That Wacky Redhead

[phx1138]

This rather ignores the big problem with such multi-race universes, in which so many have similar environments but the first one to develop warp drive doesn't fill virtually all the niches

Not at all. In fact, IMO "ST" generally ignores how expensive planets are. There's an enormous delta-vee cost from planet surface to orbit &/or back, & it has to be paid somehow. So any spacefaring species is much more likely to build permanent habitats than planetary colonies (except for research). I'd expect asteroids or small, uninhabited moons would be far preferred.

The problem is both that some people are both better at it and prefer it. Hence, unless they and the incentive for it can be removed/brought under control permanently its going to persist.

For individuals, sure. For society at large, that falls inside the range of variability. For society to select for savagery, there have to be broader cultural reasons, reasons "us" should fight & kill "them".

The first, & still best, reason is, "them" wants to steal our stuff: from that, walls, armies, & war. Not genetics, tho: culture.

They will be dramatically reduced, at least in the short term, once space travel becomes easy, safe and available for about all. Which could be a long, long time given the vested interests for the powerful in restricting access to such resources.

It will be dramatically reduced as soon as somebody figures out a way to make money on it. "[E]asy, safe and available for about all" will be a distant second, just as it was for steamships. It took almost 500yr for transatlantic travel to become common, & about 70 before steamers made it profitable (thanks to the Royal Mail subsidy to Cunard with Royal William); within another 25, people were coming across in steerage by the millions & the profits were huge. Then somebody figured out how to do it with airplanes...&, yet again, they needed a mail subsidy to start with. When somebody figures out how to get a government subsidy for space travel, or how to tap an asteroid for profit (which is much easier), the same is likely to happen.

However their not the sole reasons for conflict. Questions of religion, idealogical, historical differences are often as important as resources, which under virtually any conceivable circumstances will not be infinite.

Entirely true. However, consider the U.S.: more space for radicals & rebels, & more wealth than for any society in human history. The first O'Neill hab, with the first powersats, will make the U.S. look like Bangladesh: crowded, restricted, & poor.

Also there is the other problem, which Niven pointed out in Known Space. If one race goes pacifist its likely to be a huge temptation to any neighbours.

I hesitate to argue with Larry on this one, but I disagree. It's one thing to choose pacifism; it's another to avoid self-destruction, & learn to avoid needless conflicts. And space is big... Plus, the delta-vee costs of planets make invasion pretty stupid, even allowing for the vanishingly small chance any alien will find another species' homeworld an attractive environment. Can you imagine Man invading Venus? (BTW, the "invaders from Mars" makes about as little sense.) The "ST" conceit of "Class M world" is just that: a conceit, a convenient device. It has no basis in reality.

 

[NCW8]

I took time to try looking online for the first airdate of German-dubbed (or was it subtitled?) TOS airings in West Germany (be funny if they showed it in East Germany first, but I doubt it) and I am stymied;

According to the German wikipedia, ZDF first broadcast 26 episodes of the series in 1972, with and additional 13 following shortly - the remainder were described as "too tasteless and violent" to be broadcast.

Edit: the shows were dubbed rather than subtitled. In the case of Amok Time, the dubbing changed the story so that Spock was suffering from an illness with most of the action being a fever dream, as his sexuality wasn't seen as a suitable subject for broadcast.

It looks like the full series (apart from Patterns of Force) was first broadcast in 1985 by Sat 1.

Now I'm curious--does anyone have a comprehensive list of when authorized versions of the Trek series, subtitled or dubbed or just released in orginal American English, were first shown in the various nations of the world?

First broadcast in Britain was 1969-71, except for four episodes considered too violent or sadistic.

Also there is the other problem, which Niven pointed out in Known Space. If one race goes pacifist its likely to be a huge temptation to any neighbours.

Really ? The Puppeteers are pacifist and seem to be fairly successful. And while the Kzinti were certainly tempted to attack pacifist humanity, they quickly learned that it wasn't a good idea.

Cheers,
Nigel.

 

[Thande]

Good update. The bit with Gaia seems reminiscent of the planet in Star Trek V. The fact there are two 'guest ships' with recognisable captains will create a different and unique dynamic to the piece, the only place I have seen it is in some Star Trek novels and fan works. Of course the hard part will be trying to get a consistent cast of extras for the bridge crews (or at least their major members) on the other two ships, I suspect it's not possible.

