No....respectfully (and I mean that)...no fucking way. I love Star Trek...no other entertainment form even comes close. But the literal hallmark of Star Trek is "safe play" through lack of change or risk. I'm talking about substantive changes in characters brought about by their experiences...not simply learning more about who they always were. There's a difference there. Also,
gradual change over 7 years for a few characters isn't really
character growth...it's just the actors becoming more comfortable with the role and the relationships with other characters.
Data....no....a gradual "loosening" as he bumbled through "trying to be more human." But nothing substantive changed about Data. Emotion chips don't count...not a development achieved through experience.
O'Brien not in any way. We may have LEARNED more about him, but near zero substantial change or growth.
Bashir- see O'Brien. We learned about him. But very little change of substance. Granted, moreso than with most of the other franchise characters...so maybe this one I "half agree" with!
Picard-
absolutely not. One of the most ridged, unflinching characters in the entire franchise. Kidnapped by the Borg, assimilated, and forced to murder thousands...? Nah, drink some wine with Robert...back to his command chair in one week. Captured, tortured and broken by the Cardassians? Back to normal next week. And no, I don't count the sudden metamorphosis into an action hero that inexplicably occurs in FC. Honestly, the guy's biggest evolution was supposed to be sitting down for a nice friendly hand of pinochle at the end of a seven-year run? No way. Picard was virtually an unmovable pillar made of iron through the entire run. In fact, every TNG character was.
Spock- virtually unchanged and unwavering until TOS movies (which I conceded to in my post). You can't really count the disappearance of the early on "shouty" Spock (for example) as character growth. That was more "
who the hell is this guy" and things that evolved out of that. Also, that's not substantive.
Kirk- see Spock
Dukat- Good stuff here so granted...but a
minor character on Star Trek's one outlier show that handled character growth well. Not an example to refute my statement.
Quark- granted
Odo- granted
Seven- see Data and Spock...standard and obligatory "struggles with humanity" character...hardly a risk for the franchise. In fact, it's so cliche it became painful by the time Seven rolled out onto the scene.
Torres- "
chilling out a little over 7 years" doesn't count as a significant character growth. It's called "it happens to all of us as we age." Hahaha!
T'Pol- no...but at best see 7, Data, Spock...same character, different show.
Archer- I just did a 100% rewatch on ENT, I never saw anything substantial change in Archer other than he became more of a desperate dick when the Xindi threat hit. Reverted when threat was over. 1+1-1=1
Saru- granted, but is on the show that I'd advocate does this best (on par with DS9), which is my argument to begin with.
Perhaps most accurately, what I'm saying is that Star Trek is generally horrible at demonstrating risky/lasting change or growth with its characters over time. The only real outliers to this are DS9 (but usually with the alien main characters or the secondary cast) and the TOS movies (specifically Kirk and Spock have great arcs). Yes, they may reveal more about a character as time goes on...but that's not the same as the character undertaking a journey. The episodic nature of most Trek properties really prohibited that kind of development.
