Next Series - Less Main Cast

[Opus]

The new series, should there ever be one, would work best with fewer main cast members. That way, the central arc of the series would always revolve around them.

TOS had this formula right with the Big 3. The series dealt with just their relationships. I believe ENT would have done much better if they just had Archer, T'pol and Trip. The entire show could have dealt with their experiences with one another and their role in the formation of the Federation without being obligated to have a story about Mayweather or the doctor breaking up the season.

The next series could work much like the formula DS9 developed. DS9 developed so many interesting supporting characters - Garak, Rom and Leeta, Martok, Dukat, Weyoun, etc. In many ways these characters became more interesting and bigger fan favorites than the "main" cast. All had interesting back-stories, but weren't the driving characters of the series. Using this strategy, a new series could be both rich in character story and very focused as a series because the overall story arc would revolve around very few main characters.

The show structure needs to change too. Even in 1987 when TNG came out, the story structure composed of a teaser and 4 acts, was old even then. Shows were shorter then, and even shorter now. The story needs to drive, not plod, from break to break.

I hope they do a new series someday. Trek itself is a winner. If they tweak the formula just a bit, they could have a real modern winner on their hands.

 

[C.E. Evans]

I tend to agree. I do hope a future Trek series only has about four or five main characters, with the rest being supporting characters that may not appear in every episode or even appear only once in a while. That doesn't mean there can't be episodes that may occasionally spotlight those supporting characters, though...

 

[Temis the Vorta]

We can have less main cast, say 3-4, but expand the number of recurring characters to an expanded cast of about 20. That way the writers can be freed up from having to keep writing stories about the same 7 people, and even if some turn out to be duds, feel obligated to keep writing stories for them. Alternatively, it gives them a bigger group of characters to experiment with, to see which recurring characters are the really valuable ones.

Just start with a core group you know will generate good stories and then dabble with the expanded cast. Figure out which ones work best in stories (It'll have a lot to do with the actors, so you can't definitely plan it in advance.)

That avoids the awkward situation where Dax becomes less useful to the ongoing story than secondary characters like Dukat, Winn and Garak. If all four of them had been recurring to begin with, Dax could be shuffled off the show and killed off if she really wasn't working out.

 

[Balrog]

^ I agree. Why should the writers be locked in to characters that don't end up working as well as they hoped on paper. I feel the same way about Harry Kim and Mayweather. They really didn't work at all. Yet the writers had to at least give them something to do every season.

 

[Pauln6]

I agree. I'm not sure that 3 main characters is enough and there will always be practical problems with actor turnover because many actors will give up guest slots if a regular job comes along but overall this method allows for more organic character development and it's easier to kill off guest stars for shock value.

 

[LeadHead]

I disagree actually. I enjoy a good ensemble piece better than one that's a small group of people. I think they should just plan ahead better and make sure they've got storyline they can make for each character before they get the ball rolling. And, if they can't then the character should be removed/killed. They need to get better at ending characters arcs if they need to be ended.

 

[C_Miller]

I know Lost isn't universally popular here, but they had a massive cast and what's important to note is that each one of the characters was extremely well developed, especially when compared to Star Trek. I agree with what leadhead said. They should sit down and figure out their characters in more than just a simple paragraph (which is what Star Trek characters are usually given in the series bible. Having good character arcs is not rocket since, they just need to be thought out.

 

[Pauln6]

The Lost format was very effective but there was no true 'lead' characters and the flashback format allowed most of the others to develop effectively. However, I don't think that format would work for Star Trek. In fact one of the things I liked least about the final series of B5 was that removing all the lead characters from their traditional triumvirate fractured the format and made it harder for me to engage with them.

NuBSG probably did a better job with a core cast of 6 and a large rotating supporting cast, many of whom appeared in most episodes. A four tier system like TOS would probably be my preference where you have 2-3 main characters, 2-3 supporting leads (like in season 1 with McCoy and Rand), 5-10 rotating support characters who appear in perhaps a quarter of the episodes each, and then a bunch of guest characters who do 1 - 2 episodes per season.

 

[C_Miller]

I mean, they still kind of had a lead character and in fact they had a group of five that were obviously more important than the others (Jack, Kate, Sawyer, Locke, Hurley). But you're right, I can't see Star Trek doing the whole Flashbacks thing and having that be successful (especially since when they're all in Starfleet and roughly have a similar background). But I think Lost proved that if they can have 20ish main characters that are all well developed, you really don't have much of an excuse to not having three dimensional characters.

In Star Trek, ten main characters is probably the limit, since Star Trek is very job oriented and that's probably how many jobs you can milk out on a ship that's distinctive. And then of course you can have supporting characters.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

The Lost approach is great if the writers can pull it off. But I think there's a reason why we see it so rarely. What's far more common is the problem Big Love is having in S4 (I'm seeing it on DVD). That show had three strong seasons but midway thru S4, they really start to flounder.

The writers are desperately trying to keep coming up with plotlines for about 7 or 8 major characters and have them all interact sensibly. But what's happening is that half the plotlines are just ridiculous and embarrassing, while others are boring. It's a case of writers overextending themselves.

 

[T'Girl]

You can have characters like O'Brien and Barclay, O'Brien was a fairly low level character who gradually grew up until The Wounded. Barclay is different, the first time you see him is in a Barclay centered script, if he hadn't resonated with the viewers, he could have been dumped.

