As part of my ongoing series of articles to celebrate Star Trek’s big sixtieth anniversary year, I want to take you to an alternate reality! No, not the Kelvin timeline, the Mirror Universe, nor any of the other parallel worlds glimpsed in various Star Trek productions over the past six decades. What I want to examine is what our world – the real world – might look like if Star Trek had never aired.
Because… we came closer to that than you might think.
I daresay most Trekkies know this, but I’ll very briefly recap for anyone new or who doesn’t remember. In 1964, Gene Roddenberry penned Star Trek Is…, the first pitch for what would become The Original Series. In late 1964 and into 1965, The Cage was produced by Desilu for NBC… who shot it down. However, convinced that Star Trek could still be made to work – subject to some revisions – NBC approved the production of a second pilot. That episode would become Where No Man Has Gone Before, which I re-watched here on the website a few weeks back.

But for our purposes today… we’re gonna say that the second pilot didn’t happen, and then examine the alternate timeline created by Star Trek’s absence.
In this timeline, NBC took a look at The Cage and rejected it even more strongly, refusing to pick up Star Trek or greenlight that second pilot, let alone commission a full season. Gene Roddenberry and Desilu might’ve tried to shop the project to CBS and others, but they also refused to pick it up. Star Trek would never be made, and The Cage would remain in Desilu and NBC’s vaults for decades without being broadcast.
What’s the point of this exercise? Good question!

I think it’s an interesting thought experiment. What might the sci-fi landscape look like, six decades on, without Star Trek? Would other shows of the mid-60s have stepped up to take its place? Would some shows that, in the real world, only lasted one or two seasons, have taken the audience that TOS got, and gone on to become enduring, popular franchises? And what of Star Trek’s legacy beyond the world of entertainment? The franchise has inspired people all over the world to get into fields like engineering, medicine, and, of course, astronomy and space sciences.
In short… what might the world look like without Star Trek, and how big can we really argue the franchise’s influence has been? Those are the questions I want to consider as we step “through the looking-glass” to this strange parallel universe!
So let’s get back to our alt-history story. It’s early 1965, and the word from NBC and Desilu is “no.” Gene Roddenberry’s sci-fi pitch hasn’t been picked up and won’t be going ahead.

Photo Credit: Majel Barrett Roddenberry/The Roddenberry Estate
Gene Roddenberry, by the mid-1960s, had already been working in TV for a decade. He had credits as a writer and as a producer on dozens of productions in genres like police procedurals and westerns, and was the creator of The Lieutenant, a drama series set in the US Marine Corps. I daresay that, if Star Trek hadn’t been picked up, Rodenberry’s career would have continued in a similar vein – writing a few episodes here and there for various different shows, working as a producer where he could, and perhaps continuing to pitch new ideas to the networks. Whether anything else would’ve been on Star Trek’s level, though… well, I doubt it.
Here in the real world, after The Original Series had aired, but before the Star Trek films and The Next Generation were created, Roddenberry put together a few more pitches and ideas for new TV shows. Four of these became TV movies: Genesis II, Planet Earth, The Questor Tapes, and Spectre. I daresay none of these would’ve been made without Roddenberry’s status having been inflated by Star Trek’s success – and there’d almost certainly be no Earth: Final Conflict or Andromeda, either – the two ’90s/’00s sci-fi shows produced after Roddenberry’s death based on his work and ideas.

The Original Series, despite its prominence to us Trekkies, wasn’t the only sci-fi series on American TV in the mid-1960s. Science fiction was still a relatively new genre, especially on television, but there were successful sci-fi and sci-fi-adjacent shows on the air. The Twilight Zone is one of the most famous, of course, and predates Star Trek by more than seven years. The first Batman TV series – the one starring Adam West – was also on the air from 1966 to 1968. Then there’s the likes of Lost in Space, which aired for three seasons from 1965, The Time Tunnel, which only managed a single season in 1966-67, Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea, which ran for four seasons from 1964, and The Invaders, which ran for one season.
In a world without Star Trek, might some of these have been more successful?
We already know the legacy of Batman – new films with the titular character are still being created today, and Batman was a pretty big hit at the time. The same is true for The Twilight Zone. But I want to zoom in on The Time Tunnel, The Invaders, and Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea this time – I think, in a world without Star Trek, they’re exactly the kinds of niche, nerdy, “cult classic” TV shows that could have hoovered up the Trekkie community that never was!

