That article mentions that they made the ship more militaristic in the movies, and in my opinion the movie versions were never as good. I loved the family on the ship concept, even if it makes no sense given the danger. Having a world without money makes little sense to me either but it's fun and uplifting to watch.
Embarrassingly Bad Article on Reason behind TNG families
- Thread starter HaplessCrewman
- Start date
Deanna is a beautiful woman with maximum cleavage and a raging cameltoe. If I was the captain, I'd have sat her beside me too.
In all seriousness I've never had a problem with Deanna's place in the 'command circle' on the bridge. As the person who is effectively the HR manager of the entire crew, it makes sense to me that the captain, when facing command decisions and maximum stress levels, could benefit from someone there to monitor him/her and see that he or she doesn't become wrought by it all. Taking him aside and saying basically "Captain, how do you feel?" As indeed I can recall Deanna actually doing on more than a few occasions in the first few seasons. I can see that as a healthy thing, a good development for Starfleet vessels considering how many times we saw a captain go 'space crazy' in TOS, Decker and Tracy for example, not to mention Kirk himself tilting at the windmill in "Obsession", and one can begin to understand how implementing such a crew member with perhaps Doctor McCoy's broad powers of relieving the captain of duty, but being beside him on the bridge at all times to keep a track of his progression, would be seen by Starfleet as a wise precaution. I'm more bothered by the fact that starships like Voyager seemed to make no such concessions (there is a 'second chair', but not a third).
My bigger problem with Deanna herself is actually with her casual dress code. Yes, if she had been introduced as a civilian counsellor who just so happens to carry out a functional role within the main crew as well then her jumpsuits and her frilly dresses would be acceptable 'casual office wear'. But the Pilot Episode went and established her as both an actual Starfleet crewmember and as a ranking Lt. Commander, so frankly her move back to wearing a uniform in the Sixth and Seventh seasons was long overdue IMO. She should've had a uniform all along.
Last edited:
Oh, I agree, but that's separate from her position as the ship's primary mental health specialist. It comes partly from the traits her species happens to have and partly from her training as (what I refer to in the books as) a contact specialist. Being an expert on alien cultures and diplomatic matters is a separate specialization from being an expert on counseling and psychology; Deanna doing both jobs is tantamount to Spock being both first officer and science officer, a doubling up that's presumably atypical. In other words, they had to give her reasons beyond her counselor's position for being a part of the core bridge crew.
Actually I do agree with that entirely. I was just trying to be fair to the other fellow and concede that I could see how someone could take the opposing point of view. Maybe I gave a little too much ground in the effort to be conciliatory, though.
I think the initial idea was to downplay the military/civilian divide, to treat the ranks aboard ship as little more than job titles and have the discipline be rather informal, since by this stage of his life, Roddenberry saw Starfleet as more a research and diplomatic organization than a military one. But maybe, in that case, it would've been better if he'd abandoned Starfleet altogether and just made a show about a straight-up civilian research vessel, albeit maybe with a backup Starfleet presence for defense. I think he was trying to make it too much of a hybrid, keeping the military forms of TOS even while trying to distance himself from their implications.
But even so, it's true that Deanna's attire would've made more sense either if a) she were a civilian herself or b) she hadn't been the only ranking officer to operate in "plain clothes." If we'd seen, say, science officers in lab coats over casual wear, or engineers in work coveralls, and uniforms used mainly for bridge and security duties or formal occasions, then Deanna's garb wouldn't have been so out of place.
I recall reading a novel (I forget which one now) that linked allowing familes on board to the number of captains who had gone gaga during the TOS era, with the theory being that having their families on board would "ground them". I rather liked that idea(dunno if the author made it up or if it came from a tng bible or something), although I guess from a certain point of view it could seem ghoulish.
Regarding Troi's position, was it ever made clear she was on the bridge due to her role as counselor as opposed to as an expert on reading people/first contact situations? Did we ever see another ship in TNG/DS9 with a counselor on the bridge?
Regarding Troi's position, was it ever made clear she was on the bridge due to her role as counselor as opposed to as an expert on reading people/first contact situations? Did we ever see another ship in TNG/DS9 with a counselor on the bridge?
We never really saw much in the way of bridge operations for other ships in TNG.
Think the only real example of TNG era ship was the Sutherland in Redemption(?) when Data took command but iirc she wasn't fully crewed.
It's interesting that the "families" idea was created for TNG and then dropped, yet it is with DS9 ( that Roddenberry has virtually no involvement with) where the concept really found its footing. Two of the main cast have proper families to to home to at the end of the working day, and a good deal of drama is generated by the "non crew" characters on the show. Even though it's a station instead of a ship, the concept did have merit.
