Would Star Trek be remembered today if TOS series had lasted five years?

[tim0122]

I'm posting this in the general discussion thread because this is less about TOS and more about Star Trek as a whole. Basically, if TOS had lasted its planned five years instead of being canceled and resurrected in movies that paved the way for a sequel series and a whole franchise of other movies and television shows, do you think it would be remembered today? Would Star Trek have expanded beyond the original series or just had its five year run, fizzled out and then be just a very small piece of science fiction history? Did the cancellation after only three seasons actually ensure Star Trek's ultimate success and influence?

 

[TheGoodStuff]

I think either way it would have spawned a franchise.

However, I also think TOS [as much as I love it] wasn't actually that good [season 3 for example is panned by many] and stretching it out over another 2 seasons may have actually done more harm than good for Trek.

Generally, I think TOS started something, it portrayed an enlightened, utopian, scientific humany...a positive future...and fans clamoured for more. So in a funny way, I think the cancellation actually helped in the long run. The fact that the movies were generally so good, then led to TNG [which is a better show than TOS] really combined to help the franchise explode. If TOS had been 2 'good' seasons and 3 'bad/awful' seasons, things could have been different.

 

[JonnyQuest037]

I think if TOS had lasted two more seasons, it probably still would have had a decent shot at immortality. The third season was the real "make or break" season for TOS, as it gave them enough episodes to make syndication a feasible option (without it, TOS would have had under 60 episodes, and channels would have just burned through the whole package too fast).

The only way I see TOS not taking off the way it did is if the quality continued to go downhill in years 4 & 5, and, as TheGoodStuff says above, the bad seasons now outnumbered the good ones. But hey, TNG is really only consistently good in its middle years, and that hasn't hurt its popularity too much.

 

[Khan 2.0]

the thought of another 2 seasons of TOS.. what might've been..

 

[somebuddyX]

This is a great question. I think you're probably right in your assessment. I think absence made the the heart grow fonder and Trek benefited from not just getting cancelled, but projects like Planet of the Titans and Phase II not getting made, allowing TMP to make a big stack of money. If TOS had gone on for two more years would that audience have been satiated with the show and the demand for a film not been there. Because of the twists and turns that happened with real Trek history I really wish we could feed all these variables into Futurama's What-If Machine and see how things could've diverged

 

[Lance]

I think the groundswell for it's return wouldn't have been as strong -- one of the largest factors behind TOS's revival was a feeling that it was somewhat of an underdog, hard done-by and unloved by the network, but with a large support base of fans. Put TOS on for a 'full run' of five years and I think a lot of people would've been like, "Yeah, it had it's time".

Look at similar TV shows of the same vintage that did have a longer life, and many of them got revived for a reboot movie at some point in the 1990s (think Mission: Impossible, Lost In Space, even something like The Brady Bunch and Beverly Hillbillies, those kinds of things). I think something similar may have happened to Star Trek, some kind of "Based On" movie rather than being a continuation of the old show. Ironically, I actually think we got the better deal out of TOS only lasting 3 years, as it gave people an impetus for wanting it revived earlier, with the original cast intact. A 5-year TOS might've just been another great sixties series that became fondly remembered, but the 3-year version became a mission statement to get it back on our screens and keep it alive.

 

[Khan 2.0]

I think the groundswell for it's return wouldn't have been as strong -- one of the largest factors behind TOS's revival was a feeling that it was somewhat of an underdog, hard done-by and unloved by the network, but with a large support base of fans. Put TOS on for a 'full run' of five years and I think a lot of people would've been like, "Yeah, it had it's time".

Look at similar TV shows of the same vintage that did have a longer life, and many of them got revived for a reboot movie at some point in the 1990s (think Mission: Impossible, Lost In Space, even something like The Brady Bunch and Beverly Hillbillies, those kinds of things). I think something similar may have happened to Star Trek, some kind of "Based On" movie rather than being a continuation of the old show. Ironically, I actually think we got the better deal out of TOS only lasting 3 years, as it gave people an impetus for wanting it revived earlier, with the original cast intact. A 5-year TOS might've just been another great sixties series that became fondly remembered, but the 3-year version became a mission statement to get it back on our screens and keep it alive.

yes that crossed my mind a while ago. if thered been no movies/spin offs Paramount would've more than likely dusted off Star Trek for a big movie in the 1990s when alot of the 60s shows were getting the big screen treatment (Avengers, LostinSpace, Mission Impossible, Fugitive, etc) - so something similar to ST09 really. maybe even doing a canon changing timeline plot as opposed to a full remake so as not to offend the die hard fans who held the original series in such high regard... maybe even had the entire TOS cast for cameos at the start (set 30 years on from TOS) and maybe Spielberg would've directed!

 

[Elder Knight]

Were it still slogging along after five years, I suspect they'd have found a way to extend it beyond that. I think it would have been rather unusual for a series of that time to have a set time limit.

Around the same time, there was this series:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Run_for_Your_Life_(TV_series)
The premise was that the protagonist had two years to live. That didn't stop them from doing a third year while their ratings held out.

