TrekWI: TNG was a Failure?

Okay, let's go through a few things that are certain:

  • No DS9. That was made on Brandon Tartikoff's specific request that Rick Berman create a spinoff of TNG that was completely different from TNG in as many respects as possible.
  • No VOY. That was made not only to continue having a TNG-like "flagship" show, but also to provide a strong opening show for the new TV network UPN. Assuming there is still a UPN, they wouldn't necessarily want a Star Trek show to kick it off because TNG has already failed.
  • No ENT. Again, it stands on the shoulders of the series that came before.
  • Yes, there will be a Star Trek V. And in fact, it'd probably be almost exactly the same. Production of the movies and TNG were almost entirely separate from each other; Star Trek IV was a phenomenal success; William Shatner wanted to direct and he was contractually entitled to it as Leonard Nimoy had directed the previous two (their contracts were tied together such that they got the same salary, benefits, etc.) In fact, it may be slightly more successful as people wouldn't be able to say "Well, I can't be bothered seeing the movie -- I've got the series".
  • Again, there will probably be a Star Trek VI as well. They wanted a 25th-anniversary movie to wrap the whole thing up with the original crew. And there's a good chance it will be almost exactly the same as well; possibly they'll be more open to Harve Bennett's "The Academy Years" movie, as it provides more opportunity for a spinoff, but the thing was actually shut down by Gulf+Western CEO Martin Davis because he hated the idea.
  • Django Siddig will never be born. He's Alexander Siddig and Nana Visitor's son -- they met on the set of DS9, had a child, married, then divorced.
  • Avery Brooks keeps his beard and doesn't stop shaving his head. He only changed his look so that Sisko would look different from his character in "Spenser: For Hire".
Things that have a good chance of happening:

  • Patrick Stewart goes back to England before the '80s are over. This was his plan if he didn't catch a "big break" in America: go back to the UK, and focus more on the stage.
  • Babylon 5 still happens, possibly earlier than OTL. The original concept and outline for "The Babylon Project" was first conceived by J Michael Straczynski in 1986, but it took five years to sell. For a long time it was rejected simply because conventional wisdom said there was only room for one space opera on TV at a time.
  • There is some kind of Excelsior spinoff with Sulu. Star Trek VI was successful. George Takei was eager for it. It would've almost certainly been profitable. And there would be no 24th-century spinoffs for it to clash with (which is most likely what killed it in OTL).
  • Jonathan Frakes, LeVar Burton and Roxann Dawson don't become directors. Star Trek was in general very friendly with the idea of having cast members direct episodes -- I think everyone who asked if they could was approved except Garrett Wang for some reason. These three are the most prolific directors among the casts, in film and television.
  • Ronald D Moore takes longer to break into television. He was discovered as a writer after passing a script onto someone while touring the set of TNG, which got him his first writing job on that show.
  • Gates McFadden remains first and foremost a choreographer. Before being cast in TNG, McFadden had been in bit parts here and there but her day job was dance choreography for stage and screen. Without starring in a hit primetime show, it's extremely likely that this arrangement will continue and she'll be primarily known as Cheryl McFadden the choreographer.
 
Yes, there will be a Star Trek V. And in fact, it'd probably be almost exactly the same.

Star Trek V may not be the same, actually. William Shanter's original concept was Dante's Inferno in space. The script was rewritten with a lighter tone as a result of studio interference following the success of TVH. A darker and possibly more successful TFF might butterfly STVI.

Babylon 5 still happens, possibly earlier than OTL. The original concept and outline for "The Babylon Project" was first conceived by J Michael Straczynski in 1986, but it took five years to sell. For a long time it was rejected simply because conventional wisdom said there was only room for one space opera on TV at a time.

Not necessarily. Its true that part of the reason why B5 was such a hard sell was because it was going up against TNG, which was regarded as ranging from good to borderline brilliant, but the other part of it was that the network execs didn't believe that audiences would wait three or four seasons for a plot thread from season one or two to be explained. Butterfly TNG and B5 might be an even harder sell.

Jonathan Frakes, LeVar Burton and Roxann Dawson don't become directors. Star Trek was in general very friendly with the idea of having cast members direct episodes.

Not at first. It took two years for Jonathan Frakes to convince the show runners to let him direct an episode.
 
