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.
phx1138 said:
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).
phx1138 said:
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.)
phx1138 said:
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!
phx1138 said:
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.
phx1138 said:
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
phx1138 said:
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!
phx1138 said:
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.
phx1138 said:
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).
phx1138 said:
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.
NCW8 said:
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
NCW8 said:
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.
Falkenburg said:
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
Thank you, Thande!
Thande said:
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
Thande said:
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.
Thande said:
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!
vultan said:
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
vultan said:
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.
Thank you, Glen!
Glen said:
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
Glen said:
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.
Shevek23 said:
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?).
Shevek23 said:
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!