Can Anyone Explain TNG era Main Crew Positions

[Bad Thoughts]

Even if Riker was the action hero of the series in its early years, Patrick Stewart was still very much the lead. He was given all the important acting scenes: he was charged with conveying emotions, values and meaning that Frakes was not. Even as Q doted on Riker, the solution of Hide & Q was still found in Picard.

 

[J.T.B.]

But handling things the captain needs done is the crew's whole job. That's how a military works. The captain is busy making decisions about what everyone needs to do. He or she doesn't have time to personally execute every decision -- that's what the crew is there for.

What I meant was, if it's a space battle-stations situation, the captain will be on the bridge and in charge. If the away team guy is one of the main acting roles, the tendency might be for him to be on the bridge at crucial times, too, which might seem contrived.

What's unrealistic about Star Trek is that it shows the captain -- and the whole command crew -- carrying out tasks that would actually be the responsibility of subordinates. You see the same thing in lots of shows, like on House MD, where the doctors were constantly performing slow, meticulous tests that would really be delegated to interns or technicians because the doctors themselves would have too many other responsibilities. Or Batman comics, where Commissioner Gordon is constantly going to crime scenes personally instead of letting detectives handle it because he's too busy managing the whole department.

There are a lot of unrealistic things about Star Trek, but some things have to be conceded to TV cast considerations. If we want to talk realistic, a full-time Ops officer should be the Captain's right-hand in action and the XO's battle station should be somewhere else like auxiliary control.

Cop shows do get things wrong like that all the time. Why are Lieutenants Columbo and Kojack and Stone always out working cases instead of managing their investigators via their sergeants? I just ignore it, dramatic license. That's one thing I liked about The Wire, Sgt. Landsman sat on his ass in the office most of the time like a bureaucratic supervisor.

You know, all these years I've been wondering what a police commissioner actually is, so I just looked it up. Turns out it's basically the same thing as a sheriff.

Except for not being an elected official and, in most jurisdictions, not having cognizance over civil processes.

In some places, even moreso than others.

That was a re-branding of the patrol division of the Salt Lake County Sheriff's Office, the county still has a patchwork of city PDs. Some days the sheriff wears a blue uniform, some days tan. They should go to one more efficient Metro department like Las Vegas.

 

[Christopher]

Even if Riker was the action hero of the series in its early years, Patrick Stewart was still very much the lead. He was given all the important acting scenes: he was charged with conveying emotions, values and meaning that Frakes was not. Even as Q doted on Riker, the solution of Hide & Q was still found in Picard.

Yes, of course. The point is that they were supposed to be co-leads, their roles complementing one another. The assumption was that the younger lead would handle the physical action and romance, while the older lead would handle the more thoughtful stuff and the speechmaking and the problem-solving. Kind of like early Doctor Who, where the elderly Doctor was the title character and the catalyst for the stories but his young, virile male companion was the real hero, the one who spearheaded the action.

And I think you're understating how prominent Riker was in those early seasons. He was still quite central in his own way. He certainly carried the bulk of the romantic load; aside from Jenice Mannheim, Picard didn't really have a romantic interest until Vash showed up in season 3, but Riker was getting plenty of action in the meantime.

What I meant was, if it's a space battle-stations situation, the captain will be on the bridge and in charge. If the away team guy is one of the main acting roles, the tendency might be for him to be on the bridge at crucial times, too, which might seem contrived.

I think the problem is that you're expecting it to be structured the way you're used to seeing Star Trek. But ST is structured that way because it always has focused primarily on the bridge crews. If a series were designed to focus on more junior officers, then of course the writers would structure the scripts specifically to focus on those characters. I'm always puzzled when people say "The writers couldn't do X because of the situation in the story." The writers create that situation in the first place, and they can create a different one just as easily. Stories are built to serve their characters. If you have a story situation that doesn't provide a focus for your main characters, then you change it to one that does.

