Star Trek created in 1866 instead of 1966

[Lord Garth]

What would Star Trek be like if it were created in 1866 instead of 1966? Let's pretend Gene Roddenberry lived exactly 100 years earlier. 1821-1891. His influences are Lucian of Samosata (a Greek writer who lived from 125-180 AD), Mary Shelly, and Jules Verne. Among others.

Jules Verne would've written From the Earth to the Moon in 1865 in France, though it wouldn't be translated and published in English until 1867.

Another French writer, C.I. Defontenay, wrote Star, ou Psi Cassiopea in 1854. I'll cut-and-paste the description of Cassiopea from Wikipedia:

• "Defontenay's 1854 Star, ou Psi Cassiopea is seen by some as an example of proto-space opera. Others see Defontenay as a predecessor of Olaf Stapledon. Star describes the discovery in the Himalayas of a stone that has fallen from the sky. After opening it, it turns out to contain a metal box where the narrator finds some paper manuscripts. After two years of study, he managed to decipher them and finds out that they describe the alien societies of various humanoid races living in the constellation of Cassiopeia. One set of creatures were 9-foot tall blue-haired immortal humanoids.
• Defontenay's other accomplishments included being a pioneer in plastic surgery. He was a disciple of Fourier and Hoffman. His writings often display his philosophical kinship with those thinkers."

A British writer, Jane C. Loudon, wrote The Mummy!: Or a Tale of the Twenty-Second Century. A description, also quoted from Wikipedia below:

• It concerns the Egyptian mummy of Cheops, who is brought back to life in the year 2126. The novel describes a future filled with advanced technology, and features one of the earliest known examples of a "mummy's curse".
• She may have drawn inspiration from the general fashion for anything pharaonic, inspired by the French researches during the Napoleonic invasion of Egypt; the 1821 public unwrappings of Egyptian mummies in a theatre near Piccadilly, which she may have attended as a girl; and, very likely, the 1818 novel by Mary Shelley, Frankenstein. As Shelley had written of Frankenstein's creation, "A mummy again endued with animation could not be so hideous as that wretch," which may have triggered young Miss Webb's later concept. In any case, at many points she deals in greater clarity with elements from the earlier book: the loathing for the much-desired object, the immediate arrest for crime and attempt to lie one's way out of it, etc. However, unlike the Frankenstein monster, the hideous revived Cheops is not shuffling around dealing out horror and death, but giving canny advice on politics and life to those who befriend him. In some ways The Mummy! may be seen as her reaction to themes in Frankenstein: her mummy specifically says he is allowed life only by divine favour, rather than being indisputably vivified only by mortal science, and so on, as Hopkins' 2003 essay covers in detail.
• Unlike many early science fiction works (Shelley's The Last Man, and The Reign of King George VI, 1900-1925, written anonymously in 1763), Loudon did not portray the future as her own day with only political changes. She filled her world with foreseeable changes in technology, society, and even fashion. Her court ladies wear trousers and hair ornaments of controlled flame. Surgeons and lawyers may be steam-powered automatons. A kind of Internet is predicted in it. Besides trying to account for the revivification of the mummy in scientific terms—galvanic shock rather than incantations--"she embodied ideas of scientific progress and discovery, that now read like prophecies" to those later down the 1800s. Her social attitudes have resulted in this book being ranked among feminist novels.

So that gives us an idea of what other science-fiction there was in 1866. For argument's sake, let's say Gene Roddenberry took a vacation to France in 1865 and could speak the language. Just so he can be familiar with Jules Verne in time.

Gene Roddenberry puts out a series of books about Star Trek. How many, I don't know.

What those stories would be about would be pretty interesting.

Moving forward to the next century: In 1902, the film A Trip to the Moon is released.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

So, Gene Roddenberry's family could've had his Star Trek novels turned into silent films as early as the 1900s.

.
.
.

The question then becomes: if Star Trek managed to survive to 2018, do you believe it would be a franchise that should adhere to its 1860s roots? That it shouldn't be a reflection of today's future but the future as projected from the 19th Century?

And what would that mean for a Star Trek production today? If there were any? Would purists insist on a Steampunk version of Star Trek? Actually, I'd kind of like to see a Steampunk Star Trek, but anyway...

I put the question to you.

 

[Albertese]

Well, regarding the last point you raise, I'd point out Sherlock Holmes, which today both has modernized versions as well as Victorianesque versions. On the other hand, some stories are retold today but the 19th century is integral to the story, such as various versions of Frankenstein some Verne or Wells. That said, War of the Worlds always seems to be told in whatever the "modern day" is as the time of release.

