Wesley is a proof that a Gary Stu is not any better when an established writer/producer creates it. But don't feel bad, I don't believe for one second that Wesley was a realistic representation of young Roddenberry... or of anyone.I chose Wesley for this poll, like almost eveyone else. Though I have to say I feel a little guilty about it. "Wesley" was Gene Roddenberry's middle name, and he chose to put a little of himself in there for a reason, so I feel almost as though I have wronged Mr. Roddenberry by choosing Wesley for the worst character. I have good reason for it, Wesley could have been developed more and written in a way that wasn't so childish, but I still feel bad about it.
This doesn't give a clear picture of opinions until we compare it to a "Best Trek main character" poll. (Why isn't there such a poll, BTW? I'm sure there must have been one or more at some point.) Some characters having more votes in the "worst character" poll than some others might not mean that they are less popular - perhaps they are just more controversial (on this forum, at least).I note with a great deal of puzzlement--and not a little bit of shamelessly smug satisfaction--that Seven of Nine, considered by general consensus here to be "Sexiest Trek Character Ever" (as DevilEyes can attest) has 9 votes, and Jadzia has 7.
Smug satisfaction, because both Seven and Jadzia have more votes on this than Ezri--and this after all that talk about how Jadzia is supposed to be "clearly" superior to Ezri.
Well, if you are asking...^Perhaps....
BTW...maybe someone should start a "Best Trek Character" poll....
you forgot morn. had more appearances than half the cast of your list.![]()
Chakoay and Neelix.
Why Chacotay? I think he was the best written character in "Voyager".
Well, it looks like there was one such thread in April, but it was limited to the cast in the main credits (except for TOS), and it wasn't multiple choice. Spock won that one comfortably. It also included a couple of TAS characters... I'm not sure about that?I would say include "recurring" secondaries, to be fair. The more they appear, the higher the priority of inclusion. Not to make it exhaustive, though--just enough so that any secondary who could possibly get more than a few votes would be listed.
Anyone not included should be write-ins.
In effect...an "other" option.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.