What if: A different Star Trek V, Roddenberry's JFK idea

How would Roddenberry's Star Trek V idea have compared to OTL's

  • Worse, hard as that is to fathom

    Votes: 5 31.3%
  • About the same, seen as worst Trek movie, maybe 2nd worst

    Votes: 3 18.8%
  • Seen as bad as OTL's but writers blamed for "messing up Roddenberry's last idea?"

    Votes: 1 6.3%
  • Seen as better than it was becasue of Roddenberry's part in the concept

    Votes: 2 12.5%
  • Viewed better than OTL b/c it was decent,on par w/IX,"nice episode but too 'Guardian of Forever-ish"

    Votes: 2 12.5%
  • It would have vied with III to be seen as "good move,' but nowhere near the best ones

    Votes: 3 18.8%

  • Total voters
    16
I've seen discussion of this a bit here and especially on Star Trek forums years ago; with the number of Trek fans here I thought I'd finally put it to a poll.

After Star Trek: The Motion Picture came out and did poorly, Gene Roddenberry had this idera for a second movie where they went back in time to save kennedy or mybe to to do something else and eventually Spock winds up as the mysterious "gunman int he grassy knoll." The writers thankfully talked him out of it and went with "The Wrath of Khan" and the trilogy that saved the movies and provided fans with much joy.

Then came Star Trek V - a friend and I were discussing it recently and i told him of Roddenberry's idea; Roddenberry was still alive, though rather old by this time, and may have been able to create something with help thatwould be better. As my friend remarked (paraphrasing), "It would have to be better just by virtue of it not being what came out OTL." :)

So, I ask you, what if he had done it. There would be the potential for something decent I think, though not crackign the top ones; I think what it would be like int he best case scenario would be along the lines of Star Trek IX where people said it would have made a good episode but want' long enough for a movie. And, even then, it would hit a few roadblocks:

1. It's been done before. if they really thought they had to *save* Kennedy, and then wind up realizing that would just cause a nuclear war that would destroy mankind, etc., it would just make JFK too much like Edith Keeler and make Trek fans cry out, "Repeat!" Indeed, one of the main arguments the writers used to tell Roddenberry it wouldn't work the first time was that everyone would know the ending.

2. You would also have the continuity problem that they would be going back to change history when they seemed very set on making sure history continued the way it was supposed to.

(I suppose the argument could be that someone goes back and tries to save kennedy because they've gone mad and the others must try to stop him, and that somehow they don't know about an assassination 3 centuries earlier (which is possible), but that would make it even *more* like "City on the Edge of Forever.")

So, you could wind up having it really lame, too, with a *lot* of continuity gaps that would leave Trek fans wondering what happened.

Of course, you coudl also argue that the POD for the Trek universe is that Kennedy didn't die in the Trek univrse, but then of course you don't get Spock in the knoll. Unless you figure that's what would eventually be done with the movie. However, even if "Time's Arrow" hadn't aired yet, you could still very easily aruge that the POD from our universe was many decades before the 1960s anyway.

So, maybe a vote could include a comment about jsut what the movie would actually be.
 
You could always use the story that one of the 1990's Twilight Zone used, in which a descendant of JFK travels back to view the assassination and ends up inadvertently stopping the event from taking place.

In this Star Trek film, a descendant of the President is on board the Star-ship Enterprise. The Enterprise enters a time-warp (or some other reason for going back to 1963) and the crew, including Kennedy's descendant find themselves in Dealey Plaza on the day of the assassination. Here they accidentally set forth a butterfly effect that prevents the assassination from taking place. The crew then learns of how the world would be altered for the worse in the long run if JFK had actually lived, and travels back again to the day before the assassination. Combating the moral ethics of allowing another human being to unknowingly cross paths with death, the crew (including Kennedy's descendant) informs Kennedy about the event and explains the events coming forward. They provide proof that they are actually from the future and convince Kennedy to listen.

The next day, Kennedy's descendant (who is uncanny in appearance to JFK) takes his place in the limousine and sacrifices himself (after a heavy moral debate on what amounts to suicide) rather than have Kennedy killed. As the shots are fired per OTL, Spock stands in the grassy knoll with a solemn look on his face before quickly vacating the area, sparking a conspiracy we know as the shooter on the grassy knoll.

Kennedy then takes his descendants place and returns to the future. There he sees how the Final Frontier has progressed and how humanity has grown together. His ailments are cured and he resigns himself to become a teacher of American history (that had grown some incorrect assumptions by this point in the future).

Its a film about how everything happens for a reason, but is also filled with moral and ethical dilemmas such as suicide, death, living outside of one's time, etc. The connection to Kennedy and the final frontier are also an amazing opportunity.
 
Last edited:
Top