Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site dartvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!cbdkc1!desoto!packard!hoxna!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!hplabs!pesnta!amd!amdcad!decwrl!decvax!dartvax!merchant
From: merchant@dartvax.UUCP (Peter Merchant)
Newsgroups: net.startrek
Subject: Re: disposable cast?
Message-ID: <3242@dartvax.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 13-Jun-85 10:04:37 EDT
Article-I.D.: dartvax.3242
Posted: Thu Jun 13 10:04:37 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 17-Jun-85 04:26:54 EDT
References: <1802@ut-ngp.UUCP> <257@azure.UUCP>
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
Lines: 21

> In other words, are Spock, Kirk, McCoy, etc., really THAT essential to the
> nebulous being known as "Star Trek"?
> 
> 
> Chris Andersen

Well, everyone has their own definition of "Star Trek."  By my definition,
the stories are about Jim Kirk and his buddies.  Thus, with no Jim Kirk,
the show kind of falls apart.  Kind of like James Bond without James Bond.

Now, obviously, other stories could be written about other people in the
"Star Trek Universe."  Probably very good stories.  And I would definitely
go to see them and probably enjoy them greatly.  But they wouldn't be
"Star Trek" without Jim.  I think Spock could disappear (in theory, Jim's
the star so everything else could fall apart) and everyone else could, too.
As Gerrold said, the shows center around "Jim has a decision to make."
As long as our boy keeps making those decisions, we have "Star Trek."

At least, that's what I think...
--
"Comin' on like a Megaforce..."                     Peter Merchant