The "Too Perfect Crew" Stigmna

[RoJoHen]

In Star Trek's case, "flagship" might simply mean "ship that best exemplifies the mission of Starfleet." Most of the time when we see other ships they're on more specific survey missions and other things. The Enterprise and her crew may have more freedom to "seek out new life and new civilizations."

 

[Ghrakh]

TNG would have been MUCH better if instead of the crew being the "best" they went episode after episode with petty soap-operatic bickering. That's how the US Navy is in real life, and so that's how Star Trek should be.

 

[Tim Walker]

Conceivably, an alternative Trek could have borrowed from an Air Force background rather than a naval background.

 

[allstar77]

I loved TNG when it debuted and was a faithful follower, but it was preachy and the characters were too perfect. I think that's why I loved Barclay, he wasn't perfect, he had anxieties. Ro wasn't perfect either. I felt Ro was a lot like Yar, but I remember Tasha going on about how she got religion (the Federation) and was saved! Glory hallelujah! And now we've converted the Klingons!

I like TNG to this day but feel the original series is more fun, more entertaining, and better produced.

Q Who has been mentioned, and it is my favorite TNG episode. Q really took the crew down a few notches. It introduced a great new threat -- that's another thread. But Q becomes more quirky, the Borg are dumbed down and less threatening, and the crew more cocky.

 

[Anwar]

How exactly were the characters "too perfect" compared to, say, Spock?

 

[allstar77]

Three pages in, and you're asking that? Oh, well.

Spock believed Vulcans more civilized compared to emotional human beings. By the time TNG came along, the show was doused in humanism. The contrast between the emotionless Spock and the emotional Dr. McCoy allowed us to look at ourselves. That's why I always liked middle man Kirk. But rarely did we see that in TNG. It always came across -- and yes, dear gods, yes, this is my opinion -- preachy and perfect, cold and sterile.

 

[Ryan Thomas Riddle]

For further commentary on the thread subject see "Boldly Going Nowhere?" by Melinda Snodgrass in the December 1991 issue of Omni magazine. She is spot-on in her analysis of the flaws of TNG.

Which you can read here: https://issuu.com/jerrickventures/docs/omni_1991_12/25?e=12150577/8191265

Fair warning, the online magazine reader is a pain in the android's bottom.

 

[Anwar]

Three pages in, and you're asking that? Oh, well.

Spock believed Vulcans more civilized compared to emotional human beings. By the time TNG came along, the show was doused in humanism. The contrast between the emotionless Spock and the emotional Dr. McCoy allowed us to look at ourselves. That's why I always liked middle man Kirk. But rarely did we see that in TNG. It always came across -- and yes, dear gods, yes, this is my opinion -- preachy and perfect, cold and sterile.

So in other words, there weren't enough aliens telling the TNG Humans how primitive and barbaric they all were?

 

[J.T.B.]

I just don't get the objection to the notion that people might like stories about characters who are the best at something. It's been a hallmark of fiction for ages. In their perspective fictions, James Bond is the best spy. Sherlock Holmes is the best detective, Rambo is the best soldier, & Kirk /Picard command the best ship & crew in Starfleet. It's not pretentious. We WANT stories about people who are the best. It's aspirational. It's badass

Well, it's not really the same. Holmes was the best because he invented his own profession and was the only one doing it. Bond was also nearly unique, part of a very small number of 00 agents. Rambo, of course, a loner.

That's quite different from being one small part of what is supposed to be a very large and highly capable organization. Of course, the necessities of the drama will always have the hero cast doing things better than their supposed equals. Taking it a step further and actually highlighting how exceptional they are in their own world is, to me, a bit bewildering as a dramatic choice. If everybody's always talking about how great they are, then of course they overcome all challenges; they're the best after all. Failure is for those other poor bastards, you know, the ones that aren't the best.

Obviously not everyone minds this. But what I wonder is, what advantage was there to writing in this exceptional element? What if other characters talked about how great Perry Mason or Columbo were, how exceptional they were at always winning/solving their cases? Even if the viewer knows that, it would undercut the dramatic feel. What would be wrong, dramatically, with the Enterprise crew being a very professional, dynamic, capable but at the same time unexceptional part of Starfleet?

