You’ve heard of the “Bechdel-Wallace test” and its potential value to some people in measuring various media in a given context.

I propose a measure we’ll call the “Captain and Crew Test”…

I was enduring – yes, that’s the word I’ll choose – an episode of a certain Trek show and found myself thinking that I seem to enjoy Star Trek shows where the captain isn’t the center of attention for the continued story, rather the crew as a whole (including the captain as professionally and relatively required) works together on the story of the day or is portrayed in multiple dimensions without the commanding officer present.

So, here’s my attempt at codifying this “Captain and Crew Test”:

  • The episode/show has to have at least two crew members (i.e. not the captain) essential to the story,
  • who interact with each other without the captain,
  • about the story without specific direction from the captain

I think these “rules” could use some adjustment and addition, but I think you get what I’m proposing/suggesting/inciting.

UPDATE 2024-07-04 04:35:34 UTC: Check out the quick and amazing work by @danielquinn@lemmy.ca to compile a subset of the percentage of lines for each character in a few Star Trek shows.

0 points

I fully agree that your “rules” need adjustment, starting with the fact that you engineered them around your personal dislikes.

permalink
report
reply
4 points

As opposed to what? Your personal dislikes? Should Alison Bechdel have checked in with men first too?

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

A fair point. However, I just think this sums up my preferences for Trek shows well and had a feeling that many would agree.

Meanwhile, other people might have an internal measure for their preferences which amounts to “is not animated”, eliminating TAS and ST:LD.

To be clear, for everyone reading: I have watched every episode of every Star Trek show; I greatly and sincerely appreciate and value the time, effort, and energy of the production crew, writers, and actors of every show. These media of entertainment are impactful and deeply meaningful. Every show has a message for its current time and future audiences and it is so important that, as a fan, I hear those messages and allow myself to appreciate this art as an audience member.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Here’s an addendum with a few great episode examples which might pass my “test”.

  • TOS: “Amok Time”, (arguably) “The Galileo Seven”
  • TNG: “Brothers”, “Lower Decks”, “The Measure of a Man”
  • DS9: “It’s Only A Paper Moon”, “Improbable Cause”+“The Die Is Cast”, “The Magnificent Ferengi”

Other shows also have great episodes that pass, but I want to stop here for my examples so as to avoid showing my hand (too much) and stating which show(s) I think fail.

permalink
report
reply
1 point

No arguments for or against these yet? I’ll nudge this part of the conversation by pointing out that TOS – THE original Star Trek show – seems to have a high percentage of episodes which would “fail” this silly “test”.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

You need to test bad episodes like Code of Honor, Up the Long Ladder, and Sub Rosa to see if they pass too, though.

permalink
report
parent
reply
12 points

I like it, and I’d bet dollars to doughnuts that you’re talking about Discovery. I’ve said in the past that the show should be called “Star Trek: Michael Burnham” as it would at least be more honest.

To be fair, I think every series has a lot of episodes that would fail this test, some of which were excellent, like DS9’s “In the Pale Moonlight”, and “Far Beyond the Stars” or TNG’s “The Inner Light”, but if used to assess a series, I think this could be a good metric.

permalink
report
reply
6 points
*
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

I agree with and second many of your statements in here. Well said! A couple specific points I want to highlight:

Paul and Hugh

I really enjoyed those plots, especially about loss.

There was also no single overarching plot, so Picard could play a flute and live the life of an alien for a whole episode without derailing any story plans. The “monster of the week” approach also helped inspire some real good moral and philosophical debate that would otherwise never would’ve been written into a single story, but also some of the most cringeworthy TV I’ve seen.

I think this is the core of the issue for what I enjoy and don’t enjoy with many Star Trek shows. Surprisingly to me, Expanse does this fine whereas Trek/Who/SG-1 would trip over it and have.

In general, great reply with excellent points. Thank you!

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

To be fair, I think every series has a lot of episodes that would fail this test, some of which were excellent, like DS9’s “In the Pale Moonlight”, and “Far Beyond the Stars” or TNG’s “The Inner Light”, but if used to assess a series, I think this could be a good metric.

Indeed, “In the Pale Moonlight” is one I thought of which fails as well. I still think it makes a good measure to see how many episodes of a show pass/fail overall. Only to see if it’s really about the whole crew or mostly one character. (Arguably, early TNG comes really close to being Star Trek: Wesley while mid/late TNG comes close to Star Trek: Data.)

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

Does this apply to Lower Decks, or do we just automatically pass them all?

permalink
report
reply
3 points

I’m not sure. Perhaps “Captain and Crew Test” isn’t the right way to look at it either. ST:LD seems to do a good job of not focusing too much on one story or character per episode, so it avoids failure even if every character is “the captain”.

There would have to be some way of reworking the criteria to evaluate overall balance (as mentioned elsewhere in this thread) rather than just Captain and Crew, I guess.

Regardless, that’s a really good question. Hmmmm

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

TNG’s the inner light is one of its best episodes and it spectacularly fails this test.

permalink
report
reply

Star Trek Social Club

!startrek@startrek.website

Create post

r/startrek: The Next Generation

Star Trek news and discussion. No slash fic…

Maybe a little slash fic.


New to Star Trek and wondering where to start?


Rules

1 Be constructive

All posts/comments must be thoughtful and balanced.


2 Be welcoming

It is important that everyone from newbies to OG Trekkers feel welcome, no matter their gender, sexual orientation, religion or race.


3 Be truthful

All posts/comments must be factually accurate and verifiable. We are not a place for gossip, rumors, or manipulative or misleading content.


4 Be nice

If a polite way cannot be found to phrase what it is you want to say, don’t say anything at all. Insulting or disparaging remarks about any human being are expressly not allowed.


5 Spoilers

Utilize the spoiler system for any and all spoilers relating to the most recently-aired episode. There is no formal spoiler protection for episodes/films after they have been available for approximately one week.


6 Keep on-topic

All busmittions must be directly about the Star Trek franchise (the shows, movies, books, etc.). Off-topic discussions are welcome at c/Quarks.


7 Meta

Questions and concerns about moderator actions should be brought forward via DM.


Upcoming Episodes

Date Episode Title
11-28 LD 5x07 “Fully Dilated”
12-05 LD 5x08 “Upper Decks”
12-12 LD 5x09 “Fissure Quest”
12-19 LD 5x10 “The New Next Generation”
01-24 Film “Section 31”

Episode Discussion Archive


In Production

Strange New Worlds (TBA)

Section 31 (2025-01-24)

Starfleet Academy (TBA)


In Development

Untitled theatrical film

Untitled comedy series


Wondering where to stream a series? Check here.

Allied Discord Server


Community stats

  • 1K

    Monthly active users

  • 557

    Posts

  • 2.9K

    Comments