressive immune system, or a "youthened" Picard, & since the series needs to keep the cast unchanged, they've now got to have some magic to undo it. That they keep using the transporter... Seriously, transporters beaming through time?

I've heard it said that the transporters are more integral to Star Trek than the actual starships!

They're good ideas, but this is where you and I will have to agree to disagree.

I expect so.

Star Trek is about exploring strange new worlds; seeing the means of exploring these worlds is obviously going to be weighted differently. I think a more apt comparison would be this: No, we don't need to see Friday's car, but we do need to see Friday's badge.

And we've got this fancy starship, right there in the titles every week. I don't say they should never have built a shuttle miniature (tho IMO they might have gotten away with a set), but they could have waited & avoided the transporter plague.

And that's why they need him so often

Another good reason to abandon transporters: the damn things really are as dangerous as McCoy thinks.

But seriously, as I've said before, clearly the staff liked Winston, because they kept bringing him back. Given more money, they'd bring him back more often. I think he'd make a pretty good straight man, given the quirkiness of Scotty, Chekov, and TTL Sulu, whose serial hobbyist personality is re-established (to the point of giving him an actual catchphrase ITTL: "Well, I've always been a fan of...").

Given the choice, I'd have cast Winston as Security Officer early on & used an extra for transporter control duty. I'd also have cast a regular Starfleet JAG as a variety of Protocol Officer, which Troi was supposed to be (Tom Hayden to Don Vito) before they transformed her into a psychologist...

I take mine with milk and honey, thank you

Ewww, milk? Straight, with sugar. Honey I never found sweet enough.

Intriguing suggestion.

+1 shot.

 

[neamathla]

[6] The film received one Oscar IOTL: the award for Best Adapted Screenplay. As all the dialogue was improvised, this is often considered one of the more dubious Oscars (in terms of eligibility, that is, and not subjective merit). An important note: either screenplay award (Adapted or Original, depending on the source material) is sometimes viewed as a "consolation" prize, or as an award to the "real" best picture of the year, which cannot actually be awarded Best Picture for various political reasons.

In this case, you are definitely correct. Ring Lardner, Jr. had been previously blacklisted during the McCarthy era. The Oscar was their way of saying "our bad".

 

[anon_user]

Movie Sign!

M*A*S*H fails due to the end of certain foreign policy entanglements, I take it?

I remember seeing Tora Tora Tora (on VHS) when I was little. Somewhat dry, but I did like it better than Pearl Harbor. I didn't realize Akira Kurosawa was asked to help direct it, though.

 

[phx1138]

...it wasn't until 1968 that the Motion Picture Association of America, which created and enforced the Hays Code, finally replaced it with a "voluntary" ratings system, following in the footsteps of many of the other Western Democracies.

Something always puzzled me. How, exactly, did MPAA enforce its censorship? If a filmmaker/studio was inclined to ignore it, what was the MPAA going to do?

All three films were nominated for the Academy Award for Best Picture of that year.

Which "proves" the axiom: an Oscar nomination is worth millions in boxoffice.

Yes, this means that "M*A*S*H", the series, will not exist ITTL.

This is one of the best sitcoms ever. I'm deeply saddened by this outcome.

M*A*S*H. Directed by an iconoclastic New Hollywood figure named Robert Altman...Taking a big risk and making a bold gamble can only be successful when it pays off. When it doesn't, well…

Does this mean other Altman films, like "Nashville", never get made, either?

I also notice you skipped over the big SF film event of 1968, "2001". Allegedly intended as Kubrik's homage to "Destination Moon" (which it ended up bearing damn all resemblance to).

I recall seeing part of "Tora! Tora! Tora!" in hotel room as a kid (family was attending a wedding), & had to wait 20yr to see the second half. It was worth it. I had no idea Kurosawa was even considered. If they'd let him direct it alone, it might not have been so slow, or 3h long.

 

[Brainbin]

So many comments, so little time...

Seriously. You're getting at hard issues, & making me think about it, if only to say where I stand. Of all the things I like about this site (& they are many), it's doing that I like best. So, my thanks.

I'm glad you're enjoying this thread for that reason - though, I must confess, it was never my intention to get into "hard issues" in the first place, given the nature of this timeline, but the whole "Humphrey instead of Nixon" twist precluded any possibility of keeping things entirely apolitical. But certainly, there are some serious issues with how the entertainment industry reflects on society. After all, there's an entire, hugely popular website largely devoted to that. (Let be known that I've successfully resisted the urge to link to a trope page each time an example has come up over the course of this TL.)

