Views on the STAR TREK Franchise

 

VIEWS ON THE STAR TREK FRANCHISE

Recently, Paramount Plus had announced that "STAR TREK: STRANGE NEW WORLDS" would end after five seasons.  "STAR TREK DISCOVERY" had already ended its fifth and final season during the spring of 2024 saw the final season.  Will the endings of these two shows signal the end of the franchise, which began in 1966 with "STAR TREK: THE ORIGINAL SERIES"?   I do not know.  But this question led me to contemplate my viewing history of the franchise and my personal opinions of those television shows that I had bothered to watch.

"Star Trek: The Original Series" (1966-1969
Set during the mid 23rd century, "STAR TREK: THE ORIGINAL SERIES" depicted the adventures of the Starfleet ship, USS Enterprise (NCC-1701) and its crew led by Captain James T. Kirk. This series lasted for three seasons and later, spawned an animated series in the 1970s and a series of movies between 1979 and 1991.

My father was a big fan of the series. I first saw it after it reached syndication. I might as well be honest. I did not like "THE ORIGINAL SERIES" when I first saw the reruns as a kid. It took the 1980s movies for me to appreciate them. Somewhat. But even after all of these years, I do not have a high opinion of them in compare to some of the other shows. And after years of watching the Trek franchise, I really wish that the franchise's creator, Gene Roddenberry, had never created this rule that humanity had evolved in a space of 200 to 300 years. I found that illogical and in the end, I believe that it proved to be a problem for all future TREK productions. Also, I was not impressed by the series' third season. I still remain unimpressed. The writing for "THE ORIGINAL SERIES" seemed to have spiraled into a decline by this last season.

"Star Trek: The Next Generation" (1987-1994)

During the 1970s, Gene Roddenberry created an animated series for the franchise called "STAR TREK: THE ANIMATED SERIES". I never saw it. But I certainly saw the second live-action series, "STAR TREK: THE NEXT GENERATION". Airing between 1987 and 1994, this series depicted the adventures of Captain Jean-Luc Picard and his crew aboard the USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-D), during the mid-24th century.

"THE NEXT GENERATION" proved to be easier for me to become a regular viewer. At least for several seasons. I did not like Season One that much. I found most of the writing less than stellar. Once the series had moved past Season One, I became a deep fan. However, there were times when I found Jean-Luc Picard and his crew a little hard to swallow. Like "THE ORIGINAL SERIES", I believe "THE NEXT GENERATION" had went a bit overboard in presenting Humanity as evolved. This was especially conveyed in its portrayal of the majority of the main characters as ideal Starfleet officers. I found it a bit off putting. And I also found it difficult to keep up with the series' last two seasons. Like the first season, I was not that impressed by them. Mind you, I believe Season Seven had provided one of my favorite episodes of the entire TREK franchise - namely (7.24) "Pre-emptive Strike". However, I found many others like the Season Six episode, (6.10-6.11) "Chain of Command", vastly overrated.

"Star Trek: Deep Space Nine" (1993-1999)
Although familiar with both "THE ORIGINAL SERIES" and "THE NEXT GENERATION", the 1993-1999 series, "STAR TREK: DEEP SPACE NINE", was the first I had started to view on a regular basis. At least during its first two seasons. Then I became bored with the show and stopped. Why did I become bored with "DEEP SPACE NINE", I do not know. Several years had passed before I gave it another chance and eventually viewed it on a regular basis.

Unlike the other Trek shows, "DEEP SPACE NINE" was set aboard a space station that Starfleet was managing on behalf of the recently liberated homeworld of Bajor. The station, Deep Space Nine, also stood guard to a wormhole that led to the Gamma Quadrant and an alien empire. "DEEP SPACE NINE" was the first TREK series that Gene Roddenberry played no role in its creation. And the series proved to be the first one that starred a person of color, actor Avery Brooks, as Commander-later-Captain Benjamin Sisko.