This film was never made IOTL, but represents the increased popularity ITTL of the Planet of the Apes franchise (remember one of the truisms of That Wacky Redhead: it isn’t truly popular unless it has been properly parodied or lampooned).

This is true, and I would add a corollary: a 'proper' parody is one that has lasting impact, e.g. starting jokes that run and run and might even be ironically self-referenced in a later edition of the original product itself. As opposed to the majority of parodies which burn out and are forgotten, which can easily be told by the fact that the original work will continue and have a well-nigh identical crap parody made about it 20 years later because those jokes haven't lasted and nobody knows about them. This is related to, but not the same as, what TV Tropes calls a Shallow Parody (where instead it's a parody that tries to mock a work by doing a joke which actually happens in the work itself but they were unaware of).

Also I can't remember if you mentioned it before, but I'm glad to see McCoy's backstory managed to make it into an episode of the extended TOS.

 

[stevep]

phx1138

Not at all. In fact, IMO "ST" generally ignores how expensive planets are. There's an enormous delta-vee cost from planet surface to orbit &/or back, & it has to be paid somehow. So any spacefaring species is much more likely to build permanent habitats than planetary colonies (except for research). I'd expect asteroids or small, uninhabited moons would be far preferred.

I agree in real live, but was discussing the ST universe here. Think its far more likely that most civilisations will be space based rather than on planets as not only does it avoid the gravity well problem, plus disease/pest control is much easier, but it allows much more variety in lifestyles. The only, probably unlikely, reason I can see for planetary surfaces to continue to be important is possibly that only they have the range of environments and species for a stable biosphere and hence O'Neills and the like may need to import some items periodically from a planet base. Although as I say this is unlikely. [Religion/Culture might be another factor but is only likely to be important for Sol system and after a few centuries...]

For individuals, sure. For society at large, that falls inside the range of variability. For society to select for savagery, there have to be broader cultural reasons, reasons "us" should fight & kill "them".

The first, & still best, reason is, "them" wants to steal our stuff: from that, walls, armies, & war. Not genetics, tho: culture.

Not necessarily kill. You could get some groups taking it more as a herder type mentality, basically cropping weaker/less powerful cultures for loot/revenue/tribute.

Just because something is cultural rather than genetic doesn't mean it doesn't exist, won't continue to exist and be seen as an advantageous lifestyle.

It will be dramatically reduced as soon as somebody figures out a way to make money on it. "[E]asy, safe and available for about all" will be a distant second, just as it was for steamships. It took almost 500yr for transatlantic travel to become common, & about 70 before steamers made it profitable (thanks to the Royal Mail subsidy to Cunard with Royal William); within another 25, people were coming across in steerage by the millions & the profits were huge. Then somebody figured out how to do it with airplanes...&, yet again, they needed a mail subsidy to start with. When somebody figures out how to get a government subsidy for space travel, or how to tap an asteroid for profit (which is much easier), the same is likely to happen.

Depends on the time-scale. As you point out for nearly 500 years trans-oceanic travel was difficult, dangerous and expensive. Other than in desperation or without choice it was something that relatively few people could/would do. Without major changes, especially in terms of the gravity well problem, plus concern about the resultant social changes, I think it will take a long time before travel off Earth, let alone intra-system is going to be cheap and convenient, for the bulk of the Earth's population. [Far more likely it will be the people who get off Earth early who will dominate the future of humanity demographically/genetically.

Entirely true. However, consider the U.S.: more space for radicals & rebels, & more wealth than for any society in human history. The first O'Neill hab, with the first powersats, will make the U.S. look like Bangladesh: crowded, restricted, & poor.

True, but apart from cultural & social factors the sheer difficulty and expense will make emigration 'upwards' too expensive even for most 1st worlders for at least a few generations. [Only exception is if we quickly get the technology for a space elevator and build one, or more].

I hesitate to argue with Larry on this one, but I disagree. It's one thing to choose pacifism; it's another to avoid self-destruction, & learn to avoid needless conflicts. And space is big... Plus, the delta-vee costs of planets make invasion pretty stupid, even allowing for the vanishingly small chance any alien will find another species' homeworld an attractive environment. Can you imagine Man invading Venus? (BTW, the "invaders from Mars" makes about as little sense.) The "ST" conceit of "Class M world" is just that: a conceit, a convenient device. It has no basis in reality.

