Indy

I love this! Now you need to do an analysis like this one on Star Trek and the Bechdel-Wallace test!

TOS is already a rough rewatch with some of its acting and portrayals of the future. I can't imagine how tough it would be to rewatch it through that lens. Haha!

I realize you’re not trying to predict quality, just personal enjoyability, but I do wonder how it relates to quality.

I don't mean for this to measure quality. To each their own, as they say. After all, it is just entertainment and I'm free to watch anything else or skip this or that episode. This is all just a fun observation for me, much like a discussion on the finer points of warp theory or Federation economics.

Still, I'm glad it's something that clicked for you too. I figured there would be a number of people whose appreciation of Trek relates to this "test".

.... Even then, I believe [TOS] would have a pretty low “pass” rate compared to all the '90s series.

Agreed. I note elsewhere in this thread that I think TOS would struggle with this little "test" and it was THE Star Trek show when it all started.

(Incidentally, since Burnham wasn’t Captain until season 4, Discovery passes on a technicality for most of its run).

Indeed it would pass and I think the captains/crew of those seasons were well portrayed and balanced Burnham's presence as a character as well.

I’ve seen this complaint a lot with some of the newer shows, but it doesn’t really resonate with me. A good central character ought to be able to carry a show, and I don’t hold Trek as being inherently different in that regard.

As you say. And to be clear, I'm not taking this too seriously, nor is it meant to be a complaint. Just a measure I noticed in my own mind. I am still watching all the Star Trek made, whether it "passes" this measure or not.

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.

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".

Definitely and many that fail. I wonder if it works as a measure based on percentage of the show as a whole. Then again, it really doesn't matter at all; I only noticed that I get annoyed with certain shows which overuse a single savior for the show's overall story.

I like that too. I'm not sure it would counter these "rules".

How would you propose phrasing a rule for that non-Fed criteria?

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.)

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!

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.

I remember enjoying the Temporal Recruit storyline. I had a bit of fun with mine, naming it "Redshirt" and giving it the torn red uniform costume. Haha

From July 2nd at 8am PT to July 23rd at 12pm PT on all platforms, you can create a new Temporal Agent character.

I'm really looking forward to this one. I enjoy the look of the Obelisk Carrier. Not sure yet what I'll do with it, but it'll be a nice thing to have parked in the garage. Haha