For years, I thought "DEEP SPACE NINE" had the potential to be the best within the franchise. It featured multiple-arc narratives that permeated with politics and moral ambiguity. But I had noticed a few things. One, it reminded me too much of J. Michael Straczynski's science-fiction saga, "BABYLON 5". When I heard accusations that it had plagiarized the latter show, I was inclined to believe those accusations. I still do. More importantly, I think "BABYLON 5" handled its ambiguity and multiple story arcs a lot further and with better writing than "DEEP SPACE NINE". And once the series dove into the Dominion War arc during the last two seasons, I found it increasingly difficult to stick with the series. There were aspects of that arc that I enjoyed, but there were other aspects that I found frustrating . . . including the Dominion's occupation of Deep Space Nine in early Season Six. I also felt frustrated by the transformation of the Cardassian character Gul Dukat from a multi-complex villain to a one-dimensional antagonist by late Season Six. Despite being promising and a genuinely first-rate series, I do not believe "DEEP SPACE NINE" had ever really fulfilled its potential.

"Star Trek: Voyager" (1995-2001)
Like the previous TREK series, "STAR TREK: VOYAGER" made history with its own first. It became the franchise's first series to feature a woman as the lead character. Actress Kate Mulgrew was cast as Captain Kathryn Janeway, the commanding officer of the USS Voyager (NCC-74656). An alien named the Caretaker forced Voyager, Janeway and her crew into the Delta Quadrant, while they were searching for her Security officer, who had volunteered to act as a spy aboard a Maquis starship, commanded by a former Starfleet officer. As it turned, not only did the Caretaker draw Voyager into the Delta Quadrant, but also the Maquis crew. After a violent encounter with a race called the Kazon, the Maquis ship is destroyed and both crews merge under Janeway's command, as they set out to return to the Alpha Quadrant, some 70,000 light years away.

Unlike "THE NEXT GENERATION" or "DEEP SPACE NINE", I did not watch "VOYAGER" from the beginning. In fact, I had avoided the series like the plague for several years, due to the fandom's negative opinions of it and my own struggles to keep up with "NEXT GENERATION" and "DEEP SPACE NINE". But during the beginning of the series’ Season Five, a relative had convinced me to watch one of the series' episodes. I did . . . and became immediately hooked. While watching Season Five, I also began watching the show’s earlier seasons on Syndication. And I became even more of a fan. I can honestly say that "VOYAGER" was not the franchise's best series. But I thought it was still pretty damn good and viewed it just as good and bad as "NEXT GENERATION". Do not get me wrong. I thought "DEEP SPACE NINE" had the potential to be the franchise's best series. But I believe it had never lived up to that potential and in the end, struck me to be just as good as "NEXT GENERATION" and "VOYAGER".

"VOYAGER", like the other shows, had its share of flaws. Season One tried to portray most of its characters like those from "NEXT GENERATION". Once the series stopped trying to portray the Voyager crew like ideal Starfleet officers (aside from a few), and stamped them with their own brand of craziness and ambiguity, I managed to really enjoyed the series. I have also enjoyed the show's two-part episodes and their Holodeck/Holosuite episodes more than any other series. Aside from Season One, the only other series I am not that fond of was Season Six. That season had featured a handful of excellent episodes. But in the end, the series during its sixth season seemed to be going through the motions. Thank goodness I enjoyed the other five seasons, especially Season Seven. "VOYAGER" is the only TREK show in which I actually enjoyed the series finale.

"Star Trek: Enterprise" (2001-2005)
Following the end of "STAR TREK VOYAGER", the TREK franchise decided to create a series that served as a prequel to "THE ORIGINAL SERIES". Set in the mid-22nd century, during the 2150s, "STAR TREK: ENTERPRISE" depicted the adventures of Captain Jonathan Archer and his crew aboard the USS Enterprise (NX-01), during the years right before the creation of the United Federation of Planets. "ENTERPRISE" proved to be the only TREK series that used a pop-influenced song as its theme.

