Recently, a thread discussed the casting for Star Trek during its production run of '66-'69. I made the point that the series' characters were unusually well cast, from Shatner on down. As you all know, some of those cast members expressed deep disappointment when their characters were not developed as they had hoped they would be, and felt deep resentment when Shatner (sometimes with the assistance of Nimoy and Kelley) worked behind the scenes to reassign the lines of these actors, and make them less important to the plot. All of this makes me wonder: Did GR error in repeatedly using the same characters at helmsman, navigator (from season 2 onward), and communications? After all, if he intended to focus on the three leads, wouldn't building up those behind them tend to take away from their spotlight? As an example, George Takei appeared in 52 episodes. If he had been the helmsman in 25 of them instead, with other characters played by other actors subbing for him, might we have avoided the us vs. them mentality of the three leads vs. the second tier? I know this is apocryphal to many of you, but if GR intended to focus on the lead three characters--Kirk, Spock and McCoy, wouldn't it make sense to keep the other characters from becoming prominent?