I think the thing in Niven's example was that, having no known external threat humanity thought it was safe and thought to breed/train out the capacity for aggression. Believe this was partly a case of he wanted to point out the perils of pacifism.

I suspect that the big thing, is that in any future inter-stellar conflict, is that any inhabited planets are likely to be fairly irrelevant, apart from possibly as hostages. After all its likely that the bulk of population and resources are going to be in space. Hence I could see conflict once intra-stellar travel becomes easy enough. Someone in the 16thC for instance might have argued there was no prospects of major warfare between nations on either side of an ocean.

Steve

 

[stevep]

Really ? The Puppeteers are pacifist and seem to be fairly successful. And while the Kzinti were certainly tempted to attack pacifist humanity, they quickly learned that it wasn't a good idea.

Cheers,
Nigel.

Nigel

The puppeteers aren't pacifists, definitely not. Their cowards, which is a significantly different thing. As Known Space shows their quite willing to use force and conflict, just they don't do it directly but by manipulating other races to do it for them.

True humanity defeated the Kzinti despite the social programming they had imposed on themselves for pacifism. However how much of that was writers licence? Niven could hardly have his story ending with humanity defeated and enslaved could he?

Steve

 

[Thande]

True humanity defeated the Kzinti despite the social programming they had imposed on themselves for pacifism. However how much of that was writers licence?

I thought the point was a variation on the old one about how the most advanced and culturedcivilisation is three meals away from barbarism--all the vaunted pacifistic programming in the world was vaporised in an instant and human nature shone through when it was needed.

 

[NCW8]

The puppeteers aren't pacifists, definitely not. Their cowards, which is a significantly different thing. As Known Space shows their quite willing to use force and conflict, just they don't do it directly but by manipulating other races to do it for them.

That is a good point. I'm not sure that it was the case in the early Known Space stories, but it fits in with the characterisation of the Puppeteers in Ringworld and later stories.

True humanity defeated the Kzinti despite the social programming they had imposed on themselves for pacifism. However how much of that was writers licence? Niven could hardly have his story ending with humanity defeated and enslaved could he?

To be honest, I think that Niven was more interested in writing a story than making any general principals about Pacifism. In The Warriors, the pacifism was necessary so that the Kzinti would choose a method of attack was slow enough to give the humans time enough to react by turning their drive engine on it.

Cheers,
Nigel.

 

[Shevek23]

Since I escalated this avalanche of off-topic pronouncements on the absolute verities of intelligent life in the Universe by defending Spock in canon, let me point out that Star Trek, in either timeline, is hardly a work of rigorous hard SF!

There's an unreasonably large number of habitable worlds in it (unless ATL canon has it that warp drive is really fast and they merely skim the cream of desirable "M-Class" planets separated by dozens of light years from their nearest neighbor, arguably a more sensible canon than the OTL pronouncements about the nearby species originating on just about every potentially habitable planet that might possibly exist in our near neighborhood) and a serious dearth of "starfish aliens"--just the Tholians and the Meduseans, maybe alt-canon in the extra 2 years adds a couple more--versus hundreds of known humanoid species, found on just about every blue rock Starfleet ever visits. These things have cried out OTL for special explanations that were eventually offered in canon. They are not what we'd reasonably expect if we venture out into a Galaxy as science supposes it probably is.

As for the wisdom of making space habitats versus settling habitable planets, since habitable planets are easy to find in Trek whereas getting on and off them seems to be a problem with easy solutions there, it's perfectly reasonable they use the planets instead of constructing habitats. Again we probably won't expect actual future space civilizations to take that route, unless we get the sort of magic tech they have in Trek really soon.

Thus, in Trek if not in the predictable universe, the peoples who develop star travel are not very different from ourselves. All the arguments that a sufficiently developed spacefaring civilization doesn't need conquest apply almost as well to our own current technological level of development, yet militarism and other forms of mass violence are still terribly with us.

That's the context Spock is arguing in. He fully understands that logic indicates peace, yet the fact of war is still something his logic must account for. In context his suggestions make sense. They don't have to apply to the real universe!

Still less to the fiction of other SF writers.

 

[phx1138]

in Trek if not in the predictable universe, the peoples who develop star travel are not very different from ourselves. ...militarism and other forms of mass violence are still terribly with us.