It's the underlying sexism that I'm getting at. Hollywood won't allow a woman more than about 1 terrible film. And who was it said, for women in Hollywood, there are only 3 ages: babe, D.A., & "Driving Miss Daisy"...

Why, none other than our very own Goldie Hawn, in The First Wives Club. Funnily enough, that movie also contains an actress whose career was utterly destroyed by a terrible film: Elizabeth "Jessie Spano" Berkley, from Showgirls. (Hawn apparently recommended Berkley for the part as an attempt to help salvage her career). One great thing about Hollywood is how interconnected everything is!

In the same way, frex, a Jewish POV will vary from a Protestant one.

Yes, but that's about lifestyle and philosophy - the content of one's character. Ideally, skin colour should be an entirely external and superficial distinction, whereas, obviously, a belief system is going to have a profound effect on one's internal self. This never actually happens, of course, because of external factors that complicate things, but it should. Martin Luther King, Jr. certainly thought so.

As I said, directing is an option. With TOS lasting longer, & a different team on "Night Gallery" TTL, who's to say Leonard doesn't join them as a regular director?

A most logical suggestion. Which I will not confirm or deny at this time

So chosen carefully...? With bigger & more numerous butterflies if changes were made earlier...

Let's just say that I took a small, seemingly innocuous POD for the purpose of changing one small thing, and it all snowballed from there

Nitpicker. How many times were they held by hostiles who took their gear? More than twice. (It was the "surrounded by Indians" I meant.)

Duly noted. Well, it happened fairly often, of course, but obviously it didn't always happen. And even when it did, they were often legitimately overpowered, which I'd hardly call idiotic. And a few times they were brainwashed or enchanted, which could happen to anybody. But I'd certainly never refer to the members of this crew as idiots. (Other crews? No comment. )

In "Enemy Within", I don't recall any supplies being beamed down to the damn planet with the freezing crewmen... Surely there was no hazard to inanimate objects?

Actually, yes, they did attempt to beam down supplies, but they were all doubled, just like the living beings, and each piece of equipment became two useless halves of one instead. That must have been some magic pixie dust...

Tool, or crutch? I'm seeing crutch

Obviously it was a crutch, I can't argue with that; one of a few, actually. Did you ever notice that Spock always gained a new superpower whenever the occasion called for it? By the end of the series, I think he had more than Superman. Or how about Scotty? He could always fix everything, in one-quarter of the time he promised, and was even able to make stolen technology compatible with the Enterprise!

And we've got this fancy starship, right there in the titles every week. I don't say they should never have built a shuttle miniature (tho IMO they might have gotten away with a set), but they could have waited & avoided the transporter plague.

But how do we get from orbit to planet surface? To use another analogy, it's like watching the Saturn V take off, and then suddenly cut to the moon, with the Apollo astronauts bounding about on the surface, no Lunar Module in sight. "Here we are on the moon, everybody!"

Another good reason to abandon transporters: the damn things really are as dangerous as McCoy thinks.

Well, at least he's right about something (Seriously, I love Bones. He's my favourite character. But boy, can he grouse!)

Ewww, milk? Straight, with sugar. Honey I never found sweet enough.

The fat in the milk cuts the slight bitterness of the tea. That way you don't need the super-sweetness of the sugar to do the same. Milk and honey also add nutrients to the tea, whereas sugar just adds empty calories I do drink green tea straight, however.

In this case, you are definitely correct. Ring Lardner, Jr. had been previously blacklisted during the McCarthy era. The Oscar was their way of saying "our bad".

Thank you for pointing that out! I also believe that Lardner holds the record for longest gap between Oscar wins in the Screenplay categories (21 years; he had won before being blacklisted, for 1949's Woman of the Year), but I can't say that for sure.

M*A*S*H fails due to the end of certain foreign policy entanglements, I take it?

You got that right. The thing about satire is that it should be timely. And the thing about films is that they have a long development period. And here, those two things, when taken together, resulted in one big flop.

I remember seeing Tora Tora Tora (on VHS) when I was little. Somewhat dry, but I did like it better than Pearl Harbor.