 

[Opus]

With a smaller main cast and many interesting supporting players, you can have a show go longer than 7 seasons. There would be less of an issue of the budget becoming too big because the main cast is getting paid more money because there would be fewer of them. Also, the show could be built like MASH, where a lead or supporting character could leave and be replaced. I thought DS9 could have done this and continue their storyline (Bajor becoming part of the Federation) after Avery Brooks and Colm Meaney left.

 

[T'Girl]

I thought DS9 could have done this and continue their storyline

Not really, with the end of the Dominion War, DS9 had metaphorically "jumped the shark." It was really played out, not that we couldn't have milked it for a few more seasons with steadly declining ratings.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

Bajor joining the Federation wouldn't have had enough oomph to continue DS9. Only the Feds losing the war could have done that, but then it would effectively be a new series.

 

[lurok]

I'm less concerned about how many main vs secondary characters than I am about writing And I think lot depends on what genre of show it is, and nature/philosophy of show.

 

[timelord1010]

^ I agree. Why should the writers be locked in to characters that don't end up working as well as they hoped on paper. I feel the same way about Harry Kim and Mayweather. They really didn't work at all. Yet the writers had to at least give them something to do every season.

I don't know about Harry Kim but Travis Mayweather was a glorified extra. Most episodes he had no dialog. I remember several times that Archer would give Mayweather a order to do something and Mayweather wouldn't even say yes sir.

 

[C.E. Evans]

^ I agree. Why should the writers be locked in to characters that don't end up working as well as they hoped on paper. I feel the same way about Harry Kim and Mayweather. They really didn't work at all. Yet the writers had to at least give them something to do every season.

I don't know about Harry Kim but Travis Mayweather was a glorified extra. Most episodes he had no dialog. I remember several times that Archer would give Mayweather a order to do something and Mayweather wouldn't even say yes sir.

"Lieutenant Joseph Mayweather" was more interesting as an older, experienced space traveler that sometimes disagreed with Archer on how he dealt with alien races, IMO--but that went out the window once they cast a young actor in the role instead and the character became "Ensign Travis Mayweather."

 

[Bry_Sinclair]

I thought DS9 could have done this and continue their storyline

Not really, with the end of the Dominion War, DS9 had metaphorically "jumped the shark." It was really played out, not that we couldn't have milked it for a few more seasons with steadly declining ratings.

I would think that DS9 could hold its own if it went on for longer. You have Bajor entering the Federation (granted not a dramatic story but an important one), and all the rebuilding that has to be done in the area, refugees, Cardassia in disarray, the tentative alliance with the Romulans, the mysterious Breen on the fringes, maybe a shake up in Bajoran religious affairs following Winn's falling to the 'dark side', I would say they had a lot of future storylines.

They could have kept Sisko on as an Admiral in charge of the Sector, and given the station to Kira, or kept Sisko with the Prophets and had Kira as the lead.

But that's just me.

As for less main cast, I would say that not every role needs to be filled. For example, unless you have a very compelling character at the helm, they really don't need to be anything more than an extra with a last name and rank.

 

[Pauln6]

I think Ro Laren in season 5 is a good example of how to use a supporting character (5 out of 26 episodes and she gets to contribute meanigfully to each story she is in). Travis and Hoshi could easily have been in this category. So could Troi probably.

Of course this also illustrates the downside to a larger guest cast because she moved on to other roles and we only got 1 Ro epsiode in seasons 6 and 7, which was a great shame, since the the writers couls seriously have jazzed up both those seasons (which were becoming a bit stale) if Michelle Forbes had been available more often.

Of course if you have a large revolving guest cast, you can always rotate somebdoy else in if someone drops out.

On the other hand I think Ensign Wildman and Reg Barclay are examples of how not to use guest characters - i.e. only once or twice a year revolving around their one-shot character trait (Sam's baby; Barclay's neuroses & obsessions). Both those characters had a lot of untapped potential and Naomi Wildman appeared more often than her mother, I think. Guest characters work better in my view if you use them more often than once a year and flesh them out a bit more.

In Voyager's case, we did get Seska and Vorik. But we lost Suder very quickly, and we lost Chell and the other hopeless Maquis after one episode (until Chell returned in cameos in season 7) and who wouldn't have loved to see a lot more of the twins?

 

[{ Emilia }]

Guest characters work better in my view if you use them more often than once a year and flesh them out a bit more.

I agree but you have to take into account that when those Star Trek shows were made TV series in general were a lot more episodic than they are now.
Producers didn't want long character or story arcs because they thought that the viewers are pretty stupid. They wanted viewers to be able to jump in at any random episode and not get lost because they missed the previous one.

With shows like Lost and Alias this has changed a lot in recent years. And this is were regular guest stars started coming into play. Going away from the episodic, isolated format meant the writers had the opportunity to start writing characters and story arcs that could span more than 1 or 2 episodes.

Deep Space 9 is probably the Trek series that is most similar to that modern type of tv show in that its characters wasn't episodic at all (especially in later seasons) and that there was a huge cast of supporting characters who showed up on a regular basis (Garak, Dukat, Weyoun, Cassidy, Vic Fontaine... and so on).