The bit about LaForge not starting off as the chief engineer always puzzled me. Surely they realized that the chief engineer would have to be a major character? Why did they put a major character in Engineering, and not make him the chief? Or, if there was some chief engineer in the background (I honestly can’t remember), why wasn’t he a major character?
In fact, there were two, Argyle and a woman whose name I can’t remember. But that’s a good question.
Yah, that was a good bit. I disagree, though, that it would have been ookie if the Soongs programmed sexuality routines into Data. As you say, they (or at least Joanna) thought of him as their child. And if you’re a parent, I suspect, you want your kids to have a rich and happy life - including fulfulling romantic relationships. (Of course, Data couldn’t feel emotions as such, but the principle holds). And programming in sexual-response routines doesn’t sound all that different in principle from the birds-and-bees talk, or perhaps surgery to correct a problem that would lead to sexual dysfunction in adulthood. As a non-parent, I’m happy not to have to deal with any of these things - but for parents, perhaps it’s different.
I took it that they were trying to differentiate themselves from the previous series. They did so in several ways, if you recall. They called landing parties “away missions”; the captain was not supposed to routinely go on said missions; there was no dedicated communications officer; and so forth. Obviously they realized that, dramatically speaking, they were limiting themselves with some of those choices. By the end of the series, Picard and Riker are virtually taking turns leading away missions. The chief engineer not being a major character was something they realized more quickly to be a mistake.
I too wish Geordi had been chief engineer from the get-go, and consequently forbidden to go on most away missions. I’d have had Yar be tactical officer and helm officer–in short, never going on away missions; and Worf be chief of security–in short, ALWAYS going on away missions. In other words I’d alternate between Picard-led stories. I’d also make Troi a field medic who happened to be empathic rather than a bridge officer with nothing to do but make useless pronouncements. In other words, there’d be a clear distinction between the away group – Riker, Data, Troi, Worf, and the occasional Ensign Ricky-- and the ship group – Picard, Geordi, Yar, and Crusher.
And Wesley is at best a recurring character, or else he starts off 20 or so and an actual ensign.
I don’t like that episode where Picard gets trapped on a planet with an alien and an invisible beast. All they kept repeating to each other was “Darmok and somebody in Tinagra” or something. However, almost everywhere I’ve seen TNG reviews says that was one of the deepest and best episodes. Even my English teacher at the time showed the episode for a class project
I don’t get it! It’s 2 people, one of which has 4 nostrils, talking crytically until Picard has “House” moment and kills the invisible elephant. It was slow and stupid and I will never like it.
Yeah but Picard gets to wear his smoking jacket in this one, which is awesome.
maybe i should start up a new thread with a poll now that i’ve gotten a few candidates.
i really didn’t like the Darmok episode either. it was dumb for so many reasons.
1 - it dealt with the hand-wavy universal translator issue in star trek clumsily. we’re able to translate the entire language with exception to proper nouns, yet have no way to figure out the context of these allusions?
2 - how do the Tamarians teach their kids these myths and metaphors? i hope it’s not tailored as a “as it comes up” basis. “hey jimmy, remember when you and cousin sal worked together to fight that bully? well that was exactly what Darmok and Jalad faced at Tanagra!”
3 - is there no other allusion possible for the uniting of friends through trying times than just that one specific myth? We 20th century Americans could quote Paine: “these are the times that try men’s souls”, the colloquialism: “trial by fire”, popular 70s sitcom: “gilligan and the skipper” etc. to get the point across. Why not seeing when “Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra” isn’t working try a different allusion to build context?
4 - or draw pictures?
i agree. not very deep and hamfisted.
Shaka, when the walls fell.
A question about “Darmok” I had at the time was how a culture with a level of technology that meets or exceeds that of the Federation could operate without a more precise language. Making spaceships ain’t like dustin’ crops, boy; the tolerances are pretty narrow and it’s hard to say “Pass me that 5-8ths crescent wrench” when all you’ve got is “Haveen the crab turns with the sun.”
Their manuals would suck, but the last page would have a pictogram of a guy on the phone with IKEA.
That reminds me, something I rather liked about B5, and I’m not sure if Star Trek ever did or not, was otherwise-redshirts as recurring characters. Basically not important enough to necessarily have a name right away (or sometimes ever, in the case of the lovely Tech #2), but not existing just to be killed to show that its dangerous. On the security team, they had Lou Welsh and Zack Allen, and Garibaldi’s #2 whose name I forget. On the bridge they had (eventually) Lieutenant Corwin and the aforementioned and lovely Tech #2.
TNG had Ensign Jae, and TOS had Lt. Leslie. Lt. Leslie was even killed earlier in an episode, then reappeared later in the same episode. 
DS9 did that. Several of O’Brien’s engineering crew appeared more than once and had significant interactions. Some lived; some died.
But DS9 had tons of characters. Nog, Rom, Damar, and several others were basically background characters who ascended to recurring.
Some turned out to be sleeper agents for Ayatollah Wynn…
Troi was indicative of the cancer in the STU, making everything so touchy-feely while arrogantly declaring that Humans have somehow “evolved” past all the pettiness of HUMAN NATURE. :rolleyes:
Why would the Ship’s Counsellor (Psychiatrist) be a major character? I know that they had a thing for needing to have a beautiful woman on the cast, but that character was every man’s nightmare and realistically, would have very little to do on a Star Ship that would involve the show’s plots. You’re idly staring at her tits. She knows it. God hope she’s not in charge of Sexual Harassment workshops. Worse, she’s your girlfriend and you’re idly staring at some other woman’s tits. She knows it. Unless she’s some Captain Jack Harkness style Omnisexual (which we weren’t going to get on 80’s TV), the sexual tension would either drive her mad or her reactions would infuriate everyone around her.
But otherwise, I’m with you on the division of labor and hope they get with it on future shows. Captain, Tactical, Chief Engineer, Helm/Navigator - these positions almost never go on away missions. XO, Security, Medical Chief, Recurring minor characters - these are the ones who go.
Troi: Captain Picard, I’d like to speak to you about something.
Picard: (exasperated) Yes, Counsellor Troi, we are well aware that Ensign Crusher and indeed, most of the ship’s crew, have been staring at your breasts. They’re quite lovely. It is not only NOT against Star Fleet Regulations to have thoughts, but rather Freedom of Thought is one of the guiding principles of the Federation. I therefore suggest that you SHUT THE FUCK UP about what others are thinking, because as far as I can see, it is YOU that is invading their thoughts and violating their Rights. Is that clear, LIEUTENANT Troi?
Ah, IKEA… when the TV stand fell…
If it’s a big ship, the chief of medicine should rarely go either, for the same reason that the chief engineer should rarely go. And probably you’d never send your chief medical officer on the same mission as the XO anyway, because the CMO is going if it’s a huge crisis that requires your best doctor to be in charge and in which medicine is the primary point of the mission.
I’d like the “chief of security” to be a Marine. Enterprise had the right idea in the (third?) season. And I can imagine it being explicitly against regulations for the captain, XO, chief engineer, CMO, and chief tactical officer to leave the ship if there were any reason to think the there was a possibility of ship-to-ship battle.
ETA: Having written all that, I kind of like the idea of Troi, in a certain context. But she’d have made more sense in Kirk’s era, in which the ship clearly was expected to go long periods without going to a starbase. And Troi tended to act more as Picard’s aide more than anything else.
Lucy and Ethel, at the candy factory.
Diplomatic Attache. Makes more sense for a flagship. Then you have Dramatic Tension with the Attache expousing one position and demanding certain actions on behalf of the Federation while the Captain has to consider his ship and his crew.