Oh, did the "ingenious" combination of Ben Affleck, Josh Hartnett, Michael Bay, and a song by Faith Hill not do it for you?

I didn't realize Akira Kurosawa was asked to help direct it, though.

Believe it! In fact, the producers lied to him to get him on board. He was told that the director of the American footage was David Lean. Can you imagine? Once he found out that wasn't the case, he did his best to have himself removed from the production, which he was.

Something always puzzled me. How, exactly, did MPAA enforce its censorship? If a filmmaker/studio was inclined to ignore it, what was the MPAA going to do?

Take a look at when the Miracle Decision was made. 1952. The height of McCarthyism, anti-communism, and the general repressiveness of the 1950s. Obviously, the studios had no intention of shaking the boat at this time, and the continuing cultural conservatism throughout the decade and into the 1960s resulted in them maintaining the status quo. They did start ignoring the Hays Code in the mid-1960s, and in response the MPAA developed this alternative. If they hadn't, then the Hays Code likely would have gone the way of the Comics Code.

Which "proves" the axiom: an Oscar nomination is worth millions in boxoffice.

Actually, that wasn't quite the point I was driving at; what I was trying to indicate was that, at one time, popular movies and award-winning movies were synonymous. It's only been in recent years that "art house" films have dominated the Oscars. This is part of the reason that New Hollywood was so successful; these Young Turk directors, writers, and producers made films that people wanted to see.

This is one of the best sitcoms ever. I'm deeply saddened by this outcome.

Like I said, it's very difficult not to make the entertainment industry a zero-sum game. And if it's any consolation, hundreds of thousands of people will remain alive and well ITTL that didn't IOTL, and I'm sure that they would rather have that over "M*A*S*H".

Does this mean other Altman films, like "Nashville", never get made, either?

Well, Nashville was partially based on a real life event that may or may not yet happen ITTL. But Altman certainly would not be directing it in any event, no. Well done spotting the butterflies! (I assume that's what your use of Mr. Cool was for.)

I also notice you skipped over the big SF film event of 1968, "2001". Allegedly intended as Kubrik's homage to "Destination Moon" (which it ended up bearing damn all resemblance to).

Kubrick doesn't really fit into the Zeitgeist in the same way as those other films and their makers did. He really was a force all by himself. He was never beholden to a studio, and of course he worked out of the UK, keeping him out of the New Hollywood loop. Also, though 2001 did appeal to the counter-culture, it wasn't really for any "constructive" purposes.

I recall seeing part of "Tora! Tora! Tora!" in hotel room as a kid (family was attending a wedding), & had to wait 20yr to see the second half. It was worth it.

I can't say I'm surprised that two of my readers saw a famous historical war film in their youth - it certainly explains why you're both members of this site! I've not seen it myself, alas, but maybe someday.

I had no idea Kurosawa was even considered. If they'd let him direct it alone, it might not have been so slow, or 3h long.

You are aware that you're talking about Akira Kurosawa, right?

Thanks again to everyone for their comments! As promised, coming up next is the first part of the long-awaited carrot to my British readers! As I mentioned before, I hope to have it ready no later than Christmas Day. And that will the last update of the 1969-70 cycle! After that, the fun will really begin...

 

[phx1138]

...I've successfully resisted the urge to link to a trope page each time an example has come up over the course of this TL.

That's a hard temptation to resist.

Hawn apparently recommended Berkley for the part as an attempt to help salvage her career. One great thing about Hollywood is how interconnected everything is!

Good on Goldie. (Tho if you've seen "Showgirls", really, anybody associated with it should have their career come to an end.) Berkley also did some TV (a couple of episodes of "NYPD Blue" I saw, at least), but had to hide out as a brunette to do it, apparently.

Yes, but that's about lifestyle and philosophy - the content of one's character. Ideally, skin colour should be an entirely external and superficial distinction, whereas, obviously, a belief system is going to have a profound effect on one's internal self. This never actually happens, of course, because of external factors that complicate things, but it should. Martin Luther King, Jr. certainly thought so.

I agree on that. I'm getting at a cultural difference (for lack of a better word). You wouldn't treat a Canadian's reaction to an issue like gun control necessarily the same way as an American's; nor a black character's reaction to Affirmative Action. (The mere fact I can't think of a better example suggests the depth of my ignorance....)

