The One Thing You Could Change, TOS Edition...

[Phaser Two]

I don't see it. The OS Scotty was shown to be a lot more competent officer all-round, as good as or better than Spock while in command as well as handling the engineering miracles as needed. Or both at the same time, as in "The Apple." The movie character was more a one-dimensional workshop tinkerer than anyone who had regularly commanded a starship in action. And the less said about him in TWOK the better.

I am so thrilled to see someone else agree that Scotty was - as a whole - a better ship commander than Spock. The writers just couldn't figure out Spock in command (with the notable exceptions of TDM and TTW) but they nailed Scott every time he sat in the big chair.

 

[Henoch]

Even when Kirk was on his deathbed and the ship in danger, he thought it was a good decision to put Scott in command so Spock could do the operation to save Sarek in Journey to Babel. If he truly thought Spock was superior to Scott and would give the ship the best chances for survival, then he would never put Scott in command in that situation. Scott is dependable and the crew loves and respects him. Spock? He may make the right command decisions, but his style grates the crew to near mutiny on several occasions.

 

[Phaser Two]

Even when Kirk was on his deathbed and the ship in danger, he thought it was a good decision to put Scott in command so Spock could do the operation to save Sarek in Journey to Babel. If he truly thought Spock was superior to Scott and would give the ship the best chances for survival, then he would never put Scott in command in that situation. Scott is dependable and the crew loves and respects him. Spock? He may make the right command decisions, but his style grates the crew to near mutiny on several occasions.

Reminds me of the weirdest thing about the Vulcan Duology. In both, Scotty does not appear. But in each, he is named, and in the context of taking command from Spock due to exigent circumstances.

 

[Duncan MacLeod]

The one thing I would have changed is that I would have set the show much further into the future than the 22nd/23rd centuries. I would have pushed it at least another 400 years forward, maybe 600, and we would never even mention anything within one to two hundred years of contemporary. In other words nothing between 1860 to 2160. I'd have a very bare bones outline of major events from now to the series setting and as we mention events in the course of the series they get added to the outline which would be passed out to the writers to help them keep things straight.

 

[Morgan Primus]

I decided on a thought exercise for myself, and wanted to see what other people would come up with. I am going to do this for each series, except DISCOVERY and PICARD, as they are still currently in production.

Come up with only ONE thing you would change about a series. It can be something about a character, a storyline, or even something physical, like a different ship design. It can be anything you like, provided it would be used for more than just one episode.


For our beloved parent series, it's a tough thing to say. There is a lot to love about this show.

I think the only thing I would change would be some more background and interaction with those outside the big 3... Sulu, Uhura, Scotty, Chekov, Chapel.

The times we do get some spotlight on them, it's fun and great. They got along well, and you can see this is a crew that is on the edges of known space and they rely completely on each other and like being aroubd each other. I wanted more of that, particularly when you see fun scenes of them all together during the movies.

What about you folks?

Less Kirk gnoshing on space babes. seriously, he’s not that hot...

 

[dupersuper]

nothing between 1860 to 2160.

No mentions of WW1 or WW2 then...?

 

[johnnybear]

If you set the show too far ahead you could have lost your audience interest! That and the fact that the original series never really gave us an exact date for the episodes! In some episodes we get a two hundred years feeling, which was okay because man was going to the moon and exploring space and within two centuries we should all have the possibility of living in space! But by TNG times, we had pulled back from exploration and were more interested in arguing with our enemies again so they had to sort of put the date forward again even though the twenty third century was a given from literature and the like!
JB

 

[Duncan MacLeod]

No mentions of WW1 or WW2 then...?

None. I wouldn't even go there at all if I could avoid it. If I couldn't then they would be one of the numerous wars of the early atomic period. After that long they all kind of mush together. What do you or I know about the 15th century? For most people it was too far removed from their daily lives to matter much.

 

[Grendelsbayne]

I would bring Anne Mulhall onto the main cast. I think she was one of the most interesting and best acted Starfleet officers we ever saw, especially in the TOS era, and Muldaur and Shatner had fantastic chemistry together (even better than Shatner and Nimoy).

It's a terrible waste that we only ever saw her once.

 

[Henoch]

It's a terrible waste that we only ever saw her once.

Did you mean "twice"? Return to Tomorrow and Is There In Truth No Beauty?

 

[Farscape One]

Probably meant the character Anne Mulhall, which was in only one episode.