That's the context Spock is arguing in. He fully understands that logic indicates peace, yet the fact of war is still something his logic must account for. In context his suggestions make sense. They don't have to apply to the real universe!

Still less to the fiction of other SF writers.

Fair point, & one I clearly overlooked. I will therefore withdraw my objection. Well-argued.

 

[vultan]

Utterly, absolutely brilliant update!

Sad to see Takei go out, but at least it's in a better than Kirk's OTL death.

And John Chambers does the makeup! Goody! Hmm, how do the Saurians look ITTL?

 

[Glen]

Great Update Brainbin.

First of all, I have to say, "They killed Sulu! Those b.......!"

Second, you made that Wacky Redhead the President of the Federation! Outstanding, outstanding! I also like that her sidekick from Lucy gets a more dignified last cameo.

 

[Shevek23]

Sad to see Takei go out, but at least it's in a better than Kirk's OTL death.

I think the point of Trek in this timeline is, it gets a longer, deeper, better run in its original form, but it doesn't get half a dozen post-TOS spinoffs. It has a deeper impact in its day but that day ends much sooner, with none of the hope of endless life and eternal possibilities we get OTL. By today, 2013, Trek as a currently living fan phenomenon is of the past. There are a few Trekkies or Trekkers or whatever the ATL term is lurking about, but not too many.

Mercifully, considering that ATL canon demands working warp drives before the end of this decade! Relatively few people jumping off bridges when that's not forthcoming.

I could be wrong about that, and were I in the timeline I'd be one of those diehards hoping for resurrection of what we OTL call "the franchise." I guess I'd have belatedly discovered the Gold Key "books"--chances are, knowing what I was like back in the '70s I'd have disdained them at the time, but eventually come around to them when I was much too old for them. Probably about the time they sputter out and die, knowing my track record for falling in love with the terminally ill and/or deceased. Ask me about my evolving views on the USSR or John Lennon, for instance.

Well, dunno, maybe in this timeline too, there will be an eventual TNG of sorts; I think Brainbin ruled it out categorically though.

The point being--the "franchise" is singing its swan song here. It doesn't matter if Sulu lives or dies; there will be not much more than fanfic about the characters that "survive." Trek won't be a future history spanning centuries after TOS and filling in (contradictory, caviled-at) canon about its abbreviated generations before; this miniseries is pretty much it. Trek is one and the same with TOS and TOS can't go on with everyone hating Shatner too much to come onstage with him yet again. Nor should it go on forever.

I really wish there would be a TNG and related spinoffs though. Oh well, we can still hope for glimpses of the Federation's future--and past--on Dr. Who!

The other reasons I quoted this--I can't believe I didn't think through the implications of the Harvey Milk massacre (can it be a massacre if it's just two men? I think it was intended to have that impact!) for George Takei's career. At this point Milk and Takei have exactly the same status--local politicians playing, due to the issues they raise just by being who they are, on the stage of statewide Califorina politics, and indeed nationwide politics across the USA. If anything Takei is more in the crosshairs than Milk due to his Trek fame. (Milk, you know, was bit involved in showbiz too--he was involved in the financial side of Hair back when he was a stockbroker in New York. But obviously Takei's role in Star Trek puts the stakes Dan White was shooting for that much higher--"impressionable youth" and all that).

If Milk evades his OTL fate, he and Takei are pretty much doomed to be each others' allies.

I have to wonder--If Reagan substituted for Carter in 1976, might that mean that right-wing panaceas might not have the luster they did OTL come 1980? Either Reagan has America in an objectively better condition come that election--which I doubt very much he can or would do, if anything I'd guess things would look even worse come that election--or there might not be the familiar right-wing steamroller we know from OTL sweeping all before it until the '86 elections. Maybe 1980s California is not defined by Reaganism, Dukemejian, and Proposition 13 as much as by the insurgent interest-group progressivism of Milk and Takei?

Oh well, even if things are objectively worse I wouldn't be able to rule out a Reagan 2nd term--I'd say it's an infamous fact, except I think few people have heard of it, that when Reagan and Carter's opinion poll numbers were exactly the same, the former was described by our press and other media as enjoying "popularity" and the latter as being "unpopular." Reagan will have a lot of good press going into 1980 even if all the objective numbers that OTL doomed Carter are twice as bad. So the right wing steamroller may roll on anyway. Heads they win, tails I lose.