A most logical suggestion. Which I will not confirm or deny at this time

So be it, Mr. Phelps.

Let's just say that I took a small, seemingly innocuous POD for the purpose of changing one small thing, and it all snowballed from there

Duly noted. Well, it happened fairly often, of course, but obviously it didn't always happen. And even when it did, they were often legitimately overpowered, which I'd hardly call idiotic. And a few times they were brainwashed or enchanted, which could happen to anybody.

I maintain the overpowering or brainwashing is just an excuse to take away the communicators. However, I'm not looking to fight with you about it.

Actually, yes, they did attempt to beam down supplies, but they were all doubled, just like the living beings, and each piece of equipment became two useless halves of one instead. That must have been some magic pixie dust...

I don't recall that....

Obviously it was a crutch, I can't argue with that; one of a few, actually. Did you ever notice that Spock always gained a new superpower whenever the occasion called for it? By the end of the series, I think he had more than Superman. Or how about Scotty? He could always fix everything, in one-quarter of the time he promised, and was even able to make stolen technology compatible with the Enterprise!

True. That said, all of Spock's new talents were in bounds for a species we in the audience knew nothing about, while Kirk's high standards suggest he wouldn't have picked an Engineering Officer who wasn't the best the Fleet had. Moreover, how long did the jury-rigs have to hold? Long enough to get the hell away. And you probably know about the "How do you think I got the reputation as a miracle worker?" line.

But how do we get from orbit to planet surface? To use another analogy, it's like watching the Saturn V take off, and then suddenly cut to the moon, with the Apollo astronauts bounding about on the surface, no Lunar Module in sight. "Here we are on the moon, everybody!"

A fair point. TV, however, is not real life. The cuts are implied passage of time, & the show's setting implies there's some method, even if we don't see it. Cut from Friday's precinct to a crime scene. How do they get there? We know, & it's presumed there's a method, even if we don't see it. You could argue Enterprise's people don't think there's anything more special about shuttles than we do about cars.

Well, at least he's right about something (Seriously, I love Bones. He's my favourite character. But boy, can he grouse!)

The fat in the milk cuts the slight bitterness of the tea.
That way you don't need the super-sweetness of the sugar to do the same. Milk and honey also add nutrients to the tea, whereas sugar just adds empty calories

I find the milk makes it too weak. And only one teaspoon sugar, unless it's quite strong.

I also believe that Lardner holds the record for longest gap between Oscar wins in the Screenplay categories (21 years;...

Oh, did the "ingenious" combination of Ben Affleck, Josh Hartnett, Michael Bay, and a song by Faith Hill not do it for you?

No, the fact Dan Akroyd predicted an attack at Pearl Harbor & nobody listened.

Believe it! In fact, the producers lied to him to get him on board. He was told that the director of the American footage was David Lean. Can you imagine? Once he found out that wasn't the case, he did his best to have himself removed from the production, which he was.

This really doesn't need any comment, does it?

Take a look at when the Miracle Decision was made. 1952. The height of McCarthyism, anti-communism, and the general repressiveness of the 1950s. Obviously, the studios had no intention of shaking the boat at this time, and the continuing cultural conservatism throughout the decade and into the 1960s resulted in them maintaining the status quo. They did start ignoring the Hays Code in the mid-1960s, and in response the MPAA developed this alternative. If they hadn't, then the Hays Code likely would have gone the way of the Comics Code.

That's the thing. Both the Hays Code & the CCA were voluntary. In comics, there were only a few distributors; even after Paramount forced divestiture of captive theatre chains, movie studios still dealt with more, didn't they? Am I wrong there were independent movie theatres who could buy films?

Actually, that wasn't quite the point I was driving at; what I was trying to indicate was that, at one time, popular movies and award-winning movies were synonymous. It's only been in recent years that "art house" films have dominated the Oscars. This is part of the reason that New Hollywood was so successful; these Young Turk directors, writers, and producers made films that people wanted to see.

Which leaves me wondering why studios haven't figured it out... "Popular" & "good" can be the same thing. I'd say "should be".

Like I said, it's very difficult not to make the entertainment industry a zero-sum game. And if it's any consolation, hundreds of thousands of people will remain alive and well ITTL that didn't IOTL, and I'm sure that they would rather have that over "M*A*S*H".

