Why Not 2 Captains?

[2takesfrakes]

In the movies, from TVH onward, there were 3 captains on ENTERPRISE "A" - Kirk, Spock & Scotty. By that reckoning, Riker could've been promoted to Captain on ENTERPRISE-D, whilst still serving in the capacity of #1, under Picard's leadership. Maybe that wouldn't have flown at the start of the First Season, but certainly by, or after, Season Four, it could've been successfully integrated into the format of the show. It would've also handled the issue of Riker never accepting his own command. What do you think?

 

[USS Triumphant]

In the movies, from TVH onward, there were 3 captains on ENTERPRISE "A" - Kirk, Spock & Scotty. By that reckoning, Riker could've been promoted to Captain on ENTERPRISE-D, whilst still serving in the capacity of #1, under Picard's leadership. Maybe that wouldn't have flown at the start of the First Season, but certainly by, or after, Season Four, it could've been successfully integrated into the format of the show. It would've also handled the issue of Riker never accepting his own command. What do you think?

They could have done that, and then, by the time of "Redemption Part I", Riker could have had the actual captaincy of the Enterprise, with Picard having accepted a promotion to Commodore (or "Rear Admiral, Lower Half"... feh) and still on the Enterprise because it is his fleet flagship.

 

[Trekker4747]

In the movies, from TVH onward, there were 3 captains on ENTERPRISE "A" - Kirk, Spock & Scotty. By that reckoning, Riker could've been promoted to Captain on ENTERPRISE-D, whilst still serving in the capacity of #1, under Picard's leadership. Maybe that wouldn't have flown at the start of the First Season, but certainly by, or after, Season Four, it could've been successfully integrated into the format of the show. It would've also handled the issue of Riker never accepting his own command. What do you think?

There's a difference between being a Captain (a rank) and being "the captain" (a position on the ship.) Audiences rarely understand this distinction which is likely why no one but Picard ever held the rank on the ship.

 

[Lance]

In the movies, from TVH onward, there were 3 captains on ENTERPRISE-A - Kirk, Spock & Scotty. By that reckoning, Riker could've been promoted to Captain on ENTERPRISE-D, whilst still serving in the capacity of #1, under Picard's leadership. Maybe that wouldn't have flown at the start of the First Season, but certainly by, or after, Season Four, it could've been successfully integrated into the format of the show. It would've also handled the issue of Riker never accepting his own command. What do you think?

They could have done that, and then, by the time of "Redemption Part I", Riker could have had the actual captaincy of the Enterprise, with Picard having accepted a promotion to Commodore (or "Rear Admiral, Lower Half"... feh) and still on the Enterprise because it is his fleet flagship.

Oh yeah, I think the audience could definitely buy that. I've read one reason the producers didn't simply let Riker keep his commission as Captain when Picard returned to the center chair after "BOBW" was because they thought people might be confused by the first officer and the commanding officer both being of Captain rank on the same ship, even though such things are not unheard of in real-life. But if Picard were to be bumped up to Admiral but kept on-board the 'flagship', obviously the format would have to absorb that somehow by making him more of an advisor than an on-the-ground decision maker, putting Riker even more firmly into the center of the concept. And maybe Patrick Stewart might've rallied against that development a little (this being a period when he was in fact jostling for more to do in the show, not less).

 

[HIjol]

In the movies, from TVH onward, there were 3 captains on ENTERPRISE "A" - Kirk, Spock & Scotty. By that reckoning, Riker could've been promoted to Captain on ENTERPRISE-D, whilst still serving in the capacity of #1, under Picard's leadership. Maybe that wouldn't have flown at the start of the First Season, but certainly by, or after, Season Four, it could've been successfully integrated into the format of the show. It would've also handled the issue of Riker never accepting his own command. What do you think?

They could have done that, and then, by the time of "Redemption Part I", Riker could have had the actual captaincy of the Enterprise, with Picard having accepted a promotion to Commodore (or "Rear Admiral, Lower Half"... feh) and still on the Enterprise because it is his fleet flagship.