[*]Babylon 5 still happens, possibly earlier than OTL. The original concept and outline for "The Babylon Project" was first conceived by J Michael Straczynski in 1986, but it took five years to sell. For a long time it was rejected simply because conventional wisdom said there was only room for one space opera on TV at a time.

Since TNG will be fresh in the ground, might Paramount buy B5 when it gets shopped around? Even a failed two or three season TNG will still boast some impressive early ratings before the rot sets in. No space opera will equal Trek's built-in audience, but still. How might a Paramount-backed B5 differ from OTL?

(It's nice to dream of Commander Sinclair as played by Avery Brooks, but that'd be a bit too cute.)
 
Star Trek V may not be the same, actually. William Shanter's original concept was Dante's Inferno in space. The script was rewritten with a lighter tone as a result of studio interference following the success of TVH. A darker and possibly more successful TFF might butterfly STVI.
Yeah, and there's no reason to expect anything different would happen in TTL either. The same factors that made Paramount push for a lighter tone are still there, with or without TNG.

Not at first. It took two years for Jonathan Frakes to convince the show runners to let him direct an episode.
Still doesn't change the fact that no show means no opportunity.
 
Mike Stearns said:
Maybe Jeri Ryan gets cast as Ivanova instead of Claudia Christian? :p

I read somewhere that Claudia Christian was actually considered for Seven of Nine.
That makes for nice symmetry, doesn't it?;)

Or, what about Jeri getting chosen instead of Amanda "Golden Touch" Tapping for Sam Carter? (Think "SG-1" needed a ratings boost from pure sexy?:p)

Also, thinking of director creds, this could deal McNeill's career a real blow, too... (It might have him focus on directing sooner, tho.)
 
Last edited:
So how does this affect Gene Roddenberry himself in regards to Trek? Does he lose complete control of his franchise from here on out?
 
Does he lose complete control of his franchise from here on out?

Depending on the size of the splat *TNG makes, I'd think so, but he didn't seem to have had a whole lot of creative control at the theatrical level at the point. Meyer reportedly ignored most of Roddenberry's objections over ST:VI, like over Saavik being a villain (though she was later changed into Valeris for other reasons).


So how does this affect Gene Roddenberry himself in regards to Trek?

I think it'd take the luster out of his halo, but given the setbacks he'd already endured it wouldn't be a Lucas-esq reputation killer. Plus, he'll be dead not long after a 2~3 season *TNG flops. Death helps a lot with reputation.

My guess would be that *TNG will be seen by Trekkies, in the long-run, as a well-intentioned work by Gene but, because of health and age, one beyond his abilities at that point. To less charitable fans, it'll be the Galactica 1980 of the Trek franchise. Although I think *TNG's utopianism will damage the notion of Trek being a sort of model to the future we're meant to aspire to.


As for another suggestion to help kill *TNG, would about some sort of fiasco involving "Blood and Fire"? Like the gay-free rewrite "Blood and Ice" goes forward, and it gets around the convention circuit that TNG chickened out of doing old school Trek social commentary.
 
Jonathan Frakes will go down in memory as the whining Hazardbrother in North and south if TNG hadnt showed up:p

And earlier B5 mean that Mia Furlan isnt avalible for one.
 
Depending on the size of the splat *TNG makes, I'd think so, but he didn't seem to have had a whole lot of creative control at the theatrical level at the point. Meyer reportedly ignored most of Roddenberry's objections over ST:VI, like over Saavik being a villain (though she was later changed into Valeris for other reasons).
Didn't have no input over any of the films besides the original?

think it'd take the luster out of his halo, but given the setbacks he'd already endured it wouldn't be a Lucas-esq reputation killer. Plus, he'll be dead not long after a 2~3 season *TNG flops. Death helps a lot with reputation.

My guess would be that *TNG will be seen by Trekkies, in the long-run, as a well-intentioned work by Gene but, because of health and age, one beyond his abilities at that point. To less charitable fans, it'll be the Galactica 1980 of the Trek franchise. Although I think *TNG's utopianism will damage the notion of Trek being a sort of model to the future we're meant to aspire to.
Heh, nice comparison with Lucas. And yeah, the death bit.
 
Didn't have no input over any of the films besides the original?

.

He was officially the "Executive Consultant". Which effectively meant that he was able to send off as many complaining memos as he liked, and Harve Bennett et al could ignore them as much as THEY liked.
 
Top