I'm not going to defend the "'V' war". IMO, it was a colossal stupidity & could have been avoided in 1944-5 with a trace of good sense. I don't see the same connection. "Medic" was WW2 & reasonably successful. "Combat!" actually got cancelled, as I understand it, over opposition to the "V". A sitcom didn't have to be as political about an unpopular war to get on the air. Would it have been as long-lived? Probably not, & that saddens me, too, because I liked the later shows much better. Comment on the waste of lives in wars need never go out of fashion. Nor comment on the necessity of them, sometimes, which "MASH", in the prevailing climate OTL, omitted...

Well, Nashville was partially based on a real life event that may or may not yet happen ITTL. But Altman certainly would not be directing it in any event, no. Well done spotting the butterflies! (I assume that's what your use of Mr. Cool was for.)

Not so much. I didn't know it was based on real. I've just never been a particular fan of Altman films.

Kubrick doesn't really fit into the Zeitgeist in the same way as those other films and their makers did. He really was a force all by himself. He was never beholden to a studio, and of course he worked out of the UK, keeping him out of the New Hollywood loop. Also, though 2001 did appeal to the counter-culture, it wasn't really for any "constructive" purposes.

I won't particularly miss Kubrik's "2001", but the effects work & the boost to the careers of the people involved would have an impact. Also, with "ST" being more successful, as you point out, a big budget SF film in this era is almost inevitable. Not "Silent Running', I hope? An adaptation of "I, Robot", perhaps? (One where the screenwriter has actually read the damn book?) Or adapt The Moon is a Harsh Mistress? Or Little Fuzzy/Fuzzy Sapiens? Dorsai! or Soldier, Ask Not? Or even a less-ridiculous adaptation of Starship Troopers?

I've not seen it myself, alas, but maybe someday.

You won't regret it for a second. If you know nothing about the attack, it'll tell you the essentials. IMO, it should be required viewing in schools.

You are aware that you're talking about Akira Kurosawa, right?

I confess I've not seen every film he's made, or even a large percentage. The ones I have seen haven't been tedious long.

 

[Brainbin]

That's a hard temptation to resist.

Indeed. One might say that Cold Turkeys Are Everywhere

Good on Goldie. (Tho if you've seen "Showgirls", really, anybody associated with it should have their career come to an end.) Berkley also did some TV (a couple of episodes of "NYPD Blue" I saw, at least), but had to hide out as a brunette to do it, apparently.

To her credit, she seems to be taking everything in stride, which is more than I can say for certain "Saved by the Bell" co-stars. (I'm looking at you, Screech.)

I agree on that. I'm getting at a cultural difference (for lack of a better word). You wouldn't treat a Canadian's reaction to an issue like gun control necessarily the same way as an American's; nor a black character's reaction to Affirmative Action. (The mere fact I can't think of a better example suggests the depth of my ignorance....)

Those are actually very good examples.

True. That said, all of Spock's new talents were in bounds for a species we in the audience knew nothing about, while Kirk's high standards suggest he wouldn't have picked an Engineering Officer who wasn't the best the Fleet had. Moreover, how long did the jury-rigs have to hold? Long enough to get the hell away. And you probably know about the "How do you think I got the reputation as a miracle worker?" line.

You better believe it. Fun fact: the very first time Scotty is called upon to fix something in a jiffy ("The Naked Time"), he famously says "I cannae change the laws of physics! I've got to have thirty minutes!" The time it takes him (with Spock's help, admittedly) to actually fix it? Eight minutes, which is, you guessed it, (approximately) one-quarter of thirty

A fair point. TV, however, is not real life. The cuts are implied passage of time, & the show's setting implies there's some method, even if we don't see it. Cut from Friday's precinct to a crime scene. How do they get there? We know, & it's presumed there's a method, even if we don't see it. You could argue Enterprise's people don't think there's anything more special about shuttles than we do about cars.

I guess the only way to resolve this argument we're having is to actually see a transporter-free edit of the show. If anyone out there wants to make one, feel free! I would do it myself, but I'm too busy writing my timeline

No, the fact Dan Akroyd predicted an attack at Pearl Harbor & nobody listened.

The early 2000s were not kind to Dan Aykroyd, were they? Between this and playing Britney Spears' father in Crossroads... no wonder he's so desperate to do Ghostbusters III. I would want to cleanse my palate after all that dreck, too.

