A New Trek Series Should Take a Lesson From Law & Order

[Mirror_Barclay]

What TV can do better than any other medium is develop characters and their relationships over a period of years.

It doesn't always do this, but in my opinion if you aren't at least trying - why are you on TV?

Trek has never done a perfect job at this, but it's part of a formula that has led to several 7-season shows and a 4-season show, in an industry where it seems few shows, esp SF, last more than a single season.

 

[The Borgified Corpse]

Well, so long as we're using Law & Order as the example here, it should be noted that there have been many Law & Order characters that have lasted more than 7 years on the show. Granted, there have been some 1-season wonders like Max Greevey, Phil Cerreta, Nick Falco, & Nina Cassaday. No ADA has ever lasted more than 4 seasons. But there have also been some VERY long running characters on the show-- Lt. Van Buren (17 seasons), Jack McCoy (15 seasons), Lennie Briscoe (12 seasons), Adam Schiff (10 seasons), Ed Green (9 seasons). One of the strengths of the show is that it has some great characters that form a solid backbone for the series (particularly Briscoe & McCoy) but also isn't afraid of swapping out characters on short notice.

I really wish that DS9 had continued past 7 seasons. I think the relaunch novels have demonstrated that the show could survive it by occsionally swapping out characters.

 

[Starbreaker]

People tend to want to watch the same characters grow and develop over the run of a series.

You have proof of this?

It's called the general population. There are always big uproars when characters leave shows. Grissom on CSI, Diane on Cheers... these things don't go unnoticed. Most people like to connect with characters, not turbolifts.

 

[Mr. B]

I can certainly see the merit of killing of a main character now and then as well as rotating some people in and out, but I don't think a revolving door for the main cast is really a good idea. Like most TV, people get attached to characters, not necessarily plot lines.

 

[BillJ]

I agree with Dayton.

It's the only way to change the inter-personal dynamics. Chain of Command is one of my favorite episodes of The Next Generation precisely because the new character turned everyone else upside down. Part of the fun was watching the characters adjust.

 

[Stone_Cold_Sisko]

One thing I've hated about the Trek fan base is this:

In every Trek series, EVERY character instantly gets there on little group of fans who bitch and moan if anything ever happens to the character.

And keeping the same group of characters for 7 years makes the shows almost entirely "character driven".

Something I loathe. I want shows about the missions. Aliens encountered, adventures experienced, battles fought.....

instead in Trek it is too much Character A risks their career, Character A has problems with their family, Character A's life is in danger.............and so on.

With the possible exception of a few seasons of TNG, and the occasional DS9 moment... Star Trek series have never been 'character driven'. Voyager and Enterprise certainly were not.

 

[urbandk]

I agree with Dayton too. I liked Shelby. I liked Chain of Command. I liked killing off Tasha. I liked introducing Pulaski.

TOS had no problem with different crew members from week to week. Aside from the core group of Kirk, Spock, & McCoy, nothing seemed overly static.

Voyager took the same crew model to the extreme (aside from Kes & Seven). I liked the cast dynamic the least in Voyager. In fact, I might have given Voyager another shot had they shuffled people around... as impossible as that would have been given the circumstances.

I like this idea a lot. Perhaps a ship or a scenario should be the core of the show. Let the characters be complementary to the story. As the characters move apart, the show could even follow certain characters into new places and situations.

 

[urbandk]

It makes even more sense with a show set in the 23rd century that does not feature the Enterprise crew. Why make people invested in six-seven new people when you could make them invested in the story itself? Makes more sense for a show that is contemporaneous to a movie franchise.

 

[Dayton3]

I agree with Dayton too. I liked Shelby. I liked Chain of Command. I liked killing off Tasha. I liked introducing Pulaski.

TOS had no problem with different crew members from week to week. Aside from the core group of Kirk, Spock, & McCoy, nothing seemed overly static.

Voyager took the same crew model to the extreme (aside from Kes & Seven). I liked the cast dynamic the least in Voyager. In fact, I might have given Voyager another shot had they shuffled people around... as impossible as that would have been given the circumstances.

quote]

I think Michael Piller was behind that.

Piller loved the idea of each member of the crew being part of a "family" and the characters filling the "family roles".

On Voyager they went so far as to have Janeway actually voice this in dialogue.

I can remember her saying

"How is the newest member of the family?"

or

"I'm not going to break up the family".

 

[urbandk]

I think Michael Piller was behind that.

Piller loved the idea of each member of the crew being part of a "family" and the characters filling the "family roles".

On Voyager they went so far as to have Janeway actually voice this in dialogue.

I can remember her saying

"How is the newest member of the family?"

or

"I'm not going to break up the family".

and all that motherly tripe really bugged me.

 

[blockaderunner]

I would think that Trek should be more like Babylon 5 where people got promoted and moved on. I'm sorry, but the "crew as family" angle has become horribly antiquated and unbelievable as the fanbase who supports it. Good television writing has grown past that.

 

[blockaderunner]

It would be alot more realistic. In the modern day military who has ever heard of the same captain staying in command of a ship for 7 years?

Or four years for that matter?

In case you haven't forgotten Star Trek takes place in the far future. You don't know how things work there.

Oh, playing that card again?

It's human nature for one to improve one's station in life. To grow. To change. Star Trek, in spite of its fantastic setting, is supposed reflect something about us here in 2009. What kind of message does it send when it doesn't allow people to improve themselves? I'm 37 years old and I've always had the desire to be something greater than I am and advance in life. I feel about it today just as I did in 1999 and even as I did in 1989. Is it any wonder why most of modern Trek is perceived as a joke to all but the most hardcore Trekkie?

 

[blockaderunner]

I'd love to know how that came about.