Exactly. The original plan was to keep the E-D in deep, uncharted space and almost never bring it back to the Federation, which is why the pilot was set at a station called "Farpoint" at the outermost reaches of explored territory; they were supposed to continue outward from there and not turn back. But this was abandoned pretty much immediately: the second episode started with them answering a distress call from another Federation vessel, the third episode was about delivering a vaccine to a Federation member world, the fifth was about getting an engine upgrade from a Starfleet team, etc.
Counselor, councilor and avisor are all translated "conseiller" in French. Since first episode I saw when I was young were French versions and I didn't know counselling could been a type of psychologist job, I understood she was mainly the Captain's adviser. Some of the first episodes I saw were Homesoil, where she was indeed advising Picard, and The Best of Both Worlds, where she recalled to Riker he's now their acting Captain. But I finally realised her position was much unclear and didn't seem to have equivalents on other ships.
At least, her dark gray catsuit in season 1 was quite sober and serious, but after that the cleavage thing and the turquoise dress.... We also saw Tasha's sister and DeSeve wearing one-piece suit for unclear reason, but we saw other civilians with more "ordinary" outfits even if they're engineer or lab scientists. Most of the officers are hanging out at Ten Forwards or in their own cabin with their uniform except when they're sleeping, dating or pouting (Riker in Chains of command).
At least, her dark gray catsuit in season 1 was quite sober and serious, but after that the cleavage thing and the turquoise dress.... We also saw Tasha's sister and DeSeve wearing one-piece suit for unclear reason, but we saw other civilians with more "ordinary" outfits even if they're engineer or lab scientists. Most of the officers are hanging out at Ten Forwards or in their own cabin with their uniform except when they're sleeping, dating or pouting (Riker in Chains of command).
I think the idea that nobody would volunteer for a deep space mission if it meant being away from families is a good thing. Separates the wheat from the chaff. In other words, those who do it have uncommon courage or dedication to the mission. Shouldn't stories feature exceptional people and not Joe Average??? So to coddle them by bringing families along into the wilderness just seems wrong (not to mention reckless, if the final frontier is truly a dangerous frontier). It's like that movie the Mosquito Coast where Harrison Ford drags his family kicking and screaming into the amazon. So how this played out was to limit the actual threat to life and limb of the Enterprise, so you lose the frontier aspect entirely in the process.
When they presented DS9, Bajor was suppose to be on the frontier, and thus implied to be a long ways from other things Federation. A "deep space" station beyond the bounds of Federation space and thus far from aid and friendly planets. Bajor was not all that friendly a place in the first season or two, and Cardassia is right there. LAter it seems to be not all that far away from anything at warp speed, even though taid from other starships is days away to hours away as the war footing starts up. BY the end, DS9 seem like its just a quick day flight to anywhere they want to go, even in a runabout.
An even more extreme version of moving your family to Japan or Germany because you were going to be stationed there for years. Mainly because tours of duty in the United States aren't that long. Probably more like British Imperial days of moving the family to India because you are going to be the governor there.
An even more extreme version of moving your family to Japan or Germany because you were going to be stationed there for years. Mainly because tours of duty in the United States aren't that long. Probably more like British Imperial days of moving the family to India because you are going to be the governor there.
I don't buy that at all. We're talking about a long-term scientific and diplomatic mission involving lots of first contacts with alien races. That's not the kind of job you want to give to tough guys who pride themselves on their ability to sever themselves from social and emotional ties, or to introverted, closed-off geniuses who wouldn't really be concerned one way or the other.
And how is being part of a family or community incompatible with being exceptional? Lots of works of fiction are about exceptional families. The Fantastic Four are a family led by one of the most brilliant men in the world and one of the most powerful, wise women in the world. Lost in Space was about a family of space explorers in which nearly every member was a genius in one scientific field or another. Eureka was about a small-town community of geniuses, many of whom had spouses and children who were as brilliant as they are, and even the ordinary sheriff was an intuitive genius in his way and had a daughter who turned out to be as smart as the supergenius Eurekans.
Macho twaddle. It's not "coddling" to recognize the fundamental human need for companionship and community. We evolved as a social species. That's how we're adapted to survive: as a group, not as a bunch of lone wolves.
And humans have been bringing their families into the frontier/wilderness for hundreds of thousands of years. How do you think we spread across the planet in the first place? And I've already expressed my thoughts about danger as a factor. Our kids are in danger of their lives every time they get into a car. Staying "safe" at home is only relatively safe. Good grief, even if you are safe inside your house with its locks and its lights and its security system, you can just go walk into the woods a mile or two away and be in mortal peril. Safety is a function of what surrounds you. And families inside a starship -- an explorer starship that isn't intended to go into battle except as a last resort -- would be surrounded by the most advanced defenses available to the Federation. It's only the crewmembers who went on away missions who'd routinely expose themselves to danger.
