Doctor Who style Trek?

[The Lensman]

Jar Jar Binks wrote:

---

A rotating cast would certainly be more realistic than having the same crew together for seven years.

Yeah, I liked this idea as far back as Babylon 5, which had more than the usual character changes. The mindset with the Trek franchise always seemed to be "Look how iconic our original crew became....so let's try to recreate that, no matter if it's not working or not."

So you'd end up with characters like Harry Kim, or Travis Mayweather.....characters which got stuck in a Catch-22 limbo. The writers didn't do much interesting with them, so the fans never really cared much for them, so the writers didn't do anything interesting with them.

So then they're just sort of "there" because, hey, that's how it's supposed to be on a Trek show. My philosophy was and still is "If you can't write numerous interesting stories about a cast member on an ensemble, then get rid of them and bring in someone that you can do this for."

7 of 9 is an example of one time when they actually did something like this......but they never really repeated that, and if they had, then they could've gone back to a more ensemble like show instead of having so many 7 of 9 eps.

The original crew is iconic and their place is aboard the Enterprise.....the rest? It should be more like Babylon 5 in the sense that when all is said and done, their time on the ship or station is simply one part of their lives. Not the end all be all of it. Like real life.

[Savious]

Well, in Dr. Who, the real main character is the TARDIS; so in any follow on Trek, the main character could be the starship.

Honestly though; I’ve thought something along these lines should have been employed long ago with many military style shows. People transfer, they retire, they enlist, they receive commissions, and sometimes they die or get wounded.

If they launched a new show, they could easily sign actors and actresses up for half season, full season, two season, and three season contracts; with the bulk being the half season. The reduced amount of time each would be signed up for, should drive the costs down, and with the prospect of only being around for half a season, shouldn’t type cast to many actors/actresses into their roles.

Then, as the show progresses, characters could come and go; the audience would never know if the person is going to stick around, or is going to get transferred/killed off.

The impact of a red shirt dying, after you’ve seen them in three or four episodes would be much more devastating, and add a since of realism to the show, few have seen before.

It would be awesome, to have the XO beam down, three or four times with Ensign Charlie Smith; then mid season, after having seen Ensign Smith a few times, having developed some interaction with him; suddenly he dies. Or, Lt JG Jones, in Engineering; being transferred after two seasons.

In many ways, this is exactly what DS9 did with Worf and Obrien; bringing them over from TNG; and developing new stories.

[Temis the Vorta]

The main character in Star Trek is not the starship, since there have been series in which the Enterprise does not appear. If you mean any old starship, including Voyager and the Defiant, those are still just stand-ins for Starfleet.

As long as its a Starfleet ship, then yeah, we're good to go. If the main character ship is a garbage scow piloted by Harry Mudd, is that still Star Trek? Not for my money it ain't. The definition is pretty flexible but not that flexible.

[The Green Mushroom]

Temis the Friendly Ghost wrote:

---

All the characters should come and go, that's what makes it realistic for the military.

That is what is realistic for today's military. And not knowing anything about non-American military habits, possibly even just the American military.

A hundred years ago someone joined a regiment and stayed in that regiment. You were promoted, if an enlisted man, when your captain felt like it and demoted when he found someone better. You were promoted, if an officer, when the guy above died or retired or when the guy above him died or retired.

The modern approach to constant rotation developed after WWII when the military consciously attempted to make sure troops were used to working with new people to eliminate the "Doomed Replacement" stigma, because draftees were often around for a little while, while the unit never moved, and because of the rather interesting "up or out" policy where any officer who isn't good enough for promotion is kicked out even if he is great at his current job.

Starfleet is NOT the U.S. navy in space. I don't know why people think it needs to operate like it. If nothing else, the fact that it keeps it ships in space for years on end means that it makes sense to keep crews together for that long. I remember reading that when TNG started there was an idea that the Enterprise was on a 25 year mission--if that was the case, why would they launch a ship that would need to transfer all of its crew away every couple of years.

Ignoring the idea that realism means copying the U.S. Navy of 2012 for any spaceship show, Starfleet has consistently shown that it has no problem with crews staying together for years on end and with people refusing promotion and staying in one job indefinitely. Riker may have jeopardized is career by staying under Picard, but the only time that ever threatened him was when Shelby implied that he should get out of the way, not that he would ever be forced out.

