Bishop149 wrote: ↑Thu, 21. Mar 19, 18:42
I don't think ten is excessive, its about par for the course for a ST show. . . just off the top of my head.
You've done me a great service with that list of main characters. I'll have to go back and do some analysis... But, it has made me think how I view some of these series. The biggest bit would to see how much "screen time" characters get out of each and then drill down to actually, for realz, find out "who the main characters are." For instance, once Seven-of-Nine was added to the cast, Voyager practically became the "Seven-of-Nine" show... Not that I'm complaining.
TNG (8)
Picard, Riker, La Forge, Data, Worf, Crusher, Troy, Rho (I infinitely preferred her to Wesley, I wished she they'd kept her)
A good character, but too strong. She was literally a "ball of fire" on the screen and a scene-stealer, through no fault of her own - She's got "it." She's got a screen presence that demands attention. I don't know if she cultivates it or just got magic pixie-dust sprinkled on her when she was born or what. She also played one of my favorite television Sci-Fi characters of all time, ever -
Admiral Cain in "Battlestar Galactica."
Definite "command presence" capability, no doubt about it.
DS9 (11)
Sisko, Dax, Kira, O'Brien, Bashir, Odo, Worf, Jake, Quark, Nog, Garrack . . . . I could keep going, DS9 had a ridiculous number of recurring characters
Keeping with the sort of "Fort Apache" or "Trading Post in Space" theme. Kind of like a hotel where there's an opportunity for a new adventure with every new guest.
Voyager (9)
Janeway, Chakotay, Paris, Kim, Tuvok, Nelix Torres, The Doctor, Seven/Kes (They literally swapped these two out)
Small cast, intimate stories of survival of a crew lost and alone, making theirlong way home through dangerous territory... EXCEPT THEY'VE GOTTA BE IN THE MOST POPULATED QUADRANT IN THE GALAXY AND THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO BE HEADING IN ONE DIRECTION AND THEY KEEP MEETING THE SAME FRIGGIN PEOPLE!
Enterprise (7)
Archer, T'Pol, Trip, Reed, Hoshi, Mayweather, Flox
Comparison contrast time - The smallest list, arguably with much more intimate stories of not only "strangers in a strange land" but "learning how to live and work together." Ended up suffering, but not quite as much, from "Voyager Syndrome." I actually enjoyed the show more than most. Favorite actor in the series,
Billingsley - "Phlox". Another actor who can summon the camera quite a bit. A lot of "energy" in his acting.
So, what sorts of stories are "good" for small, intimate, casts? At least "dramatic" stories? Larger casts? There's one story that no Star Trek franchise has EVER successfully pulled off - "The Epic." Every time they're widely separated the story sucks. And, when they do a "scope of time" it sucks, always, because they must needs resort to "time travel" 'cause explaining why they're all five-hundred years old now would be difficult...
The difference, is that the scene Usenko posted is the first time any attention is paid even to the NAMES of most of Discovery's bridge crew characters. And it's in the SECOND series! I just started re-watching Enterprise and by the end of the first 2 episodes you have a good idea who everyone is and 6/7 have had some character development already.
That's interesting... Do you think it was planned that way? Do you think they may have been planning for Pike to be the character that literally and figuratively "brings the crew together?" From your description, that's blatantly what is happening in that scene. Some of the characters smile as if they're "finally being recognized for the first time." And, Pike is the instrument by which that feeling is being delivered. Maybe he's also being contrasted with a former strong-lead character? (I haven't seen the series, sorry.)
That scene from Discovery in addition to being a good scene in it's own right I'm pretty sure was also the show basically trying to acknowledge and begin to correct this narrative oversight.
If it is as you describe, I'd say it was what I described as above. Was the former lead/captain/whatever a bit standoffish and/or hyper-professional? Authoritarian? Clearly and firmly planted in their "rank?" Maybe secretly worried about their own capability to command? The Captain Pike character just threw all that out the window in a few seconds...
Morkonan wrote: ↑Thu, 21. Mar 19, 16:52
Damn right, it was an excellent way to introduce the Pike as an absolutely 1st rate commanding officer.
Hes a pretty damn near perfect balance of competence, authority and personability . . . . . and no I have never met anyone remotely like him in real life.
That's because anyone who's really like that "in real life" always has a "fatal flaw" that ends up with them in prison or dead...