In Star Trek's case, "flagship" might simply mean "ship that best exemplifies the mission of Starfleet." Most of the time when we see other ships they're on more specific survey missions and other things. The Enterprise and her crew may have more freedom to "seek out new life and new civilizations."

Besides the dramatic angle I went into above, what advantage would there be, in-universe, with designating one ship the "flagship of the Federation?" It performs some high-profile missions, yes, but it also maps stars and hauls colonists hither and yon. Above all it would be a real morale-killer for the rest of the fleet. Somebody has to be doing some pretty hard jobs everywhere Enterprise isn't, why no recognition for them? Unless perhaps "flagship of the Federation" is some kind of full-of-itself unofficial nickname or motto, and the rest of the fleet rolls their eyes, snickers or makes it into a joke when they hear it.

 

[Mojochi]

I just don't get the objection to the notion that people might like stories about characters who are the best at something. It's been a hallmark of fiction for ages. In their perspective fictions, James Bond is the best spy. Sherlock Holmes is the best detective, Rambo is the best soldier, & Kirk /Picard command the best ship & crew in Starfleet. It's not pretentious. We WANT stories about people who are the best. It's aspirational. It's badass

Well, it's not really the same. Holmes was the best because he invented his own profession and was the only one doing it. Bond was also nearly unique, part of a very small number of 00 agents. Rambo, of course, a loner.

That's quite different from being one small part of what is supposed to be a very large and highly capable organization. Of course, the necessities of the drama will always have the hero cast doing things better than their supposed equals. Taking it a step further and actually highlighting how exceptional they are in their own world is, to me, a bit bewildering as a dramatic choice. If everybody's always talking about how great they are, then of course they overcome all challenges; they're the best after all. Failure is for those other poor bastards, you know, the ones that aren't the best.

Obviously not everyone minds this. But what I wonder is, what advantage was there to writing in this exceptional element? What if other characters talked about how great Perry Mason or Columbo were, how exceptional they were at always winning/solving their cases? Even if the viewer knows that, it would undercut the dramatic feel. What would be wrong, dramatically, with the Enterprise crew being a very professional, dynamic, capable but at the same time unexceptional part of Starfleet?

Nothing is wrong with it. There's also many stories of ordinary people or underdogs overcoming obstacles. Both are just as valid. It's just a dramatic preference to choose to write one vs the other.

The advantage to writing champions IMHO, is that it inspires the viewer, that such levels of excellence are possible. Holmes is a detective that outshines actual professional ones at Scotland Yard. Bond is the top spy in an era of heightened global espionage. Bourne is another, who is the reluctant champion of the black op assassins, & Rambo is just 1 Green Beret among a whole generation of Vietnam era ones, who for the purposes of the films is the go to guy for impossible missions

Plus, writing champions gives the opposite direction of story telling, where for example in Darmok, all their excellence still leaves them unprepared. They still must overcome, despite their skill, which gives the viewer the realization the no one is ever done attempting achievements or reaching goals, despite how perfect they might be

Besides, they clearly aren't overprivileged elitists at all times anyhow, when an episode like The Enemy has a blind character having to use his tech an the aid of a current enemy to survive, meanwhile another character refuses to put aside his prejudice to save an enemy life for the greater good.

Those types of stories are elevated IMO, by the fact that the baseline for our characters is to be above those kinds of struggles. Having to get your hands dirty from time to time is less interesting if they always have dirty hands. lol. It's useful to write a champion, so you can drop them in the muck, & make them prove it

 

[RoJoHen]

In Star Trek's case, "flagship" might simply mean "ship that best exemplifies the mission of Starfleet." Most of the time when we see other ships they're on more specific survey missions and other things. The Enterprise and her crew may have more freedom to "seek out new life and new civilizations."

Besides the dramatic angle I went into above, what advantage would there be, in-universe, with designating one ship the "flagship of the Federation?" It performs some high-profile missions, yes, but it also maps stars and hauls colonists hither and yon. Above all it would be a real morale-killer for the rest of the fleet. Somebody has to be doing some pretty hard jobs everywhere Enterprise isn't, why no recognition for them? Unless perhaps "flagship of the Federation" is some kind of full-of-itself unofficial nickname or motto, and the rest of the fleet rolls their eyes, snickers or makes it into a joke when they hear it.