Kill off characters when the story demands it. Don't lock yourself into a set cast of seven for seven years. I agree with all of that. But don't change the cast to seem more "realistic."

[AviTrek]

The Green Mushroom wrote:

---

That is what is realistic for today's military. And not knowing anything about non-American military habits, possibly even just the American military.

A hundred years ago someone joined a regiment and stayed in that regiment. You were promoted, if an enlisted man, when your captain felt like it and demoted when he found someone better. You were promoted, if an officer, when the guy above died or retired or when the guy above him died or retired.

The modern approach to constant rotation developed after WWII when the military consciously attempted to make sure troops were used to working with new people to eliminate the "Doomed Replacement" stigma, because draftees were often around for a little while, while the unit never moved, and because of the rather interesting "up or out" policy where any officer who isn't good enough for promotion is kicked out even if he is great at his current job.

Starfleet is NOT the U.S. navy in space. I don't know why people think it needs to operate like it. If nothing else, the fact that it keeps it ships in space for years on end means that it makes sense to keep crews together for that long. I remember reading that when TNG started there was an idea that the Enterprise was on a 25 year mission--if that was the case, why would they launch a ship that would need to transfer all of its crew away every couple of years.

Ignoring the idea that realism means copying the U.S. Navy of 2012 for any spaceship show, Starfleet has consistently shown that it has no problem with crews staying together for years on end and with people refusing promotion and staying in one job indefinitely. Riker may have jeopardized is career by staying under Picard, but the only time that ever threatened him was when Shelby implied that he should get out of the way, not that he would ever be forced out.

Kill off characters when the story demands it. Don't lock yourself into a set cast of seven for seven years. I agree with all of that. But don't change the cast to seem more "realistic."

That reminds me of this story from last week.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/article...riers_in_space

Ships in space do not behave like ships on the sea, so modeling warfare after aircraft carriers, submarines, and ships of the line doesn't make sense. Similarly, modelling crew rotations after current naval policies doesn't make it any more accurate either. If you want to replace a character because the story demands it, great. If you want to replace a character because the actor wants to move on, that works too. You can even replace a character because the actor got too expensive. But you shouldn't replace a character just for the sake of copying the current US Navy.

[Savious]

The Green Mushroom wrote:

---

That is what is realistic for today's military. And not knowing anything about non-American military habits, possibly even just the American military.

I can’t argue with that statement; it is the current trend, and not the trend for every military on earth, or throughout history.

But even so, many militaries did create regiments, and people joined that regiment, and moved up through that regiment, never transferring outside of it.

Just as, in early days of sailing; many ships would hire on a crew, and then use that crew for the entire voyage, and only recrew after the voyage was over, and a new voyage was being set up.

So, in that aspect, I would suspect that you wouldn’t have crew transfers.

But, I would argue, that most of the time, the reason why there wasn’t transfers, was simply that it wasn’t feasible to have them. In the early days of sailing, when a ship left port, it was impossible to change the crew, or have crew members transfer out; because there was no way to move the personnel around. Even so, I suspect, that some history buff will point out, that when ships passed each other from the same nation, that some people did transfer. Just as I suspect, that some officers would transfer from one Army regiment to another regiment, when they weren’t engaged in hostile territory.

The reason why today’s military conducts transfers, is because it is possible to do so; and in the Star Trek universe, they have the capability, unless they are on a deep space mission, to conduct the transfers. Even Kirk, on his five year mission, went past star bases from time to time; I suspect to restock on redshirts….LOL

I guess the bottom line; I can see both arguments; and although it may not be the best model for a deep space exploration in Star Trek, like Voyager; I think it would have be a good model to pursue in a show like DS9 or TNG.

[Nerys Myk]

True, but that's not Star Trek done Doctor Who style.

[LobsterAfternoon]

The points about Trek not having to duplicate 21st century America to be realistic are quite well thought out and quite correct. I just think that crew transfers/deaths/promotions etc are good for character development. Lee Adama on BSG was great as a pilot/military guy, but moving him into the political realm broadened his horizons and opened up new storytelling fronts. I'd just like to see the same willingness to shake things up and develop characters in Trek.

