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.

  • Daniel Quinn@lemmy.caEnglish
    132·
    4 months ago

    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.

      • Indy@startrek.websiteOPEnglish
        1·
        4 months ago

        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!

    • Indy@startrek.websiteOPEnglish
      4·
      4 months ago

      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.)