Dillon Pyron  wrote:

> Thus spake "JKconey"  :
> 
> >
> >"curmudgeon"  wrote in message 
> >news:lJidnQ6uidf4QCnVnZ2dnUVZ_gqdnZ2d{at}bresnan.com...
> >> In response to past posts about stereotypes and clichés, I
got out my 1999
> >> paperback copy of Roger Ebert's book Ebert's Bigger Little
Movie Glossary.
> >> Which is a self proclaimed Greatly Expanded and Much Improved
Compendium 
> >> of
> >> Movie Clichés, Stereotypes, Obligatory Scenes, Hackneyed Formulas, 
> >> Shopworn
> >> Conventions and Outdated Archetypes.
> >>
> >> For example the so called Orwell that Ends Wells Rule.
> >> The inability of Hollywood to look into the future and see
anything except 
> >> cataclysmic wars, mass nuclear destruction, oppressive
automations, and 
> >> ruthless police states.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> *curmudgeon*
> >
> >
> >   Wasn't it Roddenberry's wonderful vision of a positive future that made 
> >Trek different?
> 
> Trek was originally supposed to be a "Wagon Train to the Stars" type
> of show, according to a number of sources, including his biography and
> the official history.  
> 
> I don't remember why he changed the premise.  But the WTttS concept
> has always stuck in my head.

He didn't really change the premise. The Enterprise arrived at a remote
town, had a bit of an adventure, a little romance, a glass of warm gin
with a human hair in it, and then set off for the next town down the
trail. Along the way they ran into hostile Indians of the Klingon tribe
and had to deal with them. Instead of Cookie, they had Bones, and
instead of cattle, they had princesses and quadrotriticale.
--- SBBSecho 2.12-Win32