In the end, I tried to enjoy "ENTERPRISE". I really tried to embrace this show. I had no problems with the series being a prequel to the other shows. I enjoyed the relationship between Enterprise's First Officer, Sub-CommanderT'Pol and its chief engineer Commander Charles "Trip" Tucker. I also liked the Chief Medical Officer, Dr. Phlox. There were a handful of episodes that I enjoyed very much. I really enjoyed the Xindi story arc of Season Three. I just hated it ended with the ship being thrown back into Earth’s past . . . again. I loathed Season Four, but loved the Mirror Universe two-part episode, (4.18-4.19) "In a Mirror, Darkly". To this day, I regard it as one of the best TREK episodes I have seen. But overall, I never really became a fan of the series. It had failed to grab me the way the three TREK shows between 1987 and 2001 did. And when the media had announced its cancellation after four seasons, the announcement did not exactly come as a blow to me.

"Star Trek: Discovery" (2016-2024)
Despite the negative comments I had heard about "STAR TREK DISCOVERY", I was determined to watch the show. Eleven years had passed since the cancellation of "ENTERPRISE" and my curiosity had to be appeased. Like "DEEP SPACE NINE" and "VOYAGER" before it, "DISCOVERY" made history by its casting. The series featured the second female lead. However, it also featured the first woman of color as the lead. "DISCOVERY" also made history by featuring a biracial, LGBTQ couple as part of the cast.

I watched the first season of "DISCOVERY". And I loved it. The series started out in serialized form from Day One by following the narrative formula of "BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER" - a multiple episodes arc within one season. Most of the characters struck me as ambiguous, including the leading lady. I also loved how that first season set up the conflict between the Federation and the Klingon Empire. I do wish that leading character Michael Burnham had served as Discovery’s commanding officer from the beginning. Instead, her rank as a Starfleet Commander underwent changes, due to her role in the Federation-Klingon War. However, if Burnham had started out as Discovery's captain, I wonder if I would have enjoyed her Season One arc as much as I did. The casting of Martin-Green as the series' star proved to be controversial on many levels. Certain fans resented her position as the show's lead. They especially resented the revelation of her character, Burnham, as Spock's adoptive sister. These fans accused the showrunner of forgetting that the half-Vulcan/half-Human officer had never mentioned an adoptive sister in previous TREK productions. Yet, they had forgotten Spock's penchant for never discussing his family, unless circumstances forced him to do so.

Despite the hullaballoo over Burnham's character and the series' serialized arc, "DISCOVERY"'s Season Two featured another season-long arc - the Federation's conflict with a a rogue artificial intelligence. Unfortunately, this season featured Captain Christopher Pike as Discovery's temporary captain and the unnecessarily long presence of Spock, thanks to some contrived writing. Although many fans and critics enjoyed Anson Mount's portrayal of Pike, I found it dull and pretentious. Pike seemed to reek of what many regarded as the traditional Star Trek leading man, but without any real spark. Matters grew worse when the showrunner made the decision to send Discovery and the series into a new direction - namely 900 years in the future. Why? I had already written about that decision in another article. Needless to say, this decision changed the series' style and tone, making it difficult for me to enjoy the rest of the show's run. I tried to stick with "DISCOVERY" during its third and fourth season . . . and gave up. The only good that came from this period was Burnham's promotion to the starship's captain.

Other Trek Series (2020-Present)
Between the second and third seasons of "STAR TREK DISCOVERY", the franchise's showrunners released "STAR TREK: PICARD", a sequel to "STAR TREK: THE NEXT GENERATION". Set around the beginning of the 25th century, the series focused Jean-Luc Picard dealing with his retirement from Starfleet and aging. I honestly thought this was going to be a limited series. Instead, "PICARD" lasted three seasons. Unfortunately. I enjoyed Season One, although I found the season finale badly written. I tried to give the series' second and third seasons a chance. Season Two proved to be some badly written mess involving time travel and an exploration of Picard's childhood. Season Three was more or less a convoluted nostalgia trip featuring "THE NEXT GENERATION" cast, the shapeshifting Changelings from the Dominion War and the Borg.

