Red Ranger said:
erastus25 said:
Red Ranger said:
People,
I was thinking about how as originally cast, Marina Sirtis was supposed to be the security chief, originally named "Macha" Hernandez, I think, and they considered Denise Crosby for the role of Deanna Troi.
My question is do you think that would have made either character more interesting?
And a further note: I heard someone complain once about how some of the TNG characters seemed to be their jobs, and that made them bland to them.
So here's an even more radical thought: what if many of the characters's jobs were switched even more radically? Like Troi as chief engineer, Geordi as counselor, and Yar as up-and-coming helm officer, with Worf as first officer like in "Parallels"? And maybe Beverly as security chief with a Dr. William Riker, rakish chief medical officer?
Just one of those "what if" threads we see around here.
Red Ranger
Ultimately the point of TNG, IMHO, is that imperfect people must rise up and act out a perfect morality. By doing so, they themselves become a type of stereotypically ideal humans (to the western world at least). This message is conveyed by writing a character in such a manner that they stereotypically match their role on the ship (i.e. no Dr. House on the Enterprise). Thus, who plays what role does not matter, but instead the ability of the actor to convey this idealized person does matter. For instance, in the fine tradition of Dr. McCoy, the TNG the doctor is necessarily an extreme humanitarian working to heal at all times. So it does not matter if Gates McFadden, Patrick Stewart or Wil Wheaton plays the doctor. What matters is the ability of the actor to portray the perfect doctor against all odds.
RR, the suggestions you give of creating more "colorful" individuals would not have worked for a number of reasons (e.g. it was the late-80s). But I think that your idea also would have taken away from the creative progression of the 24th Century Trekverse. We need the super human stereotypes in TNG in order to fully appreciate the much more realistic characters of DS9. For this reason, I think TNG and DS9 are much stronger when viewed as a whole and not as separate stories.
Erastus,
You have a point. As Rodenberry originally conceived the TNG cast, they were kind of archetypes of a more enlightened humanity. I myself don't entirely buy the cliche of the conflict-free Enterprise-D, as we did see some of it between characters. However, I do think your idea that TNG and DSN are complementary examinations of life in that 24th century milieu is a valid one.
And given the instructions Rodenberry gave regarding this more idealized crew, could Marina Sirtis' acting as the security chief be much different than Denis Crosby's? And would Crosby have given a different dimension to Deanna Troi than Sirtis did? Not sure.
But I do think that the abilities of Troi seemed to make her more suited to be a counselor, even though I'm sure the vast majority of ship's counselors in Starfleet probably aren't all empathic like her.
So I wondered if not just tha actors playing the role were switched, but if the characters themselves were in roles where their natural abilities wouldn't be part of their jobs, like Troi's empathy helping her counsel people, or Geordi's fascination with machinery, most notably his dependence on a piece of technology like his VISOR, play out as an engineer.
So I thought the idea of a blind counselor who has to look beyond what his VISOR tells him, or an empath who has to block her senses of what her engineering crew is feeling in tense situations, for example, might have made both characters a bit more interesting. I feel Troi and Geordi, as well as Wesley, were among the weakest characters in TNG as a result of this "my job is my persona" limitation.
And don't get me started on Dr. Crusher, who I also felt suffered from her seeming role as perpetual platonic girlfriend of Captain Picard.
Red Ranger
