[kevin]

So, It's been discussed a bit here and there but it something I'm curious about.

Why do some folks dislike the idea of children and families aboard the USS Enterprise-D? I never understood why it seemed a bad idea. Given that the original idea was for these ships to go out and spend up to 20 years in deep space, it made sense for officers to have their families with them.

Even if they hadn't been there to start with, a crew of single people on a ship for 20 years or so would have eventually settled down and had kids anyway, so why not start out with them?

Nor does the danger aspect really work - first, we know from Trek and some events in it that women and children would die in space anyway (colonies destroyed like New Providence in BOBW for example) and they were out there anyway. It seems like a fallacy to suggest they were being protected from danger if they weren't allowed on the ship.

And even from an explorer perspective, families have been part of mass migrations for the whole of human history. The expansion of the West in the USA was full of women and children along the way.

So why not continue that in space?

I'd be interested in any others thoughts about it.

[horatio]

Of course it is a good idea, more options always are. If Starfleet officers think that "space is disease and danger", they can leave their families at home.
The D is a fairly safe place in the galaxy. In ENT, cargo crews which were often threatened by pirates took their families with them, a much more dangerous enterprise.
So much about the risks, but what about the chances of the children? They can make terrific experiences aboard the flagship of the Federation, go where no one has gone before instead of merely reading about it on Earth.

Originally Posted by kevin

And even from an explorer perspective, families have been part of mass migrations for the whole of human history. The expansion of the West in the USA was full of women and children along the way.

Indeed, if Trek is a space western, a wagon train to the stars, taking everything with you is pretty straightforward. Which was kinda the initial idea of TNG, a lone ship, far and long away from home, exploring unchartered space.

[Sohna]

I voted "don't care." Honestly, I think that most people's objections to this might be colored by having seen Wesley Crusher and not wanting another helping of Mary Sue. Families and children onboard the starships are fine in theory and will probably happen in real life in time. But for dramatic purposes, I don't want to see another boy-genius-with-supernatural-powers-saves-the-crew-for-the-tenth-time; nor do I want the movies/episodes to devolve into stories about Kirk's family (i.e. wife and children), for instance. Hollywood just has not proven it can treat this subject without resorting to cliches.

[kevin]

What about David Marcus and the depth he brought to Kirk in TWOK and TSFS with his existence and death though? That made Kirk much more of a person than he had been before.

[horatio]

Kirk's regret about a missed family life in TWOK and GEN as well as Picard's in GEN, which were both more about the choice of career over family than about allowing children aboard or not, showed at least that families on board improve the psychological health of the crew.

[kevin]

Originally Posted by Sohna

Hollywood just has not proven it can treat this subject without resorting to cliches.

Can it treat anything thus?

[horatio]

Unlike most Trekkers I like Wesley, perhaps because I was about the same age when I first saw TNG, and Jake, as boring as he was as character, was at least important for Ben Sisko.
If anyone claims that the "prodigy Wesley saves the ship" (which did happen only once or twice) sucks, what about Naomi Wildman? Not even ten years old but hanging out with a former Borg drone and reading books over books?

Overall, family topics were handled pretty well in Trek IMO.

[kevin]

I mean, yes obviously in retrospect even the writers acknowledge he may have been used wrongly, but then Wil Wheaton very vocally points out he didn't 'save the ship' directly that much. He did help out quite a bit though!

I was 10 when TNG started and all I thought was that it would be so utterly amazing to be on such a ship and travel so far and wide and see so much of the galaxy. It would be the kind of experience that money (if they had it) could never buy!

[horatio]

That was precisely part of the job of Wesley, to let younger viewers imagine how it would be like in his position. Especially shows like the the one with the Traveler emphasized the 'marvels of the universe' aspect of the show which got lost in later seasons.

Nowadays they put the Jar Jar Binks in the movies to appeal to younger viewers, instead of following the simple pattern of children books: just put a young character in it.

[Sohna]

Originally Posted by kevin

What about David Marcus and the depth he brought to Kirk in TWOK and TSFS with his existence and death though? That made Kirk much more of a person than he had been before.

David was an adult by the time we meet him. I didn't have the impression this poll was about adult children, but more kids that are still kids.

Originally Posted by horatio

If anyone claims that the "prodigy Wesley saves the ship" (which did happen only once or twice) sucks, what about Naomi Wildman? Not even ten years old but hanging out with a former Borg drone and reading books over books?

I have no idea who she is. Since you said "former Borg drone, I assume some character on Voyager? I never could get into it.

Originally Posted by horatio

That was precisely part of the job of Wesley, to let younger viewers imagine how it would be like in his position. Especially shows like the the one with the Traveler emphasized the 'marvels of the universe' aspect of the show which got lost in later seasons.

Nowadays they put the Jar Jar Binks in the movies to appeal to younger viewers, instead of following the simple pattern of children books: just put a young character in it.

I can understand this and would far rather see a major child character than some Lucasian cutesy added for child appeal. My issue with Wesley was that he was not some ordinary kid that other kids could readily relate to (though if you did, kudos to you!). If you could take away at least one of the super-abilities he had, he would have been okay, and he never even once should have been allowed to save the ship except as far as mentioning he just learned something in his class that might help or being told to "sit here and push this button when I tell you to" or something. In short, he should have been allowed to remain a child. And he should have made a mistake at least once that he learned from (that was the focus of the show, not a 5-second incident). So let him be a child prodigy if you want, but then don't introduce Traveler abilities on top of it. Or let him be a Traveler, but make him otherwise of average intelligence.

Again, I am not arguing against showing children and families onboard, only caveating that if they are shown, they should be done realistically.