In 2022, the franchise released "STAR TREK: STRANGE NEW WORLDS", a spin-off of "DISCOVERY". The series featured the adventures of the USS Enterprise (NCC-1701), while under the command of Christopher Pike. The same Pike from Season Two of "DISCOVERY". The series managed to impress a great number of Trek fans and television critics. It had failed to impress me, aside from a handful of episodes. "STRANGE NEW WORLDS" seemed nothing more than an updated version of "THE ORIGINAL SERIES", only with the very dull Pike in command. Although it has not finished its run, I gave up on the series before the first season ended.

Conclusion
Although I had enjoyed Season One of "STAR TREK DISCOVERY" very much, a part of me wondered if it had been wise for the TREK showrunners to allow the franchise to continue. I am sorry, but I feel that aside from "DISCOVERY"'s first season, the franchise seemed like a ghost of its past. I think the franchise should have ended after the cancellation of "STAR TREK: ENTERPRISE". Or perhaps after "STAR TREK: VOYAGER" had ended its run, four years earlier. I believe author F. Scott Fitzgerald had been right when he had proclaimed in his most famous novel that one cannot repeat the past.

"LITTLE WOMEN" (1978) Review

 

"LITTLE WOMEN" (1978) Review

There have been many adaptations of "Little Women", Louisa May Alcott's 1868 novel. And I have seen most, if not all of the live-action versions. But the first adaptation I have ever seen was NBC's adaptation that first aired back in 1978. If I might be honest, I ended up developing a rather high opinion of it.

Since my first viewing of 1978's "LITTLE WOMEN", I have seen other adaptations. And over the years, I had developed this belief that this television production from 1978 had not been good as I had originally believed. It took many years for me to give this two-part miniseries a second chance. "LITTLE WOMEN" told the story of Josephine (Jo) March and her three sisters during the 1860s - Meg, Beth and Amy. The two-part miniseries opened during the Christmas holidays in December 1861 and follow the sisters, their other family members and friends throughout the Civil War and the early post-war years. Because Jo is the main character, despite being the second sister, this adaptation of "Little Women" has the distinction of being the only version that allows her to serve as narrator.

After my recent re-watch, I could see why my opinion of "LITTLE WOMEN" had diminished over the years . . . at least from a superficial point-of-view. To be blunt, I was not that impressed by the miniseries' production values. The entire production was shot on the Universal Studios backlot and one could sometimes see the California hills in the background. Granted, I still believe set decorator Richard G. Goddard, art director Howard E. Johnson and cinematographer Joseph F. Biroc did the best they could to recreate 1860s Concord, Massachusetts, New York City and Italy. But I did have a problem with the miniseries' costume designs. On the surface, they seemed . . . serviceable for a television production set during the 1860s. But if I must be frank, the costumes also looked as if they had been taken from a costume warehouse for second-rate stage productions. Even worse, all or most of the actresses seemed to be wearing mid-to-late 1970s shoes underneath their mid-19th century dresses and gowns. I was shocked to discover that one of Hollywood's most iconic costume designer, Edith Head, had created the miniseries' costumes. So . . . what on earth happened? Head had created the costumes? "LITTLE WOMEN" was not even Head's first or last period drama. So, what happened?

Did I have any other problems with "LITTLE WOMEN"? Well . . . I did not care for leading actress Susan Dey's hairstyle in the second part of the miniseries. I realize her character, Jo March, had cut her hair to raise funds for her mother's journey to Washington D.C. But her hair never grew back. Never. Instead, it remained shorter than it originally was and styled into a bob. Why? And I had a problem with two particular performances. I will discuss one of them later. The other involved leading lady Susan Dey serving as the miniseries' narrator. Do not get me wrong. Dey is a fine actress and did the best she could. But I found her narration a bit clunky and unnecessary, thanks to the words provided to her by screenwriter Suzanne Clauser's teleplay.