See the Genesis Trilogy, AKA Treks II-IV, AKA The Ultimate Reset Button, for your answer.

 

[USS Renegade]

I kind of agree, I think Trek should have used more swapping characters, but not too much of it.

Kirk's crew, for example, didn't stay together, but they always reformed in a crisis.

Picard's crew, on the other hand, is a different animal. They were a great ensemble. They were on the best ship in the fleet, with the best captain in the fleet, and a crew that was like a family to them.

Riker being XO for 20 years isn't impossible, improbable, or even unlikely. He respected and admired Picard more than he did his own father. He was also serving with Deanna, his lost true love. If nothing had been made of Riker staying it would be unbelieveable, but it was brought up many times. Staying on the Enteprise instead of advancing his own career was part of his character. He was on a ship he loved, with people he loved, and the woman he had always loved, doing what he loved. What kind of frakkin' idiot leaves that life?

Beverly and Picard had their own history together. Data wasn't getting any more promotions. How many times has Data been reprogrammed/fritzed out? No, no Captain Data. Picard is the only reason Starfleet hasn't ripped Data to shreds to analyze him. Why would Data want to leave the D/E for an XO job (at best) for a Captain who may well just consider him Federation property.

As for Geordi, he is so bland and flavorless another crew would never warm up to him. He is like the puppy on the D, except he is a good mechanic too.

You think Worf was really gonna be welcomed with open arms everywhere else in the fleet? He takes getting used to, and he doesn't like change too much. Not shocking that he didn't leave until the series was over.

I mean, more swapping out more crew members may be reasonable and believeable in a general context, but specifically with TNG when you look at the characters, WHY would they want to leave Enterprise? Having them want to leave would be less believeable than them staying.

So, all in all, i;m glad the TNG crew remained intact, minus Yar and Wesley...


Now, DS9, those characters all had reasons to want to leave DS9. Sisko was uncormy with the Emissary bit, and had a young son in a dangerous situation. Obrien had kids in a dangerous place, where nothing worked right, and all the knowledge he was getting from DS9 on Cardassian systems was pretty useless elsewhere. Bashir could have left for any number of reasons built into the character. Kira wasn't excited to be there at first, and chafed at the Starfleet way the whole time. Dax could have left on a whim. Bored now. Poof. Odo didn't exactly have a whole bunch of happy memories of that station. Quark... Do I have to go there? There were ways out for everyone.

Voyager, on the other hand, I could have dealt with more dying. Losing Harry Kim could have been turned into an emptional episode(s), and not really detracted from Voyager since all they did with Harry was make him Paris' sidekick. An engineering accident for B'Ehlana, maybe even a nice death of the Captain.

 

[CuttingEdge100]

I actually had mentioned awhile back on a thread regarding what one would do if they were the director/producer of a Star Trek movie of such an idea.

In the idea Decker would be the the new Captain, and the Big-E would have a number of new crew-members, though Sulu, Chekov, probably Uhura would remain

 

[The_Beef]

The idea of the E-D's crew staying together for so long really does stretch things, although I do think the motives USS Renegade provided above go a long way to explain exactly why these crew members would be ok with staying on the same ship.

That being said, I suspect that Starfleet handles crew compositions a bit differently on deep space explorers (not that the E-D did that much in this department, but it appears to have at least been its original mission). It would make some sense for Starfleet to make it clear that serving onboard one of these vessels is a long term commitment that is definitely different from regular service. The three-year mission of TOS fits perfectly with this. TNG may not hold up quite so well, but one could argue that, since the crew was originally intended to be an explorer crew, Starfleet stuck to that model. I only really argue this for TNG itself. The movies stretch the credibility to the breaking point, but perhaps at that point they just all pulled strings to make sure they were back together.

 

[phylogeny]

I can certainly see the merit of killing of a main character now and then as well as rotating some people in and out, but I don't think a revolving door for the main cast is really a good idea. Like most TV, people get attached to characters, not necessarily plot lines.

My sentiments exactly.

The procedural shows I watch for the mystery, not for the characters. Most of the time, I don't even know the characters' names nor would I care that they are in danger. However, a space opera like Trek depends on viewers growing attached to characters. Thus, when bad things happen to those characters, we cry, when they are put in danger, we feel anxious.

That said, Star Trek did carry the "all in the family" bit to the extreme. At the very least, they could have tried to change the dynamic around a bit.

I think if a new Trek TV show ever gets off the ground, they will need to allow changes for their main characters (like promoting people, seeing people leave/die etc). People no longer like to watch a static show where the ending of every episode is a reset button. The danger is too much change can turn people off from the show. I was kind of turned off from nuBSG for a brief time because they changed the show's dynamic so much so quickly. It's a tricky balance.

 

[Nerdius Maximus]

I remember being convinced that Riker was going to remain in command of the Enterprise after the Best of Both Worlds part 1. Maybe that's because I was 14 and a little naive, but I thought perhaps Patrick Stewart had decided to leave the show or something.

 

[Dayton3]

I remember being convinced that Riker was going to remain in command of the Enterprise after the Best of Both Worlds part 1. Maybe that's because I was 14 and a little naive, but I thought perhaps Patrick Stewart had decided to leave the show or something.

During ST:TNG, the actors only signed one season contracts and as early as the fourth season, Majel Barrett Roddenberry was complaining about the ST:TNG actors demanding ever larger contracts each year and endangering the show.

Paramount apparently considered canceling ST:TNG after the fourth or fifth season for that reason.

But they didn't.

However, for DS9 and Voyager, the principle actors all were signed for 7 years mostly.

I think that those contracts did work against significant cast changes.

 

[TEH BABA]

BSG does cast changes well.