Other than TOS cast members, are there other shows' cast members who didn't get along?

[Oddish]

Pulaski had more characterization done in one season than Beverly had done in six.

Pulaski:
Curmudgeonly.
Not overly into protocol.
Strong personality, prone to conflicts.
Disliked transporters.
Didn't understand artificial lifeforms (but willing to learn)
Understood Klingon sensitivities.

Beverly:
Wesley's mom. And widow of Picard's old friend.
Highly ethical.
Has a great 1000 yard death stare.
Uhhh... banged an alien plasma candle ghost once?

 

[WarpFactorZ]

There will always be friction in the workplace, no matter where it is, because there will inevitably be "that person" who stirs the pot.

 

[Bad Thoughts]

Uhhh... banged an alien plasma candle ghost once?

Are you certain Crusher had less character than Pulaski?

 

[UssGlenn]

We saw how they treated Native Americans, it's really no surprise they had no idea where Kim was from.

We know where Kim is from, he's from South Carolina. If he was a real person we'd be treading close to "But where are you was really from?". There's no indication (as far as I know) that his family has had any tie to an Asian country for hundreds of years. Functionally, he's a pan-Asian character like Sulu (also born in the USA).

 

[Bad Thoughts]

We know where Kim is from, he's from South Carolina. If he was a real person we'd be treading close to "But where are you was really from?". There's no indication (as far as I know) that his family has had any tie to an Asian country for hundreds of years. Functionally, he's a pan-Asian character like Sulu (also born in the USA).

Indeed, Harry Kim didn't need more of a past, he needed more of a present (give the guy a promotion, fer chris' sake).

 

[Bry_Sinclair]

Star Trek has never cast an Indian, Polynesian, Australian, or Brazilian character either, however since humans in Trek are from a homogenised human culture then just where they come from doesn't really impact on who they are. Picard's French roots were brought up a couple times in S1 before that was forgotten about, whilst Sisko's African-American ancestry meant something to him because he was interested in history (but even then there were a couple of instances this impacted on an episode, with one of them being a hallucination) whilst the fact that he was a series lead was important the character was a good father, a builder of things, a strong leader, a tactical genius, and the Emissary of the Prophets (all of which could've been applied to Sid had he not been so young).

Representation of course matters, but why does the character have to be defined by their race, gender or orientation, whilst their very presence on screen makes that statement they should become known and appreciated for who they are and not what they are.

 

[flandry84]

Huge interest in Trek in mainland Europe too but precious few German/Swedish etc. characters either.

 

[fireproof78]

I care very little for a character's origin. Who they are is more interesting.

 

[Tim Thomason]

We know where Kim is from, he's from South Carolina. If he was a real person we'd be treading close to "But where are you was really from?". There's no indication (as far as I know) that his family has had any tie to an Asian country for hundreds of years. Functionally, he's a pan-Asian character like Sulu (also born in the USA).

This is a reference to behind-the-scenes drama where Garrett Wang (himself of Chinese descent) personally believed that Harry Kim was of Korean extraction (Kim being the most common Korean surname), until informed very late in production (like Season 7 or something) that Brannon Braga just assumed Kim was Chinese-American.

The showrunners didn't care enough to have Kim's ethnicity worked out through the entirety of Voyager's run. I don't know if that's racist or just a sign that they really didn't care about the Kim character at all, or both.

Sulu, explicitly born in San Francisco, was consistently referenced as being Japanese in background material and cut scenes (but never onscreen in a finished product, interestingly).

 

[Nerys Myk]

Sulu, explicitly born in San Francisco, was consistently referenced as being Japanese in background material and cut scenes (but never onscreen in a finished product, interestingly).

Was he? I recall the pan-Asian reference in TMOST, but nothing about him being Japanese. I seem to recall Takei wanting to avoid stereotypically Japanese/Asian references

 

[Nyotarules]

Huge interest in Trek in mainland Europe too but precious few German/Swedish etc. characters either.

True there were only Admiral Nechayev and Annika Hansen.

Perhaps in the future Trek producers will use French actors for French roles, Swedish actors for Swedish roles, Indian actors (Bollywood has plenty) West African actors for West African roles.
When American (or British) actors play most of the roles it makes it difficult to represent whatever nation state they are meant to be. (But I know its cheaper)

 

[Tim Thomason]

Was he? I recall the pan-Asian reference in TMOST, but nothing about him being Japanese. I seem to recall Takei wanting to avoid stereotypically Japanese/Asian references

My bad. The main reference I was thinking of, a cut scene, has him referring to himself as Oriental and mimicking Fu Manchu (a Chinese stereotypical villain). He speaks Japanese and talks to his Japanese ancestors in unfilmed portions of Star Trek IV. I guess Star Trek IV's script is the only thing that alludes to Sulu's Japanese heritage (and it's very likely, in the ~250 years between 1986 and Sulu's birth, that he had some other ancestors outside of Japanese-American extraction).