Despite my quibbles, I found a lot to admire about "LITTLE WOMEN". I believe its status as a two-part miniseries, instead of a movie, screenwriter Suzanne Clauser had plenty of opportunities to fully adapt Alcott's novel with less shortcuts and more depth. I have always believed that Alcott's novel was basically a coming-of-age story for Jo March and her three sisters. To me, this made any adaptation of "LITTLE WOMEN" a major character study. And if there is one thing that the two-part miniseries did well was explore its characters and their situations with great depth.

This especially seemed to be the case of Jo's relationship with her neighbor and friend, Theodore "Laurie" Laurence, his personal relationship with his grandfather James Laurence, Amy's European trip and her romantic travails, and Meg's relationship with Laurie's tutor John Brooke. I was especially impressed by the production's handling of Jo's relationship with Professor Friedrich Bhaer. I found it very dynamic, thanks to Suzanne Clauser's screenplay, along with the performances involved. Some, but not all of the adaptations of Alcott's novel tend to forget - at times - that part of it spanned most of the U.S. Civil War. Fortunately, this adaptation never forgot. And as much as I seemed critical of the miniseries' narration, it also reminded television audiences that . . . yes, part of "LITTLE WOMEN" was partially set during the Civil War.

Speaking of performances, "LITTLE WOMEN" had the blessed luck to feature a first-rate cast. I may not have been impressed by the narration provided by Susan Dey (for which I blame another), I was more than impressed by her portrayal of the story's leading character, Josephine "Jo" March. I though she did a superb job in capturing Jo's mercurial personality and obsession with her developing profession as a writer. Meredith Baxter gave an excellent performance as the oldest March sister, Margaret "Meg" March. She conveyed Meg's vanity and obsession with the family's social status and stubborn refusal to give up her love for John Brooke. My only issue is that I believe the actress may have been a bit too old portraying a character that aged from 16 to her early 20s. Eve Plumb portrayed the shy, yet musical Elizabeth "Beth" March. I thought she did an excellent job of combining Beth's emotional, yet retiring nature and in the end, gave a very poignant performance. Ann Dusenberry was roughly 24 to 25 years old when she portrayed the youngest March sibling, Amy. Before my recent re-watch of "LITTLE WOMEN", I had assumed she was too old to portray a younger Amy. But upon my viewing, I realized that she actually managed to give a rather convincing and skillful performance of Amy during the war years (between ages 12 and 16) without to resorting to exaggerated histrionics. And I also admired her portrayal of the older Amy who found herself drawn between two men during her European trip.

I cannot deny that most of the actors who have portrayed Theodore "Laurie"/"Teddy" Laurence over the years gave some pretty damn good performances. But I believe that Richard Gilliland's portrayal of the emotional and moody "Laurie" has to be one of the two best I have ever seen, hands down. His only equal - at least in my eyes - is Jonah Hauer King's performance in the 2017 BBC miniseries. But if I had to choose my favorite portrayal of Laurie's stern, yet warm grandfather, James Laurence, it would be the one given by Hollywood icon Robert Young in this miniseries. May I be frank? I believe both actors provided some of the production's best dramatic moments in their depiction of the developing relationship between grandson and grandfather.

Dorothy McGuire gave a fine performance as Mrs. March aka "Marmie", the four sisters' mother. Thanks to the actress' performance, her Mrs. March seemed more like a well-rounded human being, instead of an archetype. Greer Garson was in fine form as the March family's tart-tongued, yet wealthy matriarch, Aunt Josephine March. William Shatner was excellent as the German-born professor who befriended Jo in New York City, Professor Friedrich Bhaer. Although I found his German accent a bit questionable, I cannot deny that he managed to provide a great deal of energy and complexity to Friedrich's relationship with Jo. Cliff Potts gave a solid performance as Meg's love interest and Laurie's tutor, John Brooke. I can say the same about Virginia Gregg, who portrayed the family's housekeeper, Hannah Mullet. I wish I could provide a better opinion of William Schallert's portrayal of the sisters' father, John March, but his presence in the miniseries seemed very limited, aside from one scene that featured the birth of Meg's children. One performance really failed to impress me and it came from John de Lancie, who portrayed Laurie's English-born classmate from Harvard and Amy's suitor, Frank Vaughan (Fred in the novel). Quite frankly, I found his performance a bit off. Knowing de Lancie for the first-rate actor he truly is, I suspect that between Alcott and screenwriter Suzanne Clauser's writing, the character ended up as a flat, one-note plot device - a situation that not even de Lancie could rise above.

