You can still see the remnants of trying to address the "realism" issue with things like Riker existing at all. Writing in an XO was supposed to divide responsibilities; keep the captain on the ship to make choices and put the XO on away missions to karate chop Klingons. However if that had been stuck to rigidly, Picard would never be written into many exciting situations.
MACOs on ENT should have logically made Malcolm redundant, but the show kept finding things for him to do.
MACOs on ENT should have logically made Malcolm redundant
Not really. It would relieve Malcolm of his security role, but he was still tactical officer. A lot of naval ships had marines on board to serve security roles while weapons maintenance and operation would be performed by a different group of naval officers and seamen.
I'm not sure. Perhaps "Captain and Crew Test" isn't the right way to look at it either.
ST:LD seems to do a good job of not focusing too much on one story or character per episode, so it avoids failure even if every character is "the captain".
There would have to be some way of reworking the criteria to evaluate overall balance (as mentioned elsewhere in this thread) rather than just Captain and Crew, I guess.
Of all the possible references to legacy characters they could have made, Edward Larkin was not on my Bingo card...
All in all, I think it's a pretty good setup for a season. Time travel nonsense is a pretty big swing for a kids' show, so I'm curious to see how it all plays out.
I think making Dal have a hard time adjusting to student life and not being at the centre of the action makes a lot of sense. As much as he clearly has room to grow, I wonder if there will ever be an opportunity for Starfleet to tailor their material to his personal learning style.
If it gets enough light/sun that plants grow, put a peppermint plant out there.
Rodents hate the smell.
If nothing grows there. You could spray peppermint every month, or hook up some kind of rope/ladder for them to get out. If you go the "escape route" way tho, they're gonna live in there having babies and you won't be able to open the window or they get into the building.
Might be better to put a finer mesh over the chicken wire.
Hmm, I can't grow peppermint in the recess, but maybe around the dome would work?
Good point about the escape route possibly making things worse. There's plenty of evidence that previous owners have dealt with rodent issues, so I wouldn't want to reintroduce that possibility.
Probably even be enough to have one inside on the windowsill.
Rodents have an insane sense of smell, and they hate peppermint because the smell is so strong. So it would probably be enough to keep them from going in there.
I realize you’re not trying to predict quality, just personal enjoyability, but I do wonder how it relates to quality.
I actually think it might be slightly more predictive of the quality of a show overall than of individual episodes. But both ST:TOS and ST:TNG have many great captain-centric episodes that I’m not sure if it is predictive of episode quality particularly.
I love this! Now you need to do an analysis like this one on Star Trek and the Bechdel-Wallace test!
TOS is already a rough rewatch with some of its acting and portrayals of the future. I can't imagine how tough it would be to rewatch it through that lens. Haha!
I realize you’re not trying to predict quality, just personal enjoyability, but I do wonder how it relates to quality.
I don't mean for this to measure quality. To each their own, as they say. After all, it is just entertainment and I'm free to watch anything else or skip this or that episode. This is all just a fun observation for me, much like a discussion on the finer points of warp theory or Federation economics.
Still, I'm glad it's something that clicked for you too. I figured there would be a number of people whose appreciation of Trek relates to this "test".
I've seen this complaint a lot with some of the newer shows, but it doesn't really resonate with me. A good central character ought to be able to carry a show, and I don't hold Trek as being inherently different in that regard. In fact, I think the original series would have been an example of a show like that if Spock's popularity hadn't been taken into consideration by later writers. Even then, I believe it would have a pretty low "pass" rate compared to all the '90s series.
(Incidentally, since Burnham wasn't Captain until season 4, Discovery passes on a technicality for most of its run).
.... Even then, I believe [TOS] would have a pretty low “pass” rate compared to all the '90s series.
Agreed. I note elsewhere in this thread that I think TOS would struggle with this little "test" and it was THE Star Trek show when it all started.
(Incidentally, since Burnham wasn’t Captain until season 4, Discovery passes on a technicality for most of its run).
Indeed it would pass and I think the captains/crew of those seasons were well portrayed and balanced Burnham's presence as a character as well.
I’ve seen this complaint a lot with some of the newer shows, but it doesn’t really resonate with me. A good central character ought to be able to carry a show, and I don’t hold Trek as being inherently different in that regard.