[Savious]

It wasn’t Trek, nor even Sci-Fi; but I loved how people came and went in Rescue me; you never knew who was sticking around as a main character, and who was going to be there for only a few shows.

[YellowSubmarine]

Bry_Sinclair wrote:

---

I like the flexibility of the cast idea. Not sure about the time travel though. It's alright in small doses, but not sure about a full Trek show about it.

I think the main problem with time travel in Star Trek was that good use of time travel was underdone, while bad use of time travel was overdone. It has always been an opportunity to explore something great, from moments of Earth's past, to the history of the crew to unconventional story lines, but that opportunity has been missed, and then utterly ruined by the temporal cold war which revolved around “OMG TIME TRAVEL!!1”.

And I would much prefer to see such stories done in Star Trek fashion, not Doctor Who fashion, because Star Trek's take is more serious. Sometimes way too serious though.

But if there was a story type I would like to see more is undesired contacts with 20/21st century-level societies with accidental prime directive violations. But only if they are done well.

[Temis the Vorta]

The modern audience isnt going to know or care how militaries were in the olden days, but they'd know how things works nowadays in a general sense, so that's going seem right to them. But the real reason to rotate characters more is not "realism" but dramatic impact and flexibility.

It's obvious that Roddenberry modeled Star Trek on the US Navy, which he had personal experience with. Where do you think the USS Enterprise got its name?

[Nerys Myk]

Temis the Friendly Ghost wrote:

---

The modern audience isnt going to know or care how militaries were in the olden days, but they'd know how things works nowadays in a general sense, so that's going seem right to them. But the real reason to rotate characters more is not "realism" but dramatic impact and flexibility.

It's obvious that Roddenberry modeled Star Trek on the US Navy, which he had personal experience with. Where do you think the USS Enterprise got its name?

He was in the US Army Air Forces.

[AviTrek]

Zombie Cheerleader wrote:

---

He was in the US Army Air Forces.

And Star Trek is more modeled on the Age of Sail and Horatio Hornblower than the Army/Navy Roddenberry new in the 1960s.

[The Green Mushroom]

AviTrek wrote:

---

And Star Trek is more modeled on the Age of Sail and Horatio Hornblower than the Army/Navy Roddenberry new in the 1960s.

In that day in age, at least according to the book sitting right next to my computer:

• The officers were often recruited by the captain or recommended to him, along with many of what we would today call the non-commissioned officers
• A good captain was expected to both recruit people he has served with in the past AND have at least a small corps of officers and men who WANTED to join him on the next mission if their schedules worked out
• Most of the officers and crew were brought only for one specific assignment/voyage/mission/war and then sent off on their merry ways as soon as the ship came home.
• Other important members of the crew worked for the ship and not the captain, to put it simply. They were permanently assigned to the ship and refitted it in port and sailed with it on missions.

In other words, Scotty being married to the Enterprise and everyone else always tagging along with Kirk would have made perfect sense if this ship was set on His Majesty's Sailing Frigate Enterprise. Heck, Sulu hanging around with Kirk until the Excelsior was ready and Chekov coming back after being dumb enough to let 300 year old terrorists steal his ship wouldn't have raised any eyebrows.

[Savious]

The Green Mushroom wrote:

---

In that day in age, at least according to the book sitting right next to my computer:
• The officers were often recruited by the captain or recommended to him, along with many of what we would today call the non-commissioned officers
• A good captain was expected to both recruit people he has served with in the past AND have at least a small corps of officers and men who WANTED to join him on the next mission if their schedules worked out
• Most of the officers and crew were brought only for one specific assignment/voyage/mission/war and then sent off on their merry ways as soon as the ship came home.
• Other important members of the crew worked for the ship and not the captain, to put it simply. They were permanently assigned to the ship and refitted it in port and sailed with it on missions.

Which would then smack right in the face of TNG, and Picard being assigned Riker as the 1st officer.

If, it was originally based on the age of sail; by the time we hit TNG, they updated their assignment operations.