So I can see it going both ways.

--Alex

 

[PureCrimson]

Considering Roddenberry got a lot of his views on life (ie, what he wanted to convey in Trek) from being in WW2, I don't think he'd even create Star Trek 100 years prior. No WW2, it's not Trek.

Whatever he created might be a wholly different entity entirely, even if he had the means to create a means of entertainment at the time.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Considering Roddenberry got a lot of his views on life (ie, what he wanted to convey in Trek) from being in WW2, I don't think he'd even create Star Trek 100 years prior. No WW2, it's not Trek.

Whatever he created might be a wholly different entity entirely, even if he had the means to create a means of entertainment at the time.

Yes, in 1866, Star Trek would have been shaped by the Civil War, which had just concluded.

 

[PureCrimson]

Yes, in 1866, Star Trek would have been shaped by the Civil War, which had just concluded.

I can get why he wanted an ethically diverse cast after something like WW2, but with the Civil War... hmmm. Probably not nearly to that level; it'd probably be mostly about blacks and whites, if it was any sort of morality play at heart at all anymore.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

I can get why he wanted an ethically diverse cast after something like WW2, but with the Civil War... hmmm. Probably not nearly to that level; it'd probably be mostly about blacks and whites, if it was any sort of morality play at heart at all anymore.

The American West was also well in progress, so.... gotta disagree. Lotta multicultural possibilities.

 

[Tenacity]

Post civil war the Earth political structure could serve as example for interstellar affairs. Lots of empires, kingdoms, some republics. America (a analog for the Federation) was a growing power, but still weaker than many of the major players.

And there was still exploration going on around the Earth, a spirit of discovery.

It's been noted in the past that Star Trek has always had a connect with the "age of sail."

 

[Lord Garth]

I think the Civil War would very probably play a major influence. Which means the United Federation of Planets would be pretty divided.

Gulliver's Travels was one of Gene Roddenberry's inspirations for Star Trek and that was written by Jonathan Swift in 1726.

One thing that stands out to me: Horatio Hornblower wouldn't be an influence, since C.S. Forester didn't come out with The Happy Return, Horatio's first appearance, until 1937.

 

[uniderth]

Well considering Star Trek would have been in the public domain for quite some time I'd think you'd see all sort of varieties on it. Because of this there would be no "official canon" any more and the only canon that would matter would be head canon. Of course if the original works were popular, you might have the Roddenberry Estate fighting tooth and nail to maintain control over their ancestors works, even though they are in the public domain.

 

[Lord Garth]

I think that's the basic difference between Star Trek and other, much older lore. It eventually became public domain, or could've been. Star Trek was never public domain -- possibly not withstanding proper paperwork with the Desilu-produced episodes until 1978 -- so the only "official" version is the one put out by CBS/Paramount.

So Star Trek, Doctor Who, and some soap-operas are in uncharted territory being TV narratives that have gone on for a half-century or more. Soap-operas are always Present Day -- except for Dark Shadows (which is pretty good, and I'd recommend to anyone who's interested in anything Gothic or Victorian) -- so Doctor Who is the only thing we can compare Star Trek to in that regard.

 

[lawman]

The question then becomes: if Star Trek managed to survive to 2018, do you believe it would be a franchise that should adhere to its 1860s roots? That it shouldn't be a reflection of today's future but the future as projected from the 19th Century?

Hmm. You're not going quite where I thought you were with this... it's not so much about what a 19th-century version of Star Trek would have looked like then (which is next to impossible to imagine), but rather, if it had existed, what should it look like today?

As Uniderth points out, it would of course be in the public domain by now... so any contemporary take on it would be an adaptation, and there could easily be countless variations. It would be in the same category as properties like Sherlock Holmes, or the land of Oz, or Tarzan, or John Carter of Mars (not to mention the one-off works of authors like Verne and Wells, as you mention). Consider the countless takes on all of those out there for consumption, in a wide variety of media.

That said, while adaptations can be interesting, personally I think the original canon of this kind of work is more interesting. Sherlock is an interesting show, for instance, but it's a novelty, and not a patch on the original Holmes stories by Conan Doyle; Holmes works better as a period piece. So does Tarzan. So does, say, 20,000 Leagues Under The Sea or The Time Machine. The Barsoom stories literally can't be updated to any sort of plausible modern scientific context, so they're best as period pieces as well. And so forth, and so on.