Picture this: The Time Tunnel doesn’t get canned in 1967, but runs for two more seasons. It gets re-broadcast in syndication in the early ’70s, growing in popularity, and before you know it… fans are clamouring for more. Perhaps an animated series would be created to satiate fans, or maybe the show would be picked up for some kind of second phase.
Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea could be in a similar boat (if you’ll excuse the pun). It has a lot in common with Star Trek, with aliens, monsters, and a lot of themes that tie into real-world events and issues. In a world without Star Trek, Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea – which was already on the air – could’ve been primed to pick up the baton for sci-fi with a message, and the fan community could’ve latched onto that. Again, after the series went off the air, re-runs could’ve grown its audience, leading to calls for a sequel series or movie.

The Invaders only lasted for a single season, but I can absolutely see a pathway for a show like that to succeed in a world without Star Trek. After defeating the initial alien invasion, perhaps the characters would’ve discovered that it was only the first part of a larger plan, or that other alien races also have designs on Earth. The Invaders, being set on Earth, is different to Star Trek – but still has that “cult classic” potential.
I haven’t mentioned another ’60s classic, yet – but there’s a reason for that.
Doctor Who started airing here in the UK in 1963, and it quickly became a family favourite with us Brits! But Doctor Who didn’t cross the Atlantic until well into the 1970s, and I think its legacy is still very much a British thing. That isn’t to say Doctor Who couldn’t have gotten even bigger, if there were a big Star Trek-shaped void in the sci-fi realm. But in terms of what we’re talking about today… I consider it kind of off to one side in its own, very British niche.

So that’s our alt-history ’60s! With no Star Trek, a show like Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea, Lost in Space, The Invaders, or The Time Tunnel manages to pick up some of the would-be Trekkies, and blows up to become much bigger than it ever did in our world.
If I had to pick just one – based on my admittedly incomplete knowledge of these programmes – I’m going to say, for the sake of argument, that it’s Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea that makes the leap. Lost in Space might seem superficially more similar to Star Trek, and I like The Time Tunnel for its visual style and timeline-hopping shenanigans! But if we’re picking just one of these, for the purposes of building out our alt-history of televised sci-fi, I’m gonna say that Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea has the right mix of sci-fi, classic adventures, and a comparable kind of moral messaging to The Original Series, so it’s going to be the winner!

But what does that mean for the next chapter of our alternate timeline?
In the real world, the success of Star Trek – especially in the early 1970s after being rebroadcast – directly led to an expansion of the sci-fi genre. George Lucas, the creator of Star Wars, has said on the record that Star Trek paved the way for Star Wars, literally saying that Star Wars stood “on the shoulders” of Star Trek and the sci-fi-friendly audience that it helped to create. So, without Star Trek… do we get Star Wars?
There are other sci-fi films and series in our alt-timeline, so I’m not going to suggest that an expansion of the science fiction genre “never happens.” 2001: A Space Odyssey was in pre-production before Star Trek came along, and that film is still hugely influential over the genre, just as one example.

However, I do believe that, in a world without Star Trek, the timings of some of these things changes. Perhaps 2001: A Space Odyssey is still a success, or maybe it’s slightly less successful without Star Trek giving its audience a bit of a boost. But without Star Trek, and especially without the resurgence of space-based sci-fi that Star Trek led in the late ’60s and early ’70s, I’m going to say that there’s no Star Wars in 1977 – and no Alien in 1979, either.
There’s still a place, in our alt-timeline, for both an epic space fantasy like Star Wars and a gritty sci-fi horror picture like Alien. But because Star Trek looms so large over both films (and their subsequent franchises), and because in this alt-timeline, sci-fi has gone in a different direction, I’m going to posit that neither of these hugely influential pictures gets made. There will be epic sci-fi and sci-fi horror… but it won’t come along in the second half of the ’70s, it’ll come much later.

Photo: Dan Madsen
Now we have to talk even more speculatively!
I’ve suggested that, without Star Trek, and with the sci-fi genre looking very different in the ’70s, we don’t see Star Wars in 1977 or Alien in 1979. Star Wars, according to George Lucas, was only able to come along when it did because Star Trek had “softened the ground” for sci-fi and brought new eyes to the genre. And Alien almost feels like the antithesis of Star Trek in many ways – a working-class crew of “space truckers,” a corporate dystopia, and a film that presents space not as “the final frontier” for peaceful exploration, but as a dark, dangerous place. Neither film gets to exist without Star Trek.
But what does the absence of *those* titles mean? Arguably, the Star Wars franchise is even more important for sci-fi going into the ’80s than Star Trek, and Alien is not only a landmark science fiction film, but a seminal work of the horror genre, too. If Star Trek means neither of those films get made… well, now we have to look at the snowball effect and the ramifications of that!