There goes Triumphant, makin' me think some more!...

Riker Likers would have loved this!...in my book, he was ok, not great...I wonder if he could have carried the new roll...that said, what a downflow of cast and relationship dynamics it would have afforded...Troi and Worf and Data, not to name but a few...changes in rank and interaction dynamic for sure...but how would that work in terms of authority and physical position...who gets the chair...who gets the ready room...who sits at the head of the table in the conference room...very interesting thread topic!...thanks for the post, 'Frakes!

 

[USS Triumphant]

who gets the chair...who gets the ready room...who sits at the head of the table in the conference room...

The big chair and the ready room belong to the captain. In the conference room, I suppose it would depend on whether it was a ship briefing or a fleet briefing. And I envision that they would have introduced a new set for a fleet command center for Picard.

 

[bbailey861]

There's a difference between being a Captain (a rank) and being "the captain" (a position on the ship.) Audiences rarely understand this distinction which is likely why no one but Picard ever held the rank on the ship.

Exactly this.

 

[Tiberius]

Or they could have had "Second Chances" right after Family, and booted CAPTAIN Riker off and replaced him with LIEUTENANT Riker...

 

[2takesfrakes]

Interesting idea. Why not keep both? I, for one, am enough of a Jonathan Frakes fan, where I'd like to see him playing 2 regular characters on the same show ...

 

[Trekker4747]

Interesting idea. Why not keep both? I, for one, am enough of a Jonathan Frakes fan, where I'd like to see him playing 2 regular characters on the same show ...

Because doing the actor playing two roles in the same scene thing is expensive to do (camera and editing effects, body doubles, computer effects) thus impractical for a weekly TV series operating on a budget.

 

[TheSeeker]

I was disappointed when the field commission didn't stick, but I understood why they did it. I always thought promoting Picard to Commodore and letting Riker keep the Captain rank would have been pretty cool.

 

[Dukhat]

If Riker didn't have his own ship, then what would be the point?

 

[Ro_Laren]

I always thought it was unrealistic when the movies showed multiple Captains on one ship. Of course, there would be a difference between multiple Captains being assigned to one ship and multiple Captains who happen to be travelling temporarily (one being the permanent Captain) on a ship. The latter seems unrealistic from a military point of view. Has this ever been done on a U.S. or British military vessel?

 

[Whoa Nellie]

There's a difference between being a Captain (a rank) and being "the captain" (a position on the ship.) Audiences rarely understand this distinction which is likely why no one but Picard ever held the rank on the ship.

This!

but how would that work in terms of authority and physical position...who gets the chair...who gets the ready room...who sits at the head of the table in the conference room...very interesting thread topic!...thanks for the post, 'Frakes!

Picard would still have the chair, readyroom and head of conference table because of his position as captain of the ship. Again the difference between rank of captain and the position as captain of a ship.

I always thought it was unrealistic when the movies showed multiple Captains on one ship. Of course, there would be a difference between multiple Captains being assigned to one ship and multiple Captains who happen to be travelling temporarily (one being the permanent Captain) on a ship. The latter seems unrealistic from a military point of view. Has this ever been done on a U.S. or British military vessel?

The movies were actually more realistic. In real life, larger ships may have more than one officer with the rank of captain.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captain_(naval)

On large ships (e.g., aircraft carriers), the executive officer (XO) may be a captain in rank, in which case it would be proper to address him by rank. Often the XO prefers to be called "XO" to avoid confusion with the CO, who is also a captain in rank and the captain of the ship.[2] The same applies to aircraft carriers in the U.S. Navy, where the commander and deputy commander of the embarked carrier air wing are also captains in rank, but are addressed by the titles of "CAG" and DCAG," respectively.

Warmest Wishes,
Whoa Nellie

 

[Trekker4747]

I always thought it was unrealistic when the movies showed multiple Captains on one ship. Of course, there would be a difference between multiple Captains being assigned to one ship and multiple Captains who happen to be travelling temporarily (one being the permanent Captain) on a ship. The latter seems unrealistic from a military point of view. Has this ever been done on a U.S. or British military vessel?