 

[Commishsleer]

I would bring Anne Mulhall onto the main cast. I think she was one of the most interesting and best acted Starfleet officers we ever saw, especially in the TOS era, and Muldaur and Shatner had fantastic chemistry together (even better than Shatner and Nimoy).

It's a terrible waste that we only ever saw her once.

Do you really think so ?
I didn't think they had any chemistry at all. I suppose because she plays it sort of aloof.
I thought Kirk and Lenore Karidian were a better match until she tried to kill him of course

But I agree that she was a good actress.

 

[Maurice]

The one thing I would have changed is that I would have set the show much further into the future than the 22nd/23rd centuries. I would have pushed it at least another 400 years forward, maybe 600, and we would never even mention anything within one to two hundred years of contemporary. In other words nothing between 1860 to 2160. I'd have a very bare bones outline of major events from now to the series setting and as we mention events in the course of the series they get added to the outline which would be passed out to the writers to help them keep things straight.

Yeah, internally they were resistant to locking down a timeframe. I always though the lines in "Tomorrow Is Yesterday" should have been, "I'm going to lock you up for a hundred years," "Afraid that's not long enough."

 

[Valin]

More SF writers for the episodes. Granted, of all the Treks, I believe that TOS had the most, but I wish more episodes had been written by science fiction writers.

 

[Grendelsbayne]

Did you mean "twice"? Return to Tomorrow and Is There In Truth No Beauty?

No, I mean Anne Mulhall. Miranda (I believe that was the other character's name) was also good but her whole 'lady of mystery' thing was more cliche and common on the series, so she didn't stand out as much. Also the concept of her character was such that you couldn't really fit her onto the main cast even if you wanted to.

Do you really think so ?
I didn't think they had any chemistry at all. I suppose because she plays it sort of aloof.
I thought Kirk and Lenore Karidian were a better match until she tried to kill him of course

But I agree that she was a good actress.

I really do. The interactions between them were subtle but rich and very firmly gave the impression of two equals who shared real passion for their work and genuine enjoyment of each other's company and abilities. That was honestly a revelation for me in a series where most of Kirk's interactions with women (at least the guest stars) were really just super over the top displays of soap opera 'passion' (no insult, some of those scenes definitely worked - but they rarely felt all that real).

And it was the kind of chemistry that you could have taken in any direction. They could very easily have gone fully romantic and I think it would've been almost the perfect relationship for Kirk. But they also could very easily have gone purely platonic and that would still have worked beautifully and been equally fun to watch. And even going somewhere in between the two, like Kirk's 'relationship' with Rand that was kind of implied, would've been great.

 

[MAGolding]

If you set the show too far ahead you could have lost your audience interest! That and the fact that the original series never really gave us an exact date for the episodes! In some episodes we get a two hundred years feeling, which was okay because man was going to the moon and exploring space and within two centuries we should all have the possibility of living in space! But by TNG times, we had pulled back from exploration and were more interested in arguing with our enemies again so they had to sort of put the date forward again even though the twenty third century was a given from literature and the like!
JB

As far as I know, the selection of the dates for TNG was guided by arbitrary decisions by Gene Roddenberry and/or Richard Arnold. Roddenberry and/or Arnold made the arbitrary assumptions that TOS happened 300 years after the episodes aired, and thus in 2266-2269, and that the first season of TNG happened 400 years after "The Cage" was made in 1964, and thus in 2364. As far as I know neigther Roddenberry nor Arnold ever checked to see if those arbitrary dates were consistent with the canon information from various episodes and movies produced so far. And I think that if someone had pointed out to Roddenberry a line in TOS that invalidated that arbitrary chronology Roddenberry would have said "I am the creator of Star Trek, the creator god of the Star Trek universe! I now decree that the specific line in that episode is no longer canon and never happened. So there!"

 

[johnnybear]

Go get 'em, MAGoulding!
JB

 

[SiddFinch1]

Pick a consistent date for the show instead of the vague references which pegged it as anywhere From the 21st to 27th century until the movies

Use the supporting characters of Sulu, Uhura and Chekov more although I k now that would be unusual for.the 60s

Have a regular security chief

 

[Henoch]

Have a regular security chief

So, you think that would improve the horrible ship security?

 

[Bry_Sinclair]

There are early promotional images of Kirk, Spock and Rand (who I believe was pitched as a more "sassy" sort of character and wore the high-collar uniform from "The Cage"), I wish this had been the original trio--I do love McCoy, but these three could've had a very interesting dynamic.