As you say. And to be clear, I'm not taking this too seriously, nor is it meant to be a complaint. Just a measure I noticed in my own mind. I am still watching all the Star Trek made, whether it "passes" this measure or not.
All fair, and I appreciate how much you're trying to avoid Trekkie infighting in this thread. I'm not always so conscientious about that, but it is, after all, just a TV show.
It's just a thought. On further consideration I'd probably broaden it to any non-Starfleet faction. In cases where there is one involved in the plot I like it when they're portrayed in more depth than is usual.
A fair point. However, I just think this sums up my preferences for Trek shows well and had a feeling that many would agree.
Meanwhile, other people might have an internal measure for their preferences which amounts to "is not animated", eliminating TAS and ST:LD.
To be clear, for everyone reading: I have watched every episode of every Star Trek show; I greatly and sincerely appreciate and value the time, effort, and energy of the production crew, writers, and actors of every show. These media of entertainment are impactful and deeply meaningful. Every show has a message for its current time and future audiences and it is so important that, as a fan, I hear those messages and allow myself to appreciate this art as an audience member.
I like it, and I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that you're talking about Discovery. I've said in the past that the show should be called "Star Trek: Michael Burnham" as it would at least be more honest.
To be fair, I think every series has a lot of episodes that would fail this test, some of which were excellent, like DS9's "In the Pale Moonlight", and "Far Beyond the Stars" or TNG's "The Inner Light", but if used to assess a series, I think this could be a good metric.
The later seasons let go of some of the Burnham stuff and let characters like Adira have their own plots. I believe Paul and Hugh also had a few arcs though I never got into them myself.
I just didn't like early Burnham as a character. I didn't like most of Sisko either. That doesn't make a show bad, necessarily, but I felt like Discovery didn't offer a whole lot of B plot/secondary characters to compensate. Without secondary perspectives to offset Sisko's heavy moral/philosophical arc, I probably would've hated DS9 as well.
In the later seasons, Burnham became more nuanced by having Book as a sidekick, as well as fleshing out the crew a lot more. They were no longer hurdles in the way of Burnhams's self redemption arc/current goal in life.
TNG also had their terrible episodes, but there were just a lot more of them. Season 1 of TNG got 26/22/26/26/26/26/26 episodes versus Discovery's 15/14/13/13/10. There was also no single overarching plot, so Picard could play a flute and live the life of an alien for a whole episode without derailing any story plans. The "monster of the week" approach also helped inspire some real good moral and philosophical debate that would otherwise never would've been written into a single story, but also some of the most cringeworthy TV I've seen.
Somewhere in the middle of DS9 and Voyager, Star Trek started aiming towards broader plot lines. At first they were multiple seasons long (though some of them had to be smuggled past Berman), but with Enterprise they became per-season. This makes it very difficult to compare old and new Trek, or even early and late seasons of the same show, because the dynamic changed.
I agree with and second many of your statements in here. Well said!
A couple specific points I want to highlight:
Paul and Hugh
I really enjoyed those plots, especially about loss.
There was also no single overarching plot, so Picard could play a flute and live the life of an alien for a whole episode without derailing any story plans. The “monster of the week” approach also helped inspire some real good moral and philosophical debate that would otherwise never would’ve been written into a single story, but also some of the most cringeworthy TV I’ve seen.
I think this is the core of the issue for what I enjoy and don't enjoy with many Star Trek shows. Surprisingly to me, Expanse does this fine whereas Trek/Who/SG-1 would trip over it and have.
In general, great reply with excellent points. Thank you!
To be fair, I think every series has a lot of episodes that would fail this test, some of which were excellent, like DS9’s “In the Pale Moonlight”, and “Far Beyond the Stars” or TNG’s “The Inner Light”, but if used to assess a series, I think this could be a good metric.
Indeed, "In the Pale Moonlight" is one I thought of which fails as well. I still think it makes a good measure to see how many episodes of a show pass/fail overall. Only to see if it's really about the whole crew or mostly one character. (Arguably, early TNG comes really close to being Star Trek: Wesley while mid/late TNG comes close to Star Trek: Data.)
kbin.pithyphrase.net
Hot