(FWIW, I think James Bond works better as a period piece too. I don't know why the film series has always tried to keep him contemporary; it doesn't really work, and he's just a fish out of water at this point.)

So as for the unasked question, the implications for actual present-day Star Trek? Well, I've probably made this clear enough in other posts in other threads. But FWIW, so long as it's a copyrighted property and not open to be adapted freely, I think it works best when it sticks close to the original series, in look and feel and tone. Unlike some people, I don't actually think that places too many constraints on the kind of storytelling that can be done, and most of the constraints it does involve are IMHO quite reasonable. Conversely, trying to reboot it on the fly (whether soft- or hard- style) to match "contemporary expectations" just makes a muddle of it, like a photocopy of a photocopy.

 

[Lord Garth]

Hmm. You're not going quite where I thought you were with this... it's not so much about what a 19th-century version of Star Trek would have looked like then (which is next to impossible to imagine), but rather, if it had existed, what should it look like today?

I like to extrapolate backwards and forwards. If I have some working idea of what a 19th Century version of Star Trek might look like, then I'd have a better idea of what it would look like in the 21st. Otherwise, I'm just thinking in the dark. By setting context and bouncing ideas off everyone else, now it's still in the dark but we have a flashlight.

Plus, as soon as the idea popped into my head, I immediately thought to myself, "I have to flesh this out!"

As Uniderth points out, it would of course be in the public domain by now... so any contemporary take on it would be an adaptation, and there could easily be countless variations. It would be in the same category as properties like Sherlock Holmes, or the land of Oz, or Tarzan, or John Carter of Mars (not to mention the one-off works of authors like Verne and Wells, as you mention). Consider the countless takes on all of those out there for consumption, in a wide variety of media.

That said, while adaptations can be interesting, personally I think the original canon of this kind of work is more interesting. Sherlock is an interesting show, for instance, but it's a novelty, and not a patch on the original Holmes stories by Conan Doyle; Holmes works better as a period piece. So does Tarzan. So does, say, 20,000 Leagues Under The Sea or The Time Machine. The Barsoom stories literally can't be updated to any sort of plausible modern scientific context, so they're best as period pieces as well. And so forth, and so on.

(FWIW, I think James Bond works better as a period piece too. I don't know why the film series has always tried to keep him contemporary; it doesn't really work, and he's just a fish out of water at this point.)

Yeah. I've been watching the back-and-forth in that thread in the DSC Forum, chiming in when I feel like, but mostly watching the main arguments. As soon as someone mentioned older stories, meaning pre-20th Century, it got the ball rolling in my head. "What if Star Trek itself was from 100 years earlier than it was?" Then the thread started in this forum about how we'd reboot Star Trek today, then my mind went in reverse. "Instead of making it more updated, why don't we make it more outdated? How would people feel about sticking to what was originally written?"

I've always wanted to see a new James Bond movie that took place in the 1960s. Or a Batman movie that takes place in 1939.

I don't follow many superhero movies anymore. X-Men: First Class and Wonder Woman are the only ones I've bothered to see since 2010. Batman vs. Superman and The Dark Knight Rises too, but I kind of wish I hadn't seen those.

So as for the unasked question, the implications for actual present-day Star Trek? Well, I've probably made this clear enough in other posts in other threads. But FWIW, so long as it's a copyrighted property and not open to be adapted freely, I think it works best when it sticks close to the original series, in look and feel and tone. Unlike some people, I don't actually think that places too many constraints on the kind of storytelling that can be done, and most of the constraints it does involve are IMHO quite reasonable. Conversely, trying to reboot it on the fly (whether soft- or hard- style) to match "contemporary expectations" just makes a muddle of it, like a photocopy of a photocopy.

I like to keep things as close as possible too. Only changing whatever absolutely doesn't make sense. I'm not a fan of bald Klingons with four nostrils (though it's not a deal-breaker) and the D7's definitely aren't D7's (as nice as I think they look) but those who are like "yes they are!!!" care more about it than I do, so I don't think it's worth it to get into that argument. I don't want to spend thread after thread, post after post, arguing about it non-stop. They'll go on forever if you let them, so, like I've said before, I pick my battles. So I just say "Visually it's a reboot, story-wise it isn't!" and move on.

Computer displays are interesting. It's something you can almost do nothing about, really. I remember watching Prometheus and just rolling with how all the computers and displays looked compared to Alien.

I don't see anything in TOS that limits the story-telling of DSC, other than no contact with Romulans. But, if they focus on storylines besides Romulans -- in Discovery they should be discovering things -- then they don't need them.