Yes, I had some issues with "LITTLE WOMEN". I found some of the production values questionable, especially some of Edith Head's costumes, the hairstyles and one particular character. But overall, I believe it proved to be a first-rate adaptation of Louisa May Alcott's novel. If I must be frank, thanks to David Lowell Rich's direction, Suzanne Clauser's screenplay and a superb cast led by Susan Dey, I consider the 1978 adaptation of Alcott's novel to be among the three best I have ever seen.

"FRANCHISE RANKING: The STAR TREK Movies"

 

Below is my ranking of the eleven "STAR TREK" movies from my favorite to my least favorite. The movies featured characters from "STAR TREK" (1966-1969) and "STAR TREK: THE NEXT GENERATION" (1987-1994) series:

FRANCHISE RANKING: The "STAR TREK" Movies



1. "Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home" (1986) - Even after so many years, I am still in love with this time travel tale in which the senior officers of the U.S.S. Enterprise go back in time to find a humpback whale, bring it back to 23rd century San Francisco and save the Alpha Quadrant. Leonard Nimoy directed and he co-starred with William Shatner and Catherine Hicks.





2. "Star Trek: First Contact" (1996) - Here is another time travel story that is a major favorite of mine. Captain Jean-Luc Picard and the crew of the U.S.S. Enterprise-E go back to mid-21st Earth to prevent the Borg from conquering it. Director Jonathan Frakes also co-starred with Patrick Stewart, Alfrie Woodward, Alice Kriege and James Cromwell.





3. "Star Trek III: The Search for Spock" (1984) - Following Spock's death in "The Wrath of Khan", Kirk and his fellow senior officers steal the U.S.S. Enterprise and return to the planet Genesis in order to find Spock's body and bond it with the half-Vulcan's essence, which is inside Leonard McCoy's body. Directed by Leonard Nimoy, the movie starred William Shatner, DeForest Kelley and Christopher Lloyd.





4. "Star Trek Beyond" (2016) - The U.S.S. Enterprise crew is drawn to a desolate planet and a new enemy with a personal grudge against the Federation. Directed by Justin Lin, the movie stars Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto and Elba Idris.





5. "Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan" (1982) - James Kirk and his crew are reunited with an old foe from twenty years earlier, the genetically engineered Khan Noonien Singh. Directed by Nicholas Meyer, the movie starred William Shatner, Leonard McCoy, Ricardo Montalban, Kirstie Alley and Paul Winfield.





6. "Star Trek: Generations" (1994) - In this first movie to feature the "NEXT GENERATION" crew; Picard, with the help of supposedly dead James T. Kirk, must stop a madman willing to murder on a planetary scale in order to enter a space matrix. David Carson directed Patrick Stewart, Malcolm McDowell and William Shatner.





7. "Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country" (1991) - Kirk and the crew of the Enterprise must stop a plot to prevent a peace treaty between the Klingon Empire and the Federation. Directed by Nicholas Meyer, the movie starred William Shatner, Leonard Nimoy, Christopher Plummer, David Warner, Kim Cattrall and Brock Peters.





8. "Star Trek Into Darkness" (2013) - After the crew of the U.S.S. Enterprise find an unstoppable force of terror from within the Federation, Captain James Kirk leads a manhunt to a war-zone world to capture a one-man weapon of mass destruction. Directed by J.J. Abrams, the movie starred Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto and Benedict Cumberbatch.



</a>

9. "Star Trek: Insurrection" (1998) - When Picard and the crew of the Enterprise-E learn of a Federation plot against the inhabitants of a unique planet, they begin an open rebellion. Director Jonathan Frakes co-starred with Patrick Stewart, Donna Murphy and F. Murray Abraham.