That's the thing. Both the Hays Code & the CCA were voluntary. In comics, there were only a few distributors; even after Paramount forced divestiture of captive theatre chains, movie studios still dealt with more, didn't they? Am I wrong there were independent movie theatres who could buy films?

There were certainly foreign "art house" movies and Z-grade schlock available in theatres in the 1950s and early 1960s. All those awful movies about giant spiders? They date from this era. But respectable people didn't go to see them. And even in their own way, movies of that era did push the envelope. Look at Cat on a Hot Tin Roof. Or Rebel Without A Cause. Or Imitation of Life. Or The Children's Hour.

Which leaves me wondering why studios haven't figured it out... "Popular" & "good" can be the same thing. I'd say "should be".

There's so much that's been said about recent movies and trends in the film industry that I really don't have much to add. But I will say this: that delicate balance of "blockbuster" and "high quality" that was perfected in the 1980s (with some of the greatest crowd-pleasers ever made), seems to have fallen by the wayside. And I think that's a crying shame

I'm not going to defend the "'V' war". IMO, it was a colossal stupidity & could have been avoided in 1944-5 with a trace of good sense. I don't see the same connection. "Medic" was WW2 & reasonably successful. "Combat!" actually got cancelled, as I understand it, over opposition to the "V". A sitcom didn't have to be as political about an unpopular war to get on the air. Would it have been as long-lived? Probably not, & that saddens me, too, because I liked the later shows much better. Comment on the waste of lives in wars need never go out of fashion. Nor comment on the necessity of them, sometimes, which "MASH", in the prevailing climate OTL, omitted...

All right, let me explain my rationale. In the four-ish additional years the conflict that dare not speak its name lasted IOTL, it had time to fester, to ingrain itself on the public consciousness. Here it's more like Korea - people are getting tired of it, they want out, they get out after a change in the guard, and then it becomes a footnote in American military history. The imaginations of these disaffected young people who will never shut up about the overseas quagmire IOTL are quickly captured by Moonshot Lunacy, and their political activism is diverted to causes inspired by it (environmentalism, alternative energy sources, space exploration, etc.) When people see a movie blatantly satirizing this conflict, which has been over a year by this point, "peace with honour" having been attained, it comes out looking ridiculous.

I'm going to posit that M*A*S*H was successful IOTL because people liked sticking it to The Man. (Especially with the far more reverent Patton coming out the same year.) These young people, of the same kind that had rallied against McCarthyism the generation before, and would IOTL rally against Watergate just a few years later, can become utterly consumed, obsessed, fixated on their rallying point. We've seen it in more recent years, too. Who do you think were the people who made Fahrenheit 9/11 such a hit? If any movie can be said to be preaching to the choir, it's that one, but it still made over $100 million.

Also, IOTL, "M*A*S*H" began life as a movie sequel, which would adapt the second book in the series. These plans fell through and, our unpopular overseas quagmire still taking place, they decided to develop a television series. They wouldn't even dream of making a sequel to M*A*S*H ITTL, so the chain of events leading to the series never takes place.

I won't particularly miss Kubrik's "2001", but the effects work & the boost to the careers of the people involved would have an impact.

There appears to have been another misunderstanding here. 2001: A Space Odyssey was made ITTL. I just didn't mention it for the reasons explained above.

Also, with "ST" being more successful, as you point out, a big budget SF film in this era is almost inevitable. Not "Silent Running', I hope? An adaptation of "I, Robot", perhaps? (One where the screenwriter has actually read the damn book?) Or adapt The Moon is a Harsh Mistress? Or Little Fuzzy/Fuzzy Sapiens? Dorsai! or Soldier, Ask Not? Or even a less-ridiculous adaptation of Starship Troopers?

These are all excellent suggestions, which will merit further investigation on my part.

You won't regret it for a second. If you know nothing about the attack, it'll tell you the essentials. IMO, it should be required viewing in schools.

Thank you for the recommendation

I confess I've not seen every film he's made, or even a large percentage. The ones I have seen haven't been tedious long.

I would never call his films tedious long, but they can be long. Very long, if they have to be.

 

[phx1138]

Indeed. One might say that Cold Turkeys Are Everywhere

One might say "cold" isn't required.

To her credit, she seems to be taking everything in stride, which is more than I can say for certain "Saved by the Bell" co-stars. (I'm looking at you, Screech.)