Of course I mean no disrespect to Harvey Milk, who has been one of my political heroes for decades now, when I say I can't give him much of a life expectancy even if bigots can be butterflied away from shooting at him. (Or they miss, or he survives it). Unless HIV is butterflied, and I can't think of any reason it can be, Milk would almost certainly be one of the first wave of victims. I don't recall if I've even read any academically respectable history that confirms or denies he already had it when he was shot, but if not--he was very much at risk.

Takei on the other hand obviously has survived to this day OTL so odds are he'll be OK.

Well, Takei himself might explain Brainbin's hint, or of course the Milk saga. Or something out of left field I've totally forgotten about my high school years.

Hell, maybe it's HIV itself he's alluding to.

 

[Orville_third]

Part of Dan White's actions involved disputes with Moscone. (White was a city official.)
As for AIDS, the Reagan Administration didn't care much about the response. If Reagan gets kicked out by 1980 or earlier, things could be quite different. (Though it likely would not affect those affected by AIDS, unless someone discovered protease inhibitors and similar things. Then again, some fan of DeForest Kelly's may...)

 

[Brainbin]

Thank you all so much for your incredibly enthusiastic response to my latest update! In light of the 25 posts that been made since my last, I'm very to see that it has spurred so much (mostly on-topic) discussion... much of which seems to have reached a natural conclusion, so I won't rehash anything unless I have something new to add, or I just want to record my thoughts as the author for posterity. Now, all that said, as always, for my responses to your replies to my latest update...

Nicely done again. I do love the real behind the scenes stuff like this.

Thank you! I did have more on certain plot details of the miniseries, but I decided to leave the skeleton there and have everyone infer many of the particulars for themselves.

Do we see him with Carol Marcus? Or is that over already? Or butterflied TTL?

There is no Carol (nor, obviously, David) Marcus ITTL. The true love of Kirk's life is the Enterprise, as was the case in the original series canon (Edith Keeler notwithstanding). ITTL, the "little blonde lab technician" mentioned in "Where No Man Has Gone Before" (commonly held to be Marcus IOTL) is instead generally regarded as Dr. Janet Wallace from "The Deadly Years" (it helps that, even IOTL, Wallace appeared in the original drafts of The Wrath of Khan before her role was rewritten into that of Marcus).

Of all the things about "TOS" I hated, Chapel's crush on Spock was the worst.

The teasing probably went a good deal further ITTL (not crossing any line, mind you, but even IOTL Spock did show occasional interest in Nurse Chapel, in that Vulcan way of his). The Spock/Chapel relationship also serves as a microcosm for Sarek/Amanda (you'll note that his development parallels that of his father throughout the miniseries), and in doing so, helps to explain how a Vulcan could come to marry a human in the first place. A plot detail I neglected to mention was that Chapel, upon receiving her M.D., returned to the Enterprise as Chief Medical Officer, allowing her to get to know Spock better as a more mature, successful woman.

For the role of Selek, I considered casting Rod Roddenberry (or, rather, his TTL "brother"), who is after all Majel Barrett's son, but I decided against mentioning that outright. The character would be a toddler (because, if you do the math, he's intended to be conceived seven years after the events of "Amok Time"), but would almost certainly be played by a preschool-aged boy (or perhaps even older!) due to the makeup requirements. (Though as a quarter-Vulcan, the ears would probably be only slightly pointed.)

That said, an ambivalent Spock offering Leonard the chance to essentially re-invent the character...

Not to mention he gets to direct his own scenes!

It also appears that phrase has still entered the lexicon TTL.

Yes, both of the first (and only?) two Godfather films exist in substantially the same form as IOTL, as mentioned in previous updates.

A real reunion. All you need is Kor & Koloth.

A facetious remark, I'm sure, for they went kaboom at the end of "These Were the Voyages". What with the same happening to the Artemis near the end of this mini-series, I suspect it'll become a running joke in the fandom: everything always ends with a ship exploding and then the crew of the Enterprise getting promoted

And you thought Lucy had no political ambitions. She just never thinks small, does she?

Yes, that section was filled with in-jokes: instead of "Lucy Calls The President", she is the President, both literally at Desilu, and figuratively, within the context of the miniseries. Her status as matron of the Federation is a nod to her equivalent status in the history of Star Trek, and (as mentioned in the update) her using the name Carter (which she used in Here's Lucy IOTL) juxtaposes the lack of a President Carter ITTL... and he was the very same President she called in her OTL TV special!

