It depends on the show, obviously.

Some serialised shows make a point of killing off major characters and introducing new ones fairly regularly (Game of Thrones and The Walking Dead, to name but two.) But some shows kill off major characters just to generate publicity and stimulate interest and so increase audience size.

In TNG's case it was Denise Crosby's decision to leave and pursue her career in movies that forced a re-tooling and enlargement of Worf's role. That was the show reacting and adjusting to real world circumstances. There were other changes in the third season which greatly improved TNG. Mainly Michael Piller coming on board the production and the sidelining of Gene Roddenberry.

It was a good move for TNG. In the short term we got Worf to the foreground and later his character development in TNG and DS9. And then the plot development opportunity stemming from Yesterday's Enterprise and Tasha Yar's one-off return for that story. Without Denise Crosby leaving in the first place we wouldn't have had any of that.

Not such a good move for Denise Crosby. Her movie career didn't exactly sparkle. Pet Sematary (sic), anyone? I think that's probably why she wanted to return and eventually did, as the recurring character Sela.

I wouldn't generalise that the trend is for modern shows not to change. They re-tool if the audiences aren't what's expected. If they get the opportunity. It's much more likely they just get axed though. Shows don't get long enough, in general, to prove themselves. If they're not perceived as an instant success they do tend to be axed very quickly these days. Some long running and incredibly popular older shows started with small audiences for the first few seasons and would not have made it if they'd started under today's conditions.

Enterprise was re-tooled without major cast changes in its fourth season, but it was already too late to save it, sadly.

Worf only became interesting after Ron Moore joined the series in season 3 and fleshed out Worf and the Klingons.

As were most of the characters in the first season.


On the contrary. Because of the formulaic nature of older TVs shows. it used to be fairly unusual for main characters to depart a series. Since shows becoming more arc driven it's more usual to see old characters leave and new ones introduced.

Talking of bad characters - who do you think was the worst cast/reoccurring character in each incarnation of Trek?

Mine:

TOS - Haven't really watched enough to have an opinion.

TNG - Doctor Pulaski

DS9 - Harsh as they were all good - but i'd say Jadzia was my least favourite.

Voyager - Nelix (obviously). Harry Kim not too far behind.

Enterprise - 'Boomer'

TOS - Chekov, don't dislike him but he could be a bit annoying at times.
TNG - Beverly Crusher, far too self righteous and principaled.
DS9 - No one.
Voyager - Every single character, Kes more so than the rest though.
Enterprise - Trip.

What was wrong with Pulaski?

As much as I liked Wesleys progression as a character over the years I can see how we was annoying to some.

And I remain convinced to this day he had a little crush on Picard.

Pulaski was awful

The worst for me were always tasha yar, pulaski and kes. Cant stand episodes with any of them in

Wasn't a fan of Pulaski at the time, but I re-watched season 2 when it was released on Bluray and found myself liking her.

I am re watching season 2 on Netflix this week.

The woman in VI TUC who says in the conference of officers near the beginning "Bill, are we talking about mothballing the Starfleet?" Lousy acting. Making a meal of her one and only line.

The woman who plays the Romulan ambassador in V TFF. Just completely the wrong accent and vibe for a Romulan.

I hated any TNG episode that had the infernal Lwaxana Troi in. Ugh...

Why they kept nelix around will never understand that
they had a perfect chance to kill him off, with a good story a few times.
Harry seemed to spend most of the series having forgotten most of his star fleet training. and just Squealing every time the prospect of a way home appeared

Kate Mulgrew saved Voyager for me, I don't think we will ever see a female lead like her again in Star trek.

Actually as i've rewatched Voyager over the years i've grown to like the characters a little bit more each time. I see what they were trying with Nelix but they just needed to reign him in a bit. And his relationship with Kes was just wrong. Similarly Kim was supposed to be character who we could relate to but I think he was just miscast.

These days my main feelings are that Chakotay was completely wasted - he should have been a lot more combative rather than being Friendzoned by Janeway - and that B'Lana was too weak a character for a Klingon.

so messed up. Ethan phillips was 40 at the age of filming versus Jennifer Lien at 21, but this was further compounded by being different species, and the infantilisation of Kes, who's on-screen age was two years old.

Most disliked characters? I couldn't vote on TOS as I never watched enough of it, but out of all the other shows, I honestly couldn't name any other than Neelix and Kes. Wasn't overly fond of Seven either, found the character too ridged, but then that was likely the point of the character.

TNG would probably been the (two) Doctors. Pulaski and Crusher, maybe Deanna too? Didn't dislike any of the DS9 cast, nor did I dislike any of the ENT case (although Trip could have had some character development).

Reoccuring characters though, that's a different story. Wesley, Lwaxana Troi (overly annoying, even if it was intentional), Admiral Nechayev (no emotion), and Jake Sisko (characer just seemed boring).

I was not a fan of Jadzia Dax; far too smug and Mary Sue-like. I much preferred Ezri as seeing a newly joined Trill trying to figure it all out was way more interesting.

Half the Voyager cast were total non-entities. Only Janeway, Tuvok and the Doctor had personalities. I think in the modern day TV climate there would be significant cast changes every couple of seasons to reflect the direness of the situation they were in.

That's the thing I most dislike about modern shows. You're always in fear of principal characters being killed off. I prefer the comfort of a show where I can be sure that it will always turn out alright in the end. I don't have to gear myself up for angst and potential distressing circumstances before every episode.

Not that I don't appreciate the powerful drama that this can sometimes lead to (I love Game of Thrones) but some shows I'd just like to be able to relax and enjoy without having to feel too worried about what might happen and Star Trek was always one of those.

IMO - Voyager would have been better if:

1. There was genuine conflict between Janeway and Chakotay which only eventually became begrudging respect. I like the idea mentioned before that it would have been more interesting if the captain had died in the pilot and Janeway had taken over, but was nominally a lower rank than Chakotay.

2. Similarly, if the tension with the marque remained stronger than it did.

3. There should have been a lot more 'risk' than what was shown. No reset button, Janeway had to use every trick at her disposal to stay alive.

4. I think 70,000 light years was too far. I don't think anyone in the crew would have truly believed that it was possible to make that trip and they would have tried to settle down somewhere. If it had only been, say 10,000 then it creates more tension as there is a realistic hope of making an 11 year journey.

Then "The Gift" would have been the series finale

Today is Star Trek birthday as on Stardate 196609.08 Star Trek 1st aired on NBC.

And when the first series of ST: D finishes, we'll be celebrating the funeral of Star Trek!

Have you ever thought of writing for Star Trek?

You seem to be able to tell what the future will be.

I wouldn't count on it. After all, it has managed to come back after both Voyager and Enterprise!

Other, less popular, shows have been revived long after their original run.

Discovery is already assured financial success because of the Netflix deal, but even if it turns out to be a relative failure, Star Trek will still come back. Eventually. It's too deeply embedded in popular culture now to ever go away permanently. In that way, Star Trek in the US is like Doctor Who is in the UK and we're just about to reach the end of the equivalent of Doctor Who's 1987-2005 drought.

Resistance is futile.

The signs aren't good though, are they?

That's the spirit!!

I want this to be a success. However, I get the feeling that it won't be. I want to be wrong there.