He was named Hikaru (as if names mean anything) and non-canon novels describes him as of Japanese heritage, but nothing really beyond that.

 

[Oddish]

Indeed, Harry Kim didn't need more of a past, he needed more of a present (give the guy a promotion, fer chris' sake).

Or two. He should have had his hollow pip by mid season 3 and his solid one by the time Tom got reinstated.

And with those increases in rank should have come increases in maturity, skill, experience, confidence, and responsibility. The freshly minted ensign should have grown into a seasoned officer, almost unrecognizable as his 7 years' prior self. For more information on how to handle this, see Bashir and Nog.

 

[Bad Thoughts]

Representation of course matters, but why does the character have to be defined by their race, gender or orientation, whilst their very presence on screen makes that statement they should become known and appreciated for who they are and not what they are.

Let me just say that I think it is jumping the gun to say that we are going to breed away racism. Ethnicity is constructed inwardly and outwardly, and humans have a strong tendency toward in-grouping behaviors. Perhaps the ethnicities we have now won't be recognizable, but others could easily take their place. It is simply human nature to construct groups. Moreover, there are large pockets of the world where genetic homogeneity largely carries. Creating "the race of the future," as it was called, will required significantly more mobility than what is happening.

To that end, I'm fine with ethnic identities for the characters in Star Trek, be they precise or vague. What would be more interesting, IMO, is that we see their constructive potential. Like you said, Brooks' exploration of African American heritage and politics motivated various positive aspects of Sisko's life as well as the series in general. Obviously, Nimoy and Nichols imbued their characters with various ethnic qualities to the benefit of those characters. Star Trek has benefited from not just casting ethnic actors, but also allowing their ethnicities to affect those characters. Beyond ethnicity, the last season of Discovery showed characters employing identities and values that would seem to be valid now, but arguably will disappear in the future,

Spoiler

in how a family is formed between Stamets, Culber and Tal

. I don't think it necessary to hang a note on those episodes, saying that the future will be different. It is enough that they enrich the series now.

 

[Bad Thoughts]

Or two. He should have had his hollow pip by mid season 3 and his solid one by the time Tom got reinstated.

And with those increases in rank should have come increases in maturity, skill, experience, confidence, and responsibility. The freshly minted ensign should have grown into a seasoned officer, almost unrecognizable as his 7 years' prior self. For more information on how to handle this, see Bashir and Nog.

Absolutely! As much as I don't think that I don't think Garrett Wang needed more screen time, a change in rank would have given Wang reason to change up his performance.

 

[Oddish]

It would have shown that the showrunners had at least a basic respect for our intelligence. There is NO defense for Harry's seven year ensignhood. Absolutely none. All justifications commonly spewed out can be instantly and effortlessly debunked.

They were in the Delta Quadrant so no one could be promoted? Tell that to Tuvok and Tom.

Harry was already a senior officer? Yes. He did lieutenant level work, and it should have come with lieutenant pips.

Harry was very young? He was 29 at series end. Riker was a lieutenant commander at that age.

Harry messed up? That happened in Season 5. He should have been a lieutenant long before.

Maybe he was bad at his job? He helped design the Delta Flyer and Astrometrics lab, and Janeway said he had "exceeded all expectations".

Someone's gotta be the Ensign? TNG had no ensigns in the main cast after S4. DS9 never had one at all. Given that those two shows are considered the best of the second wave of shows... no, someone don't gotta be the ensign.

Garrett Wang was a pain? Fine. Dismiss him. And eliminate his character. But once you decide to keep him, you have his character level up realistically.

No rhyme, no reason. The logical assumption is that they did it because they thought we were too stupid to notice.

 

[flandry84]

True there were only Admiral Nechayev and Annika Hansen.

Perhaps in the future Trek producers will use French actors for French roles, Swedish actors for Swedish roles, Indian actors (Bollywood has plenty) West African actors for West African roles.
When American (or British) actors play most of the roles it makes it difficult to represent whatever nation state they are meant to be. (But I know its cheaper)

Apart from poor Schmitter I cannot recall any character of German heritage even being mentioned on any of the shows.I’m open to correction...(no,the holodeck nazi’s don’t count).

 

[Bad Thoughts]

I cannot recall any character of German heritage

Detmar and, potentially, Stamets.

 

[plynch]

And these might be names retained from a distant ancestor; could be 1/16 German (or less, far into the future). A name from a country doesn't necessarily make you that. I have more French and English than Irish, where my last name arose.

 

[ThreeEdgedSword]

No German characters please! It's American tv, they'd be the villains...