Nice, nice touch. Well done.

Thank you very much It seemed only right that the greatest second banana in television history have her swan song opposite her old comedy partner.

Which fits the character--but I wager Jimmy Doohan wished Scotty'd get his own ship.

The Enterprise may be Kirk's true love - but it's Scotty's only child, and he's a very overprotective father (especially with that reckless Kirk getting back in command).

Somebody push him under a train.

What is it with Ricks?

On the whole I like the new timeframe better, if only I could believe this Cochrane person is out there even as we speak working on gravity control and inferring the possibility of warp from it. I certainly think that within a few decades of our launching our first FTL ship, we Terrans would be a much bigger deal than OTL canon has us being a century later; we'd have colonies and trade lines and might possibly have made such a nuisance of ourselves we'd have the Vulcans and Andorians uniting in a truce just to quash us.

Thank you! The problem in going with any hard date is that the chronological references within the series proper were contradictory - not a single, fixed time period meshes with all of them. In fact, the date chosen IOTL is blatantly incorrect, as many episodes refer to the late 20th century as "200 years ago", including "Tomorrow is Yesterday" (set in "the late 1960s"), "Space Seed" (in which the late 1990s were "two centuries ago" - which was confirmed in The Wrath of Khan despite it clearly being much closer to three centuries by that point), "Assignment: Earth" (which sets the action in 1968 exactly, though, granted, it does not exist ITTL), and (ITTL only) the crossover with Doctor Who ("the early 1970s"). As I've said, I suspect that the writing was very much on the wall by the late 1970s IOTL, and everyone simply decided to hedge their bets and tack on an extra century to what they had originally decided. And they still ran into chronological headaches in the 1990s, when they pretended that the Eugenics Wars never happened, or tried to fold them into World War III, which only created an even bigger mess. And then there was that prequel series, which I won't even dignify with further mention.

Yet another great update. Putting the actors on separate ships is certainly a plausible way of dealing with their conflicts.

Thank you! It's also a way to avoid the common criticism, IOTL and ITTL, of the Enterprise being "the only ship in the quadrant", though you'll note that at least one ship is almost always in drydock. The Excelsior and Artemis bridges borrow from the OTL tactic in The Wrath of Khan, being redressed versions of each other, whereas the Enterprise bridge (which is on a dedicated set) appears more often than both of them combined, and is obliged to resemble the old bridge as much as possible.

I think that you mean bitter divorce - unless you're implying that divorce was better than the alternatives.

You are correct, sir! Thank you for helping me catch that typo

I guess that he didn't appear as Kyle. Doctor Who has never shied away from recycling actors in different roles. For example, Colin Baker first appeared on the show as a guard captain. As he said in an interview, he got the part of the Doctor after shooting his predecessor.

No, Winston did not appear as Kyle. Though he did appear in a serial co-written by D.C. Fontana

Hooray for The High Chapparal! DeForrest Kelley always looked comfortable in his skin but he looked 'Right' (to my eyes) in Westerns.
Maybe because he was the only member of TOS Crew I recognised from elsewhere, when I saw it first?

Which makes sense; at the time that Star Trek first premiered, Kelley was far and away the most well-known of the "Big Three", largely from his character roles in (mostly) Westerns. In Kelley's own words, he was one of about a half-dozen guys who kept on playing "the heavy" for about two decades.

Intriguing as ever, Brainbin. Onwards to Turtledove glory!

I appreciate your well-wishes! And we shall soon see...

Nothing really to add to what others have said but a great new mini-series. A bit odd that Kirk stays with the Enterprise, given that although upgraded its now pretty elderly. Also while I can see the merit in Sulu's demise, given Takei's career plans a pity that Kyle, having TTL established himself as a regular also goes. Presumably partly that Winston also had career plans making him available or that the decision was a big bang with no survivors suited the plot more than Artemis being so badly damaged that she falls apart, isn't worth saving but with some survivors.

