From: v075q5fr@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Scott J Gorcey)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current
Subject: Re: How to improve Star Trek
Date: 18 Dec 92 01:02:00 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Dec17.233822.16000@phx.mcd.mot.com>, rolandb@phx.mcd.mot.com (roland blackwell) writes...
>I believe one great way to improve the quality of Star Trek is to
>better define the talents of the bridge crew.

     Well, a better way would be to avoid defining characters
     by their jobs and instead define them by their... personalities.

 Only once has the 
>helmsman (Sulu) talents been needed. This was in STV.

     I rest my case.  TNG has made some effort in the past coupl
     of seasons to define the characters by WHO they are, not
     what they do.  The contention that you need a plague episode
     if you want to feature Beverly is woefully outmoded, as is
     your suggestion.

 I really don't
>believe the bridge crew are given scenerios that require their talents.
>Too many times a bridge member is on break or something and a bridge
>flunkie has replaced him/her and they fill in with no problem.  Even in time
>of emergencies, the bridge flunkie has only once been a little unsure of 
>him/her self (Schisms).

     If you say so.  Of course, the term flunkie is misleading.  Just
     because the officer in question isn't a member of the senior
     staff doesn't mean they don't know how to do their job.  The
     con officer (helmsman is another outmoded term) has never been
     a member of Picard's senior staff (of course, the closest was
     when Geordi had the job), so why would there be a permanent
     major character there in the first place?  It's either an extra,
     Ro or Rager -- to simulate a shift rotation.


  But we didn't get to see Riker show her how it's
>supposed to be done either.

     Is she stupid?

 It appears that bridge crew talents are required
>everywhere except at their post.  In 'Booby trap' the captain took over the
>helm when a skilled helmsman was needed.

     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?

  We all know
>Sulu wouldn't have been ask to step aside in that instance.

     No, but then again, that's because Kirk would have still been
     imprisoned by the cockroaches from another galaxy on Planet
     Cardboard at the time.  (Or fucking the queen cockroach).

  It seems that
>the main talents the bridge crew has [sic] is the ability to beam somewhere and
>beam BACK!! The bridge flunkies have not mastered this duty. Although, they
>are getting better at it.  Perhaps the academy(Paramount) has gotten feedback
>on this, and beeft-up their beam back training program.  

     Again, if you define the cast of characters by their jobs instead
     of by their personalities, you don't have a cast of characters:
     you have extras with lines (i.e., the TOS supporting players).

     Beverly is a good doctor.  The good doctor is not Beverly.  There
     is more to her than that.  


>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------guard: I flunked flank
>sarge: you flunked flank?
>guard: yes sir

     (That's not Monty Python.  It's HISTORY OF THE WORLD PART I, Mel
      Brooks).
-