10. "Star Trek" (2009) - Directed by J.J. Abrams, this reboot follows a young James T. Kirk and Spock, before they unite aboard the USS Enterprise to combat a Romulan from their future who threatens the United Federation of Planets. Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, Eric Bana, Zoë Saldaña and Bruce Greenwood. The quality of the "TREK" films begin to waver around this point.





11. "Star Trek: Nemesis" (2002) - After the Enterprise-E is diverted to the Romulan planet of Romulus, supposedly because they want to negotiate a truce, the Federation soon find out the Romulans are planning an attack on Earth. Directed by Stuart Baird, the movie starred Patrick Stewart, Jonathan Frakes, Brent Spinner, Tom Hardy and Ron Perlman.





13. "Star Trek: The Motion Picture" (1979) - In this lackluster tale, a mysterious and immensely powerful alien cloud called V'ger approaches Earth, destroying everything in its path and Admiral James T. Kirk assumes command of his old starship—the U.S.S. Enterprise to lead it on a mission to save the planet and determine V'ger's origins. Directed by Robert Wise, William Shatner, Leonard Nimoy, Persis Khambatta and Stephen Collins co-starred.





13. "Star Trek V: The Final Frontier" (1989) - In what I consider to be the worst "TREK" movie ever, Kirk and his crew must deal with Mr. Spock's half-brother, who hijacks the Enterprise-A for an obsessive search for God. Director William Shatner co-starred with Leonard Nimoy, DeForest Kelley, David Warner and Laurence Luckinbill.

"LITTLE WOMEN" (1978) Photo Gallery

 

Below are images from "LITTLE WOMEN", the 1978 adaptation of Louisa May Alcott's 1868-69 novel. Directed by David Lowell Rich, the two-part miniseries starred Susan Dey, Meredith Baxter, Eve Plumb, Ann Dusenberry and Richard Gilliland:





"LITTLE WOMEN" (1978) Photo Gallery

Alternate Versions of "STAR TREK" Women Characters

 

Below are images of alternate versions of female characters from the STAR TREK franchise. Most of the characters featured below are from episodes about the franchise's Mirror Universe. Those characters with the indicator [prime] next to their names are from the franchise's Prime Universe, who ended up in the Mirror Universe. As for the "STAR TREK VOYAGER" characters . . . they are either erroneous or fictionalized versions.

ALTERNATE VERSIONS OF "STAR TREK" WOMEN CHARACTERS



Commander T’Pol ("STAR TREK ENTERPRISE")





Lieutenant/Empress Hoshi Sato ("STAR TREK ENTERPRISE")





Captain Michael Burnham [prime Specialist] ("STAR TREK DISCOVERY")





Captain Sylvia Tilly [prime Cadet] ("STAR TREK DISCOVERY")





Empress Philippa Georgiou ("STAR TREK DISCOVERY")

Captain Michael Burnham ("STAR TREK DISCOVERY")

Lieutenant Nyota Uhura [prime] ("STAR TREK")





Lieutenant Marlena Moreau ("STAR TREK")





Intendant Kira Nerys ("STAR TREK DEEP SPACE NINE")





Jadzia Dax ("STAR TREK DEEP SPACE NINE")





Captain Kathryn Janeway [Kyrian historical program] ("STAR TREK VOYAGER")





Seven-of-Nine [Kyrian historical program] ("STAR TREK VOYAGER")





Captain Jenkins [the Doctor’s holonovel, "Protons Are Free"] ("STAR TREK VOYAGER")





Lieutenant Torrey [the Doctor’s holonovel, "Protons Are Free"] ("STAR TREK VOYAGER")





Three-of-Eight [the Doctor’s holonovel, "Protons Are Free"] ("STAR TREK VOYAGER")





Two-of-Three [the Doctor’s holonovel, "Protons Are Free" - the Paris Edition] ("STAR TREK VOYAGER")