Again, there is a difference between the RANK of a captain and the POSITION as a captain and this "unrealistic" viewpoint you have is precisely why no-one in the Trek series were ever captains other than the commanding officer of the ship. (And the movies were more realistic in this regards.)

First there's the rank of captain which is title you have that simply reflects the length and quality of service you have put in.

Then there's the POSITION of captain which is the commanding officer of the vessel. There could be 100 people on the ship with the rank of captain but they'd all be subordinate to "the" captain of the ship.

In fact the captain of a ship doesn't even need to hold that rank. He's just the commanding officer, which happens to be called "Captain."

This confusion is why the show runners avoided giving anyone else the rank of captain, audiences unfamiliar with how ranks and positions work would get easily confused on why Riker, a captain, is taking orders from Picard and calling him "sir" when they're both captains.

Hell, the show itself gets things confused in the episode where Troi takes her commander's test and achieves the rank of Commander. At the end of the episode she tells Data, a Lieutenant Commander, that he can now call her "Sir." This is INCORRECT. Troi may have held a higher rank than Data but Data still had a higher POSITION on the ship (Data being the Second Officer, Troi simply the ship's counselor.) Data doesn't have to call Troi "sir" he holds a higher position than her even if his rank is lower.

 

[RoJoHen]

And the thing to remember about is the original movies is that these characters had all moved on. Kirk was an Admiral. Spock was given command of the Enterprise. Hell, Bones was retired at the beginning of TMP!

Kirk and Spock even have the conversation in TWOK about who should be in charge of the ship given their current ranks.

It would have been one thing for Riker to be promoted to Captain and then return to the Enterprise. I mean, technically, Worf was "captain" of the Defiant when he returned in First Contact, even though his rank didn't reflect that.

 

[jimbotron]

I think by Star Trek II, the entire senior staff was either a captain or commander. Kirk (after demotion), Spock, Scotty were captains. Uhura, McCoy, Chekov, Sulu (later captain) were commanders. No lieutenants, no ensigns, except for guests like Saavik or Valeris.

Poor Harry Kim, he was born about 100 years too late.

 

[FormerLurker]

Or they could have had "Second Chances" right after Family, and booted CAPTAIN Riker off and replaced him with LIEUTENANT Riker...

From what I read, some thought had been given to this idea. Ultimately, of course, they went another direction.

 

[Lance]

I think by Star Trek II, the entire senior staff was either a captain or commander. Kirk (after demotion), Spock, Scotty were captains. Uhura, McCoy, Chekov, Sulu (later captain) were commanders. No lieutenants, no ensigns, except for guests like Saavik or Valeris.

To be fair, in Star Trek II the ship isn't on active duties (it's only a training vessel assigned to Starfleet Academy), and some of those above are implied to not be regular crew at that point. Sulu, for example, is stated somewhere to only be at the helm because they're throwing a special shin-dig for the benefit of Admiral Kirk's birthday. And in Star Trek III she's stolen by the main command crew when Admiral Morrow refuses Kirk's plea to return to Genesis. So again, Enterprise at that point is not a ship in regular service.

It only really gets a bit silly when the Enterprise-A is launched in Star Trek IV as, apparently, a vessel which is back in regular service. Except it's got three captains, and Sulu, Chekov and Uhura are all doing jobs that only needed lowly Lieutenants and Ensigns back in the good old days of TOS.

 

[RoJoHen]

It only really gets a bit silly when the Enterprise-A is launched in Star Trek IV as, apparently, a vessel which is back in regular service. Except it's got three captains, and Sulu, Chekov and Uhura are all doing jobs that only needed lowly Lieutenants and Ensigns back in the good old days of TOS.

Well, they did all just get finished saving the planet from total destruction. Maybe Starfleet felt that wasn't a team worth breaking up.