I maintain that, somehow, sci-fi would have a resurgence on both the big and small screens in our alt-timeline. But if it doesn’t happen in the ’70s, then do we get films like E.T., The Terminator, Blade Runner, Flight of the Navigator, or The Last Starfighter in the ’80s? And without Alien, what becomes of films like The Thing or The Fly? None of this is to say that Star Trek, Star Wars, and Alien are directly responsible for these films’ existence, but if you hack away at the foundations of sci-fi on the small and big screens, it’s at least conceivable to me that these stories never get greenlit; that studio executives and producers aren’t willing to fund “experimental” films or “unproven” genres like sci-fi and sci-fi/horror in such a big way. The entire landscape of ’80s cinema would be completely changed as a result.
With less space-based sci-fi, we come back to my idea about shows like Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea and The Time Tunnel proving popular. Perhaps sci-fi goes in more of a terrestrial direction, with films inspired by those shows doing more with sci-fi concepts on Earth, in the deep sea, and going backwards and forwards through time. That might bode well for Back to the Future, The Abyss, RoboCop, and similar titles in this era!

I also think that, in lieu of sci-fi, we could see more films in the fantasy or superhero genres in the ’70s and continuing into the ’80s. There are landmark fantasy films in this era – The NeverEnding Story, for instance, which was a favourite of mine when I was a kid. You could also point to Labyrinth, The Dark Crystal, The Last Unicorn, Highlander, and even The Princess Bride as films that would likely still exist. Some of these titles might grow in popularity in a world without Star Trek and Star Wars, with fantasy becoming a much bigger genre in this era.
Without Star Trek and Star Wars leading the way for sci-fi, films like Superman could have led to the superhero genre becoming much bigger, much earlier. It’s hard to remember nowadays – almost twenty years into the Marvel Cinematic Universe’s dominance at the box office – but the superhero/comic book adaptation genre wasn’t always a guaranteed box office draw. The end of the ’80s saw Tim Burton’s Batman, but in our alt-timeline, I wonder if superheroes like Iron Man, the X-Men, and others might’ve stepped into the void left by fewer sci-fi titles. Superheroes and sci-fi have a lot of things in common, and comic book adaptations could easily be this timeline’s biggest blockbusters.

Having rolled the snowball into the ’80s, I think changes from here become harder to predict. If we have more fantasy films, for instance, could an adaptation of The Lord of the Rings be produced years earlier? And if so… would it be as well-received? That’s very much an open question. If superheroes dominate the ’80s box office, how long does that last? And what does it mean for blockbuster titles in the ’90s and towards the millennium? Again, stacking change atop change makes things harder to predict!
I will posit, though, that sometime in the late ’80s or early ’90s, someone, somehow, cracks the sci-fi genre open again. Films set in space, be they horror titles, pure sci-fi, or epic adventures will – eventually and, from our point of view, belatedly – hit the big and small screens. But in our alt-timeline, I doubt we’d recognise any of them, or any of their names. Some might draw inspiration from the same sources as Star Trek and Star Wars, whereas others may be inspired by the dominant fantasy and superhero genres, or even the terrestrial sci-fi shows that replaced Star Trek. But somehow, some way, we don’t see space stories completely disappear. And going into the millennium and beyond, there may be fewer films and TV shows like that… but there are still going to be *some*.

Photo: ESO/WFI (Optical); MPIfR/ESO/APEX/A.Weiss et al. (Submillimetre); NASA/CXC/CfA/R.Kraft et al. (X-ray)
Star Trek’s influence, though, doesn’t merely extend to the world of entertainment. So let’s also consider what the franchise’s absence could mean outside of the realm of film and TV.
There are countless individual stories of people who were inspired to become engineers because of Scotty, doctors because of Dr McCoy, or astronomers because of Star Trek’s focus on science. We can’t possibly account for all of those individually, but there are some trends we can point to.
First of all, I think a world without Star Trek would gradually see less interest in space and space exploration. It wouldn’t be obvious at first; the moon landing, the Space Shuttle, and so on would still happen on schedule and would still attract interest and attention. But gradually, over time, without the inspirational aspect that Star Trek brought to the table, there’d be fewer people getting interested in astronomy and related scientific fields, and – as above – that would have a kind of snowball effect.

