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.
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.