About Kirk returning to the Enterprise: many flagships have historically been quite old, and note that the current Big E at the time of both the original series and the subsequent miniseries served for fifty years total, and even IOTL, the NCC-1701 lasted for forty. About Kyle: though Winston did much better for himself ITTL, his character sadly did not (and I say this as a fan of his). Because of his relative obscurity, Winston probably has one of the best careers subsequent to Star Trek ITTL, and he came back strictly because he would be a fool not to take the merchandising deal (which ensures that neither he nor his castmates ever have to work again another day in their lives).

SHould've had RFK survive. The POD is plausible.

I addressed this quite some time ago, and I now direct you to the post explaining my rationale on that score.

+1 & then some.

Thank you!

BTW the German opening credits placed Star Trek in the year 2200.

I like that - a nice, round number. And it is about two centuries after the Eugenics Wars...

An interesting update.
I agree that 2175 seems far too early but I guess maybe the temptation was too unavoidable to the team (tho surely 500 years should be more tempting?)
Ah well, i guess someone will come up a workable solution

Thank you, Professor! Though, sadly, we won't be moving past 1986 ITTL, so we'll not find out either way

Good update.

Thank you, Thande!

The fact there are two 'guest ships' with recognisable captains will create a different and unique dynamic to the piece, the only place I have seen it is in some Star Trek novels and fan works. Of course the hard part will be trying to get a consistent cast of extras for the bridge crews (or at least their major members) on the other two ships, I suspect it's not possible.

No, the extras will be one of their lesser concerns, considering that they're balancing dozens of characters who have dialogue, some of whom are going to cost a pretty penny even outside of the nine mains and the aforementioned merchandising deal. That would make a fun audience participation game at Star Trek conventions, actually

This is true, and I would add a corollary: a 'proper' parody is one that has lasting impact, e.g. starting jokes that run and run and might even be ironically self-referenced in a later edition of the original product itself. As opposed to the majority of parodies which burn out and are forgotten, which can easily be told by the fact that the original work will continue and have a well-nigh identical crap parody made about it 20 years later because those jokes haven't lasted and nobody knows about them. This is related to, but not the same as, what TV Tropes calls a Shallow Parody (where instead it's a parody that tries to mock a work by doing a joke which actually happens in the work itself but they were unaware of).

A fine corollary, although one that sets the bar a good deal higher - other than Star Trek (whose parodies have even become pop culture icons), there aren't that many properties which would meet your criteria. But it's a good way to gauge longevity and consistent popularity, which helps to define a true phenomenon.

Also I can't remember if you mentioned it before, but I'm glad to see McCoy's backstory managed to make it into an episode of the extended TOS.

I did indeed mention it, in my appendices for the third and fourth seasons - the two relevant episodes being "Joanna" (which, IOTL, was reworked into "The Way to Eden") and "The Stars of Sargasso", respectively. Obviously that was a major inspiration for making the show last longer in the first place; D.C. Fontana had some great ideas for the character, and we know that Kelley would have breathed incredible life into them. IOTL, he was the one member of the "Big Three" who really didn't have much of his own personality, tending to be defined by his relationships with Kirk and Spock. ITTL, he's arguably the most well-developed character on the show.

Utterly, absolutely brilliant update!

Thank you, vultan!

Sad to see Takei go out, but at least it's in a better than Kirk's OTL death.

That's a very low hurdle to clear, but I appreciate the sentiment

And John Chambers does the makeup! Goody! Hmm, how do the Saurians look ITTL?

This is how they looked IOTL, so similar to that, only less... fake-looking.

Great Update Brainbin.

Thank you, Glen!

First of all, I have to say, "They killed Sulu! Those b.......!"

Not to mention Mr. Kyle! And the Artemis! She was a fine ship, too. But Sulu died saving others - a real hero's death for him. The next best thing to a potential spinoff

Second, you made that Wacky Redhead the President of the Federation! Outstanding, outstanding! I also like that her sidekick from Lucy gets a more dignified last cameo.

I'm glad you like it! That was one of my favourite ideas for the mini-series, personally.

There are a few Trekkies or Trekkers or whatever the ATL term is lurking about, but not too many.

Trekkies. Trekkies. As I have made repeatedly clear. The fandom is far too large and diverse for pretentious "corrective" re-labeling like that to stick (in fact, the small minority of fans ITTL who would detest the term "Trekkies" have a substantial overlap with - you guessed it - the Puritans).

Consider OTL Star Wars and Harry Potter fans, whose fandoms are so mainstream that they don't even have universally accepted nicknames, let alone disputes over them.