Photo: NASA
There are some specific areas where Star Trek had more of a direct influence. For example, the first Space Shuttle was only named “Enterprise” because of a campaign by Trekkies! So I think, in our alt-timeline, that Shuttle would almost certainly have a different name (most likely “Constitution,” for America’s bicentennial) – and that could have knock-on effects for the rest of the fleet. Then there’s Nichelle Nichols’ role in helping to recruit female astronauts, as detailed in Women In Motion, a great documentary film.
NASA would still want to recruit women astronauts to go into space, but it’s conceivable that this would be slower, and perhaps the first American woman to go into space (which, in the real world, was Sally Ride in 1983) wouldn’t happen until later.
I don’t think we’re talking about major discoveries or missions not going ahead; the space shuttle was already in early development by the late ’60s, and I can’t really point to any specific mission to space that wouldn’t have been able to go ahead without Star Trek and its legacy. But I think it’s fair to say that some missions might’ve launched later, that fewer people might’ve felt called to work in space-related scientific fields, and that there would be knock-on effects of that. By the time our alt-timeline reaches 2026, the snowball effect could put it several years behind the real world in terms of certain missions and discoveries.

As we can see, Star Trek’s absence doesn’t mean there’s *no* sci-fi, no space adventures on TV, or massive, earth-shattering impacts on space exploration. But the entertainment landscape – and the world at large – would be undeniably different without it. Science fiction could easily have gone in a very different, more terrestrial direction, focusing for years not on outer space, but on the deep oceans, time travel, and the future of Earth. If aliens appeared at all, they’d appear as visitors – or invaders – rather than being encountered out in space, on their own home worlds.
Star Trek’s vision of humanity’s future is more optimistic, uplifting, and aspirational than practically any other sci-fi setting, and its writers have almost always found ways to tell interesting and dramatic stories despite the denizens of Earth living in a tech-driven post-scarcity “utopia.” I’m not sure any other franchise – real or imagined – could pull that off quite so successfully in our alt-timeline, and that means that sci-fi almost certainly looks darker and more dystopian than it does in the real world.

I would like to add one addendum; an epilogue to our alt-timeline. After passing through various different corporate owners, and with its sole tape remaining locked in a vault… I think The Cage would eventually be cleaned up, remastered, and turned into a TV movie. It would take decades before it would ever see the light of day, and the chance to launch Star Trek as a real show would have long since slipped away. But a version of The Cage would eventually be broadcast – and audiences would see it as a fun little curiosity; a relic of a bygone era of television production. There might even be articles like this one, wondering “what might have been” if this weird little mid-60s sci-fi series had been picked up for a full season!
So that’s all for today. I hope this little thought experiment has been of some interest.
I was inspired by Star Trek’s 60th anniversary, and I’ve actually had a piece in my writing pile for several years, tentatively titled “Star Trek’s Contemporaries”, in which I planned to look a bit more deeply at shows like The Time Tunnel and Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea, which I referenced in this piece. Stay tuned, because I daresay I’ll get around to that one day!

The point was to take a look at a world without Star Trek… not because that’s a world I’d ever want to live in, but as a way to highlight the very real, tangible impacts that Star Trek has had and continues to have on sci-fi, the wider entertainment industry, and even beyond. If Star Trek had never got past the pilot stage – as very nearly happened – I think we can make a case for sci-fi being in a radically different place, the entertainment industry looking quite different, and perhaps even some real-world space missions not happening on schedule. As we celebrate the franchise’s landmark sixtieth anniversary, I think it’s worth taking time to acknowledge how important Star Trek has been and continues to be.
If you want to check out more pieces celebrating Star Trek’s 60th, I’ve recently written up re-watches of The Original Series’ second pilot, Where No Man Has Gone Before, and the very first episode of Star Trek that I can ever remember watching: The Next Generation Season 2 episode The Royale. Earlier in the year, I reviewed Star Trek’s newest series, Starfleet Academy, and the video game Star Trek: Voyager – Across The Unknown. I also took a look at the franchise’s uncertain future amidst a corporate merger, and wrote about my encounter with William Shatner – Captain Kirk himself – who I met at Comic-Con. Click or tap any of those links to check out those articles, and stay tuned! There’s more to come here on the website as the sixtieth anniversary year continues.
Thank you for coming along with me on this alt-timeline adventure! And, as always… Live Long and Prosper, friends.
All TV programmes and films discussed above are the copyrights of their respective studios, production companies, distributors, and/or broadcasters. The Star Trek franchise – including The Original Series and all other properties discussed above – is the copyright of the Skydance Paramount Corporation. Star Trek: The Original Series is available to stream now on Paramount+ in countries and territories where the platform is available, and is also available on DVD/Blu-ray. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.





















