• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

If you could go back....

For example, if Kirk was going to kiss Uhura, then he should've really laid one on her for several seconds full screen, and Roddenberry should've left it to the network to explain publicly why that was something they wouldn't air.
Why wouldn't they air it?

On August 17th of 1965, NBC vice president Mort Werner sent Roddenberry a letter reminding Roddenberry of NBC's employment policy of including minorities, specially "negros," in NBC shows, and asking for Roddenberry's cooperation.

I've never read anything about NBC having a problem with "the kiss."

At least from what I understand from memory (and someone chime in if I'm wrong), when NBC found out the kiss was in the script, they were concerned with the reaction it may create in their southern affiliates. NBC eventually said two shots of the scene had to be done, one with the kiss and one without. According to Nichols, Shatner deliberately ruined all of the non-kiss takes so that the only usable shot was of the kiss. NBC finally told them to go ahead with it. Nichols speculated that part of the reason why they relented may have been they knew the series was going to be cancelled, anyway.

Edited to add: After a short search, I found a link to a Nichols interview about "the kiss." There may be other versions, but what's in here is in most versions.
http://www.geeksofdoom.com/2012/09/...talks-about-her-famous-kiss-with-captain-kirk
 
Any time Ms. Nichols trots out the Rev. Martin Luther King story it make me wonder as to the veracity of follow on statements.

I've just finished a reread of Inside Star Trek and don't remember the NBC rep, or NBC corporate, having any problem with "the kiss." While a NBC rep would read the shooting scripts and review the filmed episodes, I don't think there was a NBC rep on the set consulting with the directors while the episodes were being filmed.

I have heard anecdotal that a very few of the NBC affiliates in the south-east did have a problem, but again nothing from New York.
 
We could have Admiral Komack be a woman, because I wouldn't want to lose Malachi Throne, Percy Rodriguez, Barry Russo, William Windom, or Morgan Woodward.

But conversely, we really wouldn't want Commodore Stocker to be a woman, that would be terrible.

But we did Commodore Grey in Lolani and we didn't even need a time machine.


My pick for a small change is to have at least one more Andorian that does/says something. The only Andorian we see that talks in the whole three seasons is Ambassador Shras.

Pauln6, great Rand pictures!
 
If I came across a time machine changing something about Star Trek would be the LAST thing I'd do.

In fact, it wouldn't even make the list.
 
If I came across a time machine changing something about Star Trek would be the LAST thing I'd do.

In fact, it wouldn't even make the list.

+1

I'd be too busy plundering the past. :lol:

If it could only make a relatively short "jump" as suggested by Warped9, roughly 50 years, I'd use that machine to reached May 25, 1966, Forest Park, GA and hopefully stop my mother from "splashing" her brains across the bedsheets with a .22 pistol..."causality disruptions" be damned!

Sincerely,

Bill
 
If it could only make a relatively short "jump" as suggested by Warped9, roughly 50 years, I'd use that machine to reached May 25, 1966, Forest Park, GA and hopefully stop my mother from "splashing" her brains across the bedsheets with a .22 pistol..."causality disruptions" be damned!

Sincerely,

Bill
Words fail me, sir.
 
If it could only make a relatively short "jump" as suggested by Warped9, ....

Sincerely,

Bill

Bill, I'm sorry. It's difficult.

It's actually a comfort of a sort that things like that don't exist, otherwise why wouldn't you do something? It's too much responsibility for us to have, I think.
 
Last edited:
If I came across a time machine changing something about Star Trek would be the LAST thing I'd do.

In fact, it wouldn't even make the list.

+1

I'd be too busy plundering the past. :lol:

If it could only make a relatively short "jump" as suggested by Warped9, roughly 50 years, I'd use that machine to reached May 25, 1966, Forest Park, GA and hopefully stop my mother from "splashing" her brains across the bedsheets with a .22 pistol..."causality disruptions" be damned!

Sincerely,

Bill

Yep. Saving my mom from what I've always believed was her suicide would be my top priority too.

You have my sympathies Bill. It sucks beyond belief that we have that in common.
 
I think the time travel opportunity may be best served by trying to talk NBC out of cancelling the show, leaving its budget alone, and keeping it in the earlier time slot. "Trust me, I'm from the future!" - okay, that may not work :lol:.
 
I think the time travel opportunity may be best served by trying to talk NBC out of cancelling the show, leaving its budget alone, and keeping it in the earlier time slot. "Trust me, I'm from the future!" - okay, that may not work :lol:.

We could just whisper in Lucy's ear while she's sleeping not to sell to Paramount.

Can anyone play the Theremin? There's usually one of those in the background when people from the FUTURE show up.
 
I think the time travel opportunity may be best served by trying to talk NBC out of cancelling the show, leaving its budget alone, and keeping it in the earlier time slot. "Trust me, I'm from the future!" - okay, that may not work :lol:.
My initial post didn't really lay any ground rules, but I was suggesting not changing history too much.

Convincing NBC not to cancel the show sounds awesome, but that would certainly make a dramatic change to history as we know it. If Star Trek had indeed run for five years it's unknown whether we would later have gotten the films and later spin-off series. For fans of those films and shows that mightn't be something they'd want to risk.

Then again if you never had them you'd never know what you missed.

Star Trek's cancellation three years in left audiences hungry for more, for what could have been. Would a five year run have left the same appetite?

I admit I was initially thinking in smaller terms of changes that could have made the show a little better without drastically altering what happened overall.

Lucy was in a financial bind with Desilu so she basically had to sell. Were there any other suitors other than Paramount? If so would anyone else have acted differently than Paramount once they acquired the show? Maybe if Paramount could have been convinced not to slash the budget as they had as well as not being the corporate nannies they apparently were then perhaps Star Trek could have finished its three year run with fewer less-than-impressive episodes and look a little better throughout the second and third seasons.

But that's just my take on it.
 
Last edited:
"Don't cast John Barrymore."

"Maybe have an admiral or an ambassador who isn't a moron. Maybe two?"

"Don't have Luke kiss his sister!" Wait, what?
 
Get them to air the show in production order, so it would be in that order on my Blu-rays.

"Interesting trivia: Star Trek was intended to air in September. But due do the inability to produce the premier episode's complicated visual effects the show didn't air until November. Many people consider this to be the main reason the show was cancelled after four episodes."
 
Probably just have the network air WNMHGB first, pretty much anything other than "Spock's Brain" as the Season 3 premiere and maybe "All Our Yesterdays" last.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top