 

[uniderth]

I've always wanted to see a new James Bond movie that took place in the 1960s. Or a Batman movie that takes place in 1939.

Totally. I'd love to see a modern sixties era Bond film. Though, it would have to be #cgiconnery.

I've had a pet idea for many years now of setting James Bond in the revolutionary war. Then TURN came out. So I guess it would just be TURN, but from the British perspective.

 

[lawman]

...then my mind went in reverse. "Instead of making it more updated, why don't we make it more outdated? How would people feel about sticking to what was originally written?"

I've always wanted to see a new James Bond movie that took place in the 1960s.

Hear, hear.

I think a lot of the problem here, actually, has to do with incorrect Hollywood assumptions about audience expectations. A lot of producers and writers seem convinced that audiences — especially young audiences with disposable income, the kind they want to sell to — are too finicky or narrow-minded or just plain dense to appreciate anything that doesn't look and feel like the here-and-now.

Seems to me like the assumption is self-evidently invalid, though, especially given the success of fantasy properties like LOTR and GOT. (Indeed, I can't help but notice that fantasy in general has less of an issue with being "re-imagined." Perhaps the lack of any connection with the here-and-now frees it up somewhat? I'm not particularly a fan of Star Wars, but maybe there's something to the argument I've seen bandied about here that it's easier for that franchise to maintain its original eclectic look-and-feel precisely because it's space fantasy, set "a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away.")

It's interesting to note, though, that properties like that are often seen as "risky" to produce, right up until they become surprise hits. Perhaps the real issue is that most producers and writers have some contemporary story they want to tell but aren't sufficiently talented or risk-tolerant to do the worldbuilding from scratch, so they just use some pre-existing IP as a palimpsest... and blaming "audience expectations" is just a convenient pretext.

In that context it's interesting that you mention Wonder Woman... I think it was a gutsy move to set it during World War I. And, of course, audiences didn't mind at all, and it became a huge hit.

I've had a pet idea for many years now of setting James Bond in the revolutionary war. Then TURN came out. So I guess it would just be TURN, but from the British perspective.

Wow, "peak TV" makes it so easy to be out of the loop about things these days. I had literally never heard of that show before this post. It sounds interesting. Is it worth watching?...

 

[Tim Thomason]

I think that's the basic difference between Star Trek and other, much older lore. It eventually became public domain, or could've been. Star Trek was never public domain -- possibly not withstanding proper paperwork with the Desilu-produced episodes until 1978 -- so the only "official" version is the one put out by CBS/Paramount.

So Star Trek, Doctor Who, and some soap-operas are in uncharted territory being TV narratives that have gone on for a half-century or more. Soap-operas are always Present Day -- except for Dark Shadows (which is pretty good, and I'd recommend to anyone who's interested in anything Gothic or Victorian) -- so Doctor Who is the only thing we can compare Star Trek to in that regard.

Dark Shadows was set in the present day (1960s and '70s when it was made), it just had freaky stuff going on.

 

[Lord Garth]

Parts of it were set in the 19th Century. I remember watching episodes that took place in 1840 on the Sci-Fi Channel, I want to say in the late-'90s (but I could be wrong). My mother, who died in 1997, was still alive.

They had storylines in 1795, 1897, 1840, and an alternate 1841. They even go to 1995. Wikipedia Link

Quentin Collin's Witchcraft Trial is what I remember watching.

 

[Tim Thomason]

Parts of it were set in the 19th Century. I remember watching episodes that took place in 1840 on the Sci-Fi Channel, I want to say in the late-'90s (but I could be wrong). My mother, who died in 1997, was still alive.

They had storylines in 1795, 1897, 1840, and an alternate 1841. They even go to 1995. Wikipedia Link

Quentin Collin's Witchcraft Trial is what I remember watching.

Oh, I only ever saw a couple episodes (probably also on Sci-Fi in the '90s), and missed the fact that they had whole storylines set in different times and places.

My bad. Now I have to see the episodes set in 1995 to see how well they predicted the future.

 

[uniderth]

Wow, "peak TV" makes it so easy to be out of the loop about things these days. I had literally never heard of that show before this post. It sounds interesting. Is it worth watching?...

YES!

 

[Tim Thomason]

Turn sounds like a show I would like to watch, but I have like 15 shows I would like to watch in the wings. When I have 40 hours to spare, I might give it a whirl.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

AMAZING VICTORIAN STAR-TREK PORTRAITS:

https://www.swaggerninja.com/amazing-victorian-star-trek-portraits/