From: rawdon@colby.cs.wisc.edu (Michael Rawdon)
Subject: Re: How to improve Star Trek
Reply-To: rawdon@colby.cs.wisc.edu
Organization: University of Wisconsin Computer Sciences Dept., Madison, WI
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 18:58:16 GMT

In <1992Dec19.180030.5102@eng.umd.edu> wombat@eng.umd.edu (Jose Gonzalez) writes:
>In article <rawdon.724721366@cs.wisc.edu> rawdon@colby.cs.wisc.edu writes:
>>One of TNG's greatest problems, after all, is that the characters don't have
>>enough personality to *be* characters.  For the most part, they're just
>>caricatures.

>I think they *started* out as caricatures, modeled after the TOS crew (except
>for Spock) who were certainly caricatures.

I would strongly disagree here.  The Classic Star Trek characters (or the
three who were focused upon - Kirk, Spock and McCoy) were all quite
three-dimensional, perhaps more so than in any other science fiction TV show
or film ever created.  (Certainly more so than any *I've* ever seen!  Star
Wars is a close second, though.)

>						But as the show's progressed, 
>they've moved way beyond that into fully rounded, fully realized, excellent 
>characters (except, arguably, in Troi's case).

I would argue that NONE of the cast has been fully-rounded on anything
resembling a consistent basis.  Data came the closest, but the bottom pretty
much fell out of his character in "In Theory".  Picard and Worf are both
*interesting* caricatures, but still don't have the depth or complexity of a
Kirk or a Spock.  All the rest are pretty much cardboard.

>						The characters on the show
>are what makes the great shows work, and the not-so-great shows at least
>watchable, if not more.

I would agree that characterization makes great shows great, but great
characterization witha poor plot still leaves a story rather lame.  Plot is
the foundation of storytelling, I believe.  Characterization is important, but
without an interesting story to *tell*, it all falls apart.

(TNG, often, has neither.)

>>>     Who said Picard wasn't a skilled navigator?  He's also the
>>>     one who ordered the risky maneuver and therefore the one who
>>>     must take responsibility.  It's an ethics question, not an
>>>     ability question.
>>>  I would of thought the captain to be 
>>>>a little rusty to trust with such a delicate task at the helm.
>>>     Why?

>>When was the last time we saw Picard pilot a starship (before that episode,
>>or since for that matter)?  When was the last time we HEARD about him acting
>>as helmsman?

>"11001100" (or something like that (-:)

Actually, I would contend that that episode proves my point, considering that
Picard himself admitted that he was rusty at the helm of a starship.

>>"Booby Trap" is a good episode, but that scene was just plain stupid.  I
>>can't buy that Picard is a more competent helmsman or navigator than people
>>who have been doing it on a regular basis.  And him taking the helm there
>>implied that his judgment was severely impaired.

>I don't think so.  What was required was not really a great helmsman, but
>someone with good instincts.

I think that a great helmsman *would have* great instincts.  And I would think
that someone who hadn't been piloting regularly would NOT have great piloting
instincts.

>			       What it really boiled down to was the fact that
>Picard didn't want the blame for failure to lay on any but his shoulders.

All well and good, but his taking the helm most likely *increases* the chance
of failure, and therefore the loss of 1000+ lives.  This is not the mark of a
good captain, in my eyes.

-- 
Michael Rawdon				  rawdon@colby.cs.wisc.edu
University of Wisconsin Computer Sciences Department,  Madison, WI
( Coming soon to a Massachusetts near you! )

"Go?  Where are we going?"
"Where they went."
"Suppose they went nowhere?"
"Then, this will be your big chance to get away from it all."
			- McCoy and Kirk; Star Trek II: The Wrath Of Khan