I could be wrong about that, and were I in the timeline I'd be one of those diehards hoping for resurrection of what we OTL call "the franchise." I guess I'd have belatedly discovered the Gold Key "books"--chances are, knowing what I was like back in the '70s I'd have disdained them at the time, but eventually come around to them when I was much too old for them.

That's very bold of you to stake a claim as to what kind of fan you would be ITTL. Personally, being a popular culture purist, and even though I really don't consider myself a "Trekkie" (or similar) per se (although I probably would ITTL, for obvious reasons), I suspect that I would be a Puritan; if only because The Next Voyage really shakes the status quo, and television is my comfort food - I'm not a big fan of changes (but then again, I love The Wrath of Khan IOTL, so who knows?).

Well, dunno, maybe in this timeline too, there will be an eventual TNG of sorts; I think Brainbin ruled it out categorically though.

I sure did! Though to be fair, I did so because I was being overwhelmed by speculation about what those shows would look like ITTL.

Part of Dan White's actions involved disputes with Moscone. (White was a city official.)
As for AIDS, the Reagan Administration didn't care much about the response. If Reagan gets kicked out by 1980 or earlier, things could be quite different. (Though it likely would not affect those affected by AIDS, unless someone discovered protease inhibitors and similar things. Then again, some fan of DeForest Kelly's may...)

I want to shut something down right now. Though the start of the AIDS epidemic is generally dated to 1981 IOTL, I will not be mentioning HIV or AIDS in this timeline. That's one of the benefits of ending the timeline in 1986; it was certainly on the rise back then, but it's just early enough that I can justify not mentioning it within the context of a popular culture-focused timeline (remember, all of the OTL Very Special Episodes aired, and all of the Message Movies were released, in the early 1990s).

Also, and though I am emphatically not writing a utopia, talking about AIDS is way too grisly a note on which to end my timeline.

And, obviously, I will decline to comment specifically about the nature of my political hinting, and about Takei's political trajectory ITTL

I leave you with one question to consider: is this really the end of Star Trek in That Wacky Redhead...? There's only one way to find out!

 

[Barbarossa Rotbart]

I believe that this TL will end with the annoucement of Star Trek - The Next Generation.

About the OTL Star Trek Chronology:
In OTL the first season of TNG made it possible to make exact of all episodes and most of the movies, because it was the first time the year was given in which an non-timetravel episode took place, but in OTL the semi-official Star Trek Chronology was messed up by its writers, because of their unprofessional handling of dates and time spans (placing TWOK 20 years after Space Seed although the script says that it had only been 15 years is such a case and all because they did interprete a date from a bottle of Romulan Ale as an Earth Year).

 

[Francisco Cojuanco]

Part of Dan White's actions involved disputes with Moscone. (White was a city official.)
As for AIDS, the Reagan Administration didn't care much about the response. If Reagan gets kicked out by 1980 or earlier, things could be quite different. (Though it likely would not affect those affected by AIDS, unless someone discovered protease inhibitors and similar things. Then again, some fan of DeForest Kelly's may...)

Maybe somehow the Catholic Church decides not to site their rehab center in White's district through butterflies? Or White doesn't develop depression?

 

[Maltaran]

About Kyle: though Winston did much better for himself ITTL, his character sadly did not (and I say this as a fan of his). Because of his relative obscurity, Winston probably has one of the best careers subsequent to Star Trek ITTL, and he came back strictly because he would be a fool not to take the merchandising deal (which ensures that neither he nor his castmates ever have to work again another day in their lives).[/FONT]

I get the feeling that in his TTL career between the series ending and now, he's turned into a That Guy (because people will recognise him from Star Trek, but not remember who he is or who he played).

 

[e of pi]

I believe that this TL will end with the annoucement of Star Trek - The Next Generation.

I believe the TL will end with the second half of That Wacky Redhead's interview with Barbara Walters. Because that's the main throughline: not Trek, Lucy.

 

[vultan]

I believe the TL will end with the second half of That Wacky Redhead's interview with Barbara Walters. Because that's the main throughline: not Trek, Lucy.

It could end with her announcing in the interview that she's playing the Captain of the Enterprise-X in Star Trek: The Next Generation. And ceding control of Desilu to Rick Berman.

 

[Asharella]

Hey, Brainbin! When you get to circa 1984, I hope you discuss Miami Vice.