Captain Ronald Speirs, "Band of Brothers" -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6da9U6Xjd8
https://wikiofbrothers.fandom.com/wiki/ ... ald_Speirs
Nobody is allowed to be perfect. Speirs is "too perfect." He's also possibly a psychopath... He is shown gunning down a group of German PoWs after giving them cigarettes. Why? He just felt like murdering a bunch of PoWs, I guess. No emotion, no anger, just kept the trigger pressed until they went away to forever-gone-land.. But, the act is maintained by other characters as a "rumor" since none of them were there to witness it. Did it really happen? It seems so - The audience saw it. But, was it a real event or not? Were they just messing with our heads or did "super-soldier" demonstrate the reason he can be so calm, cool, and collected is because he's friggin' nuts? Aaand, now we can be comfortable knowing that Speirs is, thankfully, not "perfect."
Pike will probably turn out to have hemorrhoids. Or, maybe an incurable, but easily survivable with treatment, heart condition or PTSD from being tortured on several different occasions or have a bad relationship with some of his family members... Kinda like another "Captain" we all know.
This is one of the worst scenes ever written for TNG characters -
Picard's Rant. It has nothing at all to do with Picard's rant speech, it's the fact that the other character is talking to children in the audience and explaining everything, ever, about what Picard is/was feeling... It's godawful and ruins the scene. It's painful to watch her open up with "and you were almost enjoying it" lines... As IF the audience didn't get that from Stewart's performance. "Oh, golly, we're all mindless toasters here and had no idea that might be what he was thinking, even though you pounded it into our little toaster brains for half the darn movie already..."
^--- This is what Star Trek should never, ever, do. If they can't give the audience a glimpse of a character's internal life without running down a list of darn descriptions hurled by a hollow walk-on character then they do not need to be putting stuff on film and treating the audience like morons.
IF the previous commander ever once mentions the contrast between her insecurity and Pike's leadership, it'll be the same darn thing all over again. If she ever has a "heart to heart" and starts whining about how much better Pike is at what used to be her job (if it was) then they should just stop production and go make commercials for toilet-paper using "Happy Bears" or some crap like that... I'm not joking. This is why I don't like some of the Start Trek series and spinoffs - They treat the audience like they're morons by 'splaining everything when it has already been "explained" on the scree in front of our own faces.
"Better make sure the audience knows that Picard is on a revenge kick."
"But, didn't we already show that?"
"Yeah, but they're a bunch of morons, so we better spell it out..."
I think there is an interesting parallel to be drawn between Pike and Tilly. . . . I can very much see Pike as the kind of captain Tilly may have the potential to become if she can master her nerves and become secure in her self-confidence.
Been writing as I read, so am pleased to have guessed she may be a character with some issues with her confidence. Pike, at least from that scene, is a perfect contrast for that and in just a few minutes "fixes" what the previous occupier of that chair couldn't "fix."
Ketraar wrote: ↑Thu, 21. Mar 19, 19:28
..In Firefly I had a basic jist of the crew in episode one and come to love any of them after just a few episodes, that is how you write characters and have them add small tidbits over time, but mostly you keep them CONSISTENT for at least a few actions and choices and not flip on a dime for nothing. Anyway, I'll shut up now...
No, this is interesting.
I never saw the Firefly series. I saw the movie they did, but didn't really "get" most of it since I had no previous connection to the characters/series. Still, it wasn't a bad movie and that says something, at least.
But, fans seem to be falling all over themselves in praise and desperately want a revival. That happened for ST:ToS and was ulimately successful, leading to a multi-bajillion-monies IP that gets automagically shuttled around the world anytime they fart out new material. Star Trek, the I.P., happened because something, somewhere, connected with fans after the very first, relatively short, iteration of the series/setting/theme.
You realize that if people could bottle that and sell it then they would control the Spice that controls the Universe, right?
So, you're not alone and a lot of very vocal fans out there thirsting for the blood of producers and corporate honchos have something passionate fueling them and I, for one, want to know WTF it is.
"How about we do a sci-fi series with a crew of characters with social adjustment disorders that favor criminal behavior and they drive a space-truck around a star-system full of disfunctional people with anger-management issues?"
"PERFECT!"
"Oh, and space-cannibals!"
"WE NEED TO PAY YOU MORE!"