Judging From "NYPD Blue", she deserved better than "Showgirls".

Those are actually very good examples.

TY.

You better believe it. Fun fact: the very first time Scotty is called upon to fix something in a jiffy ("The Naked Time"), he famously says "I cannae change the laws of physics! I've got to have thirty minutes!" The time it takes him (with Spock's help, admittedly) to actually fix it? Eight minutes, which is, you guessed it, (approximately) one-quarter of thirty

So he can change the laws of physics.

I guess the only way to resolve this argument we're having is to actually see a transporter-free edit of the show. If anyone out there wants to make one, feel free! I would do it myself, but I'm too busy writing my timeline

Hmmm... I've got a PVR & VCR, I can edit out the transporter....

The early 2000s were not kind to Dan Aykroyd, were they? Between this and playing Britney Spears' father in Crossroads... no wonder he's so desperate to do Ghostbusters III. I would want to cleanse my palate after all that dreck, too.

Yeh. Bad Career Move days. Tho I do wonder, how much of that is because the producer &/or directors turn out to be morons? I can't think Halle would have signed on for "Catwoman" if she'd expected it would be a turkey...

There were certainly foreign "art house" movies and Z-grade schlock available in theatres in the 1950s and early 1960s. All those awful movies about giant spiders? They date from this era. But respectable people didn't go to see them. And even in their own way, movies of that era did push the envelope. Look at Cat on a Hot Tin Roof. Or Rebel Without A Cause. Or Imitation of Life. Or The Children's Hour.

Oh, no argument. The schlocky stuff doesn't even count; you'd expect that to be bad. I'm thinking of "A" movies.

There's so much that's been said about recent movies and trends in the film industry that I really don't have much to add. But I will say this: that delicate balance of "blockbuster" and "high quality" that was perfected in the 1980s (with some of the greatest crowd-pleasers ever made), seems to have fallen by the wayside. And I think that's a crying shame

Yeah, in favor of needless remakes & endless awful sequels. Yes, movies are a business, but there's no reason at all to not make a good film, even if it makes a few million less...

All right, let me explain my rationale. In the four-ish additional years the conflict that dare not speak its name lasted IOTL, it had time to fester, to ingrain itself on the public consciousness. Here it's more like Korea - people are getting tired of it, they want out, they get out after a change in the guard, and then it becomes a footnote in American military history. The imaginations of these disaffected young people who will never shut up about the overseas quagmire IOTL are quickly captured by Moonshot Lunacy, and their political activism is diverted to causes inspired by it (environmentalism, alternative energy sources, space exploration, etc.) When people see a movie blatantly satirizing this conflict, which has been over a year by this point, "peace with honour" having been attained, it comes out looking ridiculous.

I'm going to posit that M*A*S*H was successful IOTL because people liked sticking it to The Man. (Especially with the far more reverent Patton coming out the same year.) These young people, of the same kind that had rallied against McCarthyism the generation before, and would IOTL rally against Watergate just a few years later, can become utterly consumed, obsessed, fixated on their rallying point. We've seen it in more recent years, too. Who do you think were the people who made Fahrenheit 9/11 such a hit? If any movie can be said to be preaching to the choir, it's that one, but it still made over $100 million.

Also, IOTL, "M*A*S*H" began life as a movie sequel, which would adapt the second book in the series. These plans fell through and, our unpopular overseas quagmire still taking place, they decided to develop a television series. They wouldn't even dream of making a sequel to M*A*S*H ITTL, so the chain of events leading to the series never takes place.

IDK about the planned sequel. And you're entirely right in context. The period between Tet & The End OTL was enough to allow a lot of anger to start, & "MASH" came along at the end of it, & wouldn't TTL. Not to mention, the movie it's based on wasn't a hit TTL. So, I withdraw my complaint.

There appears to have been another misunderstanding here. 2001: A Space Odyssey was made ITTL. I just didn't mention it for the reasons explained above.

Yep, a misunderstanding. If you're only mentioning the changed stuff, I withdraw any complaint.

These are all excellent suggestions, which will merit further investigation on my part.

Be advised, except for "I, Robot", I liked them all, which, in the case of TV & film, is an almost certain death sentence.

I would never call his films tedious long, but they can be long. Very long, if they have to be.

Huh. I haven't seen one I'd call long.... Obviously haven't seen many.