Who knows?

From what we've seen, most flag officers -- Admirals and such -- don't seem to travel around too much. They're stuck in offices on Earth or starbases. They really only seem to leave when circumstances require it.

Maybe Picard is considered the highest ranking Captain or something. I mean, we saw in the film "First Contact" that he can just swoop in and take charge. The Enterprise flies into the Borg attack and he just announces, "I'm taking command of the fleet." Perhaps he has authority that other captains don't.

 

[Amaraen]

I don't understand what is meant to criticize the crew as being "too perfect". I always thought that Star Trek was supposed to be that way? It is about a better humanity in the future. Isn't it the same as saying that "Gandalf, Aragon, and Legolas were too perfect?"

Usually they would have conflicts with guest characters. Such as in Silicon Avatar, or Evolution, etc.

There are lots of shows where the main characters do not get along with each other, and that is fine. Why does everything need to be the same? I don't see what the problem is with a show about a crew of evolved humans in the future.

 

[stardream]

What do people mean when they say 'perfect'? Impeccable moral character and devotion to duty at all times? The best of the best for their position on the ship? All of the above? I think the crew of the Enterprise did their best to be all of those things but from time to time they fell short but even when they 'fell' they didn't fall as far as the rest of us mere mortals.

However having said that I LIKED them. I didn't think the series was perfect but its refreshing to see a group who do their best to do the right thing.

But having said that I also didn't mind the DS9 crew being a group of people being forced to face the dark side of that same future while feeling they sometimes had to make compromises. They might have all the same good qualities of the TNG crew but are in a very different situation.

And I didn't mind the Voyager crew being thrown together in an untenable circumstance being forced to work with what they have. This is what we've got...let's make the best of a bad situation.

There is room for all kinds of crews as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Amaraen]

I completely agree with you Stardream. Each series had its charms and was very different. Personally my favorite crew was The Next Generation. I liked the "brighter" atmosphere and seeing the best crew in Starfleet. I am sure other people preferred the Starfleet-Maquis conflicts on Voyager, or the even further chaos on Deep Space Nine.

 

[TheAdmiralty]

I've never really agreed with it either. Riker, Data, Worf, et al all came from different perspectives and took different approaches to problems, leaving Picard to make a decision. That dynamic is what really made the show "go". Sort of like Kirk's relationship with Spock and McCoy but with an ensemble.

 

[Tim Walker]

I've never really agreed with it either. Riker, Data, Worf, et al all came from different perspectives and took different approaches to problems, leaving Picard to make a decision. That dynamic is what really made the show "go". Sort of like Kirk's relationship with Spock and McCoy but with an ensemble.

Something to consider should there be another Trek reboot.

One of those factors that makes Trek....Trek!

 

[RAMA]

If anything it was TOS where the stories were patterned after lessons more often. Allegories have a way of making you seem superior and smug at times. The original crew wound up strong arming planets because they could. I didn't feel STNG had this problem, though sometimes the individual crew members did seem to indicate this superiority.

A big part of the problem is the depiction of the Enterprise Dee's crew as somehow being "the best of the best," and that everyone coming out of the academy wanted to be posted there, and Riker stating that people wait years to be posted there.

Pretentious as all hell.

Why is this pretentious exactly? It kind of reminds of trying to get into a prestigious school that only takes certain candidates that meet high standards.

Mysterion wrote:
For further commentary on the thread subject see "Boldly Going Nowhere?" by Melinda Snodgrass in the December 1991 issue of Omni magazine. She is spot-on in her analysis of the flaws of TNG.
Which you can read here: https://issuu.com/jerrickventures/do...150577/8191265

Fair warning, the online magazine reader is a pain in the android's bottom.

After her Award nominated career at STNG, Melinda Snodgrass went on to create the awful...Star Command. Cause that's how Star Trek should have been! Not

And no, there is just as legitimate and probably more difficult way to argue points from being more evolved rather than pure negativity. STNG and other ST's to a lesser degree are part of the only franchise to really do it. Which is why it's unique isn't it...