View Single Post
Old September 6 2011, 12:00 AM   #38
Fleet Admiral
Location: The Digital Garden
Re: Why were so many characters on Voyager underdeveloped?

DarKush wrote: View Post
TheLobes wrote: View Post
DarKush wrote: View Post
[Geordi and Dr. Crusher didn't get that. Despite LaForge's popularity and the potential romantic tension existent in the Crusher-Picard relationship, that never really got the attention it deserved during the course of the series. Trek Lit. has handled it much better.
One of my favourite things about TNG is that it didnt feel the need to 'flesh out' every single character, and I am beyond grateful that the writers never put Crusher and Picard together. Not everything has to be 'developed', in fact it can really ruin a show. The Picard/Crusher relationship got the exact right amount of attention, it was something always present between the two characters that served to give them some more depth and give an impression of their pasts in an interesting way.

Its a relationship that never quite happened for a number of reasons, but theres still a slight feeling between them. I found it subtle and interesting, and am glad they never made it into a 'relationship'. It just seemed so real and natural.

Same with Laforge, or even Riker. He was a well developed character in terms of personality, and there was really no need to make any changes or give him any particular arcs. The idea that every character needs 'development' is something that killed trek, in my opinion.
Re: Picard-Crusher

As opposed to unreal 'relationships'? I didn't think it made much sense to build this thing up and then put Picard with a series of random women that the audience didn't have an attachment to while Crusher was sitting around. The Picard-Crusher marriage in "All Good Things" felt right, even if it ended in a divorce, which happens too in life. I didn't say they had to be happily together.

I don't agree with you on LaForge. I don't think he was well developed, or as developed as he should've been. He would get the occassional bone tossed here and there but he was mostly a background player, when he could've been more than that. TNG largely wasted an opportunity to utilize Burton's talent. And I don't understand how more character development "killed" Trek. How did less interesting or developed cast destroy the franchise?

I don't think widespread character development has ever been a hallmark of Star Trek. By my estimation, with TOS, Kirk and Spock were the main ones that got developed. On TNG, Picard, Data, and Worf. With VOY, Janeway, Seven, Doctor, and ENT, Archer-Tucker-T'Pol. DS9 is the only Trek series that I felt truly attempted to be an ensemble piece (not perfectly, but it got it better than the others; TOS excepted since it wasn't designed to be an ensemble show; and maybe ENT wasn't either-not sure).
I agree with this.
A Tiger doesn't loose sleep over the opinion of sheep.
exodus is offline   Reply With Quote