 

[Kor]

I think the groundswell for it's return wouldn't have been as strong -- one of the largest factors behind TOS's revival was a feeling that it was somewhat of an underdog, hard done-by and unloved by the network, but with a large support base of fans. Put TOS on for a 'full run' of five years and I think a lot of people would've been like, "Yeah, it had it's time".

Look at similar TV shows of the same vintage that did have a longer life, and many of them got revived for a reboot movie at some point in the 1990s (think Mission: Impossible, Lost In Space, even something like The Brady Bunch and Beverly Hillbillies, those kinds of things). I think something similar may have happened to Star Trek, some kind of "Based On" movie rather than being a continuation of the old show. Ironically, I actually think we got the better deal out of TOS only lasting 3 years, as it gave people an impetus for wanting it revived earlier, with the original cast intact. A 5-year TOS might've just been another great sixties series that became fondly remembered, but the 3-year version became a mission statement to get it back on our screens and keep it alive.

If TOS had gone the Mission: Impossible route, then Kirk might have ultimately gotten the Jim Phelps treatment. That would have been awful.

Kor

 

[spockboy]

I think if TOS had lasted two more seasons, it probably still would have had a decent shot at immortality. The third season was the real "make or break" season for TOS, as it gave them enough episodes to make syndication a feasible option (without it, TOS would have had under 60 episodes, and channels would have just burned through the whole package too fast).

The only way I see TOS not taking off the way it did is if the quality continued to go downhill in years 4 & 5, and, as TheGoodStuff says above, the bad seasons now outnumbered the good ones. But hey, TNG is really only consistently good in its middle years, and that hasn't hurt its popularity too much.

Agreed. For me, TNG was awful for the first 3 years which is odd when compared to TOS who got it right from the start but then completely lost control of the ship by the end.

Come to think of it, this thread feels a lot like this one.
http://www.trekbbs.com/threads/how-...pted-to-the-1970s.279782/page-7#post-11594893


Spockboy

 

[Galileo7]

Thankfully, there was three seasons which was enough episodes to survive in syndication. If it had five seasons, then I think we would have gotten the same franchise results. It would have been a problem if it only had one season.

 

[Richard Baker]

"Always leave them wanting more"...

If the series continued at the same or hopefully better quality as the third season I think it would have endured.

If they went downhill fast- I mean LIS "The Great Vegetable Rebellion"/Carrot Man downhill fast there may have been a reboot movie and some pilots made, but it would have been a struggle.

 

[Elder Knight]

Thankfully, there was three seasons which was enough episodes to survive in syndication. If it had five seasons, then I think we would have gotten the same franchise results. It would have been a problem if it only had one season.

With only one season in the vault, it may have been rerun years later on PBS stations. I think that happened to The Paper Chase.

 

[Shat Happens]

As much as I love TOS, IDK, the 3rd season already had some stinker episodes. From TNG to Enterprise I came to believe maybe there can be such a thing as too much Star Trek.

 

[The Old Mixer]

Around the same time, there was this series:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Run_for_Your_Life_(TV_series)
The premise was that the protagonist had two years to live. That didn't stop them from doing a third year while their ratings held out.

To say nothing of M*A*S*H lasting over three times as long as the Korean War....

 

[Khan 2.0]

Even if seasons 4/5 had been season 3 quality there'd have bound to been at least 5-10 of Tholian Web/Spectre of the Gun quality

 

[Kor]

To say nothing of M*A*S*H lasting over three times as long as the Korean War....

They always gave the date as being in the correct time period, though, even when it would basically retcon stuff that supposedly already happened in that month and year.

Kor

 

[JonnyQuest037]

Agreed. For me, TNG was awful for the first 3 years which is odd when compared to TOS who got it right from the start but then completely lost control of the ship by the end.

I don't know if I'd go so far call it "awful" in the first three years. With the benefit of hindsight, I can see that the first two years were pretty hit & miss, but they still contain some episodes I outright love like "The Measure of a Man," "Elementary, My Dear Data," "The Schizoid Man," and "The Big Goodbye." And I don't think I'd discount any TV season that brought us "Sarek, " "Yesterday's Enterprise," and "The Best of Both Worlds." YMMV.

Totally agreed on TOS, of course.

Come to think of it, this thread feels a lot like this one.
http://www.trekbbs.com/threads/how-...pted-to-the-1970s.279782/page-7#post-11594893

Pffft... What a stupid thread topic. What pathetic loser started that?

 

[trekyourself]

I think with how hard TOS took off in syndication, once more people had seen it and grown used to it, if it had the 5 full seasons it was supposed too, it would have taken off too hard by the end of those seasons to be cancelled. This probably would not have been a good thing. Star trek needs it's now shows and captains and crews to stay as the beautiful thing we know it as. If it made those 5 seasons, it could have easily turned into a Dr who situation, and run a ridiculous amount of seasons, of varying quality, which delayed the awesomeness of the Dr who reboot. (Which trekkies had already got many times through TNG,VOY etc.) Sometimes too much of a good thing is not a good thing.

 

[Elder Knight]

A one-season Trek might have remained mostly underground, rather like The Prisoner, remembered and viewed only by a coven of fanatics (i.e., like us, only smaller).