What defines a frontier isn't the amount of danger. What defines a frontier is that it's a zone beyond the boundaries of a society's legal control, in which new contacts and dynamic and complex interactions between different societies can occur. As long as the ship is discovering new life and new civilizations and having interesting interactions with them, the frontier aspect is very much present, even without constant violence.
^Also, IRL the military and intelligence agencies actually prefer for their people to have families...it keeps them grounded and motivated...contrary to the popular image of the bachelor spy who'll never allow himself to get too close to somebody, etc.
The idea of children on the ship made a lot more sense with the direction of the show in season one than later in the series.
I think the focus on diplomacy as a first resort and violence as a last resort is one of the greatest qualities of the series that makes it unique. Though, I think the show always acknowledged that a diplomatic hand carries more weight when you have enough firepower to defend yourself.
I think the focus on diplomacy as a first resort and violence as a last resort is one of the greatest qualities of the series that makes it unique. Though, I think the show always acknowledged that a diplomatic hand carries more weight when you have enough firepower to defend yourself.
During the various later series, we sometimes hear about ships that are out on proper long term missions and are not expected to be back for many year.
But on screen, the only ship we see that actually is on a mission well beyond Federation space for a long time is USS Voyager, and she was not setup for such a mission, nor did she have families onboard at the start. The modifications to the ship would likely allow it to have familes as a multi-generational ship at it was going to take about two generations to get home at first.
The Intrepid-class is sometimes calld a light explorer, but it would seem it was not designed to act like the on paper use of the Galaxy-class and be out in deep space for more than the Kirk era five year missions without any particular stopover in Federation space. Though USS Voyager managed it, it was not without (suggested by dialog) "considerable effort" on the crew's part (though it doesn't seem that considerable given how clean the ship is in almost every story and how every day life the crew seem half the time).
Oddly, most of the ships we hear about being on long term missions are older ships like the USS Olympia's eight year mission. While the Galaxy-class ships seem to be in and around Federation space. Or were all pulled back in time for the start of the Dominion War, and then at least seven left hanging around Earth afterwards when Voyager returned home.
But on screen, the only ship we see that actually is on a mission well beyond Federation space for a long time is USS Voyager, and she was not setup for such a mission, nor did she have families onboard at the start. The modifications to the ship would likely allow it to have familes as a multi-generational ship at it was going to take about two generations to get home at first.
The Intrepid-class is sometimes calld a light explorer, but it would seem it was not designed to act like the on paper use of the Galaxy-class and be out in deep space for more than the Kirk era five year missions without any particular stopover in Federation space. Though USS Voyager managed it, it was not without (suggested by dialog) "considerable effort" on the crew's part (though it doesn't seem that considerable given how clean the ship is in almost every story and how every day life the crew seem half the time).
Oddly, most of the ships we hear about being on long term missions are older ships like the USS Olympia's eight year mission. While the Galaxy-class ships seem to be in and around Federation space. Or were all pulled back in time for the start of the Dominion War, and then at least seven left hanging around Earth afterwards when Voyager returned home.
Good point.
Besides, if you send a group of men and women (or heck, even just one sex) out on a ship where they spend every day together for years on end, they're going to form relationships. That's just what people do. So if that's going to happen anyway, why not allow spouses to serve together, at least?
And they're considered to be lower security risks...forgot to put that in.
Because people with family ties have more to be loyal to and are less likely to be swayed to the other side?
Something like that...goes hand-in-hand with being grounded and motivated...a family man is less likely to put everything he has at risk to, say, sell secrets to a foreign nation.
Also, Mytran made a good point with the comparison to DS9. TNG didn't practice what it preached much when it came to the family issue...other than Crusher (whose child moved away halfway into the series), they refused to let their regulars get "tied down" with families...feeding into the trope of heroic figures being single, available, and incapable of committing themselves to anything outside of their all-important careers.
I can see them not wanting to suddenly have Picard get married...but how about, say, Geordi instead of a recurring guest star like O'Brien?
Also, Mytran made a good point with the comparison to DS9. TNG didn't practice what it preached much when it came to the family issue...other than Crusher (whose child moved away halfway into the series), they refused to let their regulars get "tied down" with families...feeding into the trope of heroic figures being single, available, and incapable of committing themselves to anything outside of their all-important careers.
I can see them not wanting to suddenly have Picard get married...but how about, say, Geordi instead of a recurring guest star like O'Brien?
Similar threads