As I've said, a perfect example of the kind of structure I'm talking about has already been done with great success in Stargate SG-1. The stars of the show were the team that went into action, and their commanding officer was a supporting character. There were episodes set at the SGC where General Hammond played a more central role, but the story was still told from the perspective of SG-1, the lead characters. After all, they're the ones who are getting paid to be the stars, so of course the writers will structure the scripts to focus on those characters. It makes no sense to claim this structure can't work when it did work on a TV series that ran for ten years, and a spinoff thereof that ran for five years. Stargate is the most successful American SFTV franchise other than Star Trek, and it succeeded doing the exact same thing that you're trying to tell me is impossible.

Not to mention that even Trek itself has an example of a series that didn't focus solely on the command crew: DS9. It featured plenty of characters who weren't stationed in ops -- Odo, Quark, Bashir, Rom, Garak, etc. And it told stories that focused on those characters elsewhere, more so than an episode of TOS or TNG or VGR would have. Because stories are shaped to fit their characters. If the characters have different jobs, then the stories will have different emphases.

You know, all these years I've been wondering what a police commissioner actually is, so I just looked it up. Turns out it's basically the same thing as a sheriff.

Except for not being an elected official and, in most jurisdictions, not having cognizance over civil processes.

Ahh, okay. Thanks. So a commissioner is more an appointed position?

 

[J.T.B.]

I think the problem is that you're expecting it to be structured the way you're used to seeing Star Trek. But ST is structured that way because it always has focused primarily on the bridge crews. If a series were designed to focus on more junior officers, then of course the writers would structure the scripts specifically to focus on those characters. I'm always puzzled when people say "The writers couldn't do X because of the situation in the story." The writers create that situation in the first place, and they can create a different one just as easily. Stories are built to serve their characters. If you have a story situation that doesn't provide a focus for your main characters, then you change it to one that does.

It's a good point. I still think that if it's a ship-based setting, there will be a temptation to use ship-based stories, including cool space battles, at least once in a while. Someone whose specialty is leading landing parties/away teams might be expected to take a less prominent role in that kind situation.

Of course the setting could also be a wholly different kind of ship, not really intended for space combat, but from what we've seen in Trek the dangers of exploration argue for combining exploring ability with fighting power as much as possible.

Stargate is the most successful American SFTV franchise other than Star Trek, and it succeeded doing the exact same thing that you're trying to tell me is impossible.

Who said it was impossible? If you look back I think you will find that all I said was there might be some problems, such as I mentioned above.

Ahh, okay. Thanks. So a commissioner is more an appointed position?

Yes, and in the US basically only found in the biggest cities. Sometimes the Commissioner is like the civilian Secretary of Defense, while the Chief of Police is like the uniformed military Chief of Staff, other times Commissioner is just a different title for what other cities call Chief of Police. The title comes from the London Metropolitan Police in the 1800s, which was the world's leading innovator for police organization. Originally, there was a "commission" of two who had joint responsibility over the police force.

 

[Christopher]

It's a good point. I still think that if it's a ship-based setting, there will be a temptation to use ship-based stories, including cool space battles, at least once in a while. Someone whose specialty is leading landing parties/away teams might be expected to take a less prominent role in that kind situation.

Well, sure, but why is that a problem? It's natural in an ensemble series for different episodes to focus on different members of the ensemble. DS9 did this all the time. There'd be a ton of episodes that would focus almost entirely on two or three of the regulars, with the rest of the cast just showing up for one scene to meet their contractual obligation. And a character who was the center of the story one week might only have one line the next week.

other times Commissioner is just a different title for what other cities call Chief of Police.

Except not in Gotham, because -- at least in the '66 series and some of the comics around the same time -- O'Hara was the Chief of Police.

 

[USS Triumphant]

You know, all these years I've been wondering what a police commissioner actually is, so I just looked it up. Turns out it's basically the same thing as a sheriff.

Except for not being an elected official and, in most jurisdictions, not having cognizance over civil processes.

Ahh, okay. Thanks. So a commissioner is more an appointed position?

In some places, and in others, they are elected. There's not really a uniform process everywhere that title is used.