I guess to me it's a show and it doesn't have to 'realistic' in every sence of the word or be compared to everything we do today. If we did that, there would be a lot of other issues with the show - like transporters, replicators, etc. Star Trek makes a lot of assumptions - why not one more? I guess for me it's all about the timeline and the timeline to begin with says a hell of a lot of years, and eventhough they manage to shave of quite a few of those years there's still plenty left. I wouldn't want to be alone for all that time if I was attracted to someone. I agree that it would be best for this person not to be a member of the crew, but being alone in the Delta Quadrant with a limited number of people on board and no other Starfleet vessles...well there not too many options. I agree with you that it would be difficult, but I don't think anybody should be denied love if it's staring them in the face. I just don't think it's healthy and if a close friendship might compromise her decisions as well as has been suggested, then why not go for love. I guess I find it unrealistic that she would isolate herself as she did on the show, and in the long run I think they would all benefit from her not doing that. However, we'll never know because it's a show and they didn't decide to take it in that direction, and if they had...well it would still have been a show and fictional characters. There were chemistry between those two and in my opinion it would have been a much more interesting show if they had decided to acknowledge that chemistry/attraction and decided to show her as a woman with everything that involves instead of turning her into a robot. Don't get me wrong, I LOVE Janeway in the later seasons, but...part of the woman is already gone and it would only have gotten worse with further isolation, I think. I'm not saying that I want sex, kissing, holding hands on the show, but I think it would have been interesting if they had acknowledged the attraction we saw and investigated it further - for better or for worse. It would have added an additional dimention to the show and in the face of that whether it's a good idea or realistic in real live doesn't really matter to me. *steps off soapbox...again*
Damn, I'm too late to play, again! I can answer with my moti: Have never heard of this one, either. I think Guy means that scene from Hunters.
Could be. How do we know, btw, that it is from Hunters? Perhaps it is from YOH in the first place...?
I do understand where you are coming from with this, I don't agree with it but I do understand. There are definite divisions within the J/C fandom over just this thing. One of the best Fan Fic writers I know of says exactly the same thing. It doesn't cause flames it's just a fact and we all get along. Her stories always have Janeway and Chakotay starting a relationship after "Endgame." I am also glad you see that within your frame work, Chakotay and Probably Tuvok should be included, and my other two were Paris and Torres. I think that Tuvok had a separate issue as did Janeway in the beginning and that was both had on going relationships. There may have been guidelines for people with committed relationships. Brit
The scene in "Hunters" that was filmed and shown in previews but not the actual episode was J&C discussing feelings and protocols. The original script for "Resolutions" has a kiss but they changed it to holding hands in the filmed version. The "makeout session" in "Year of Hell" is a new one for me. I'd be interested in knowing where that came from.
Well it's a common knowledge that that ^ scene is from Hunters. I think Guy allowed himself a little joke at our expense
I never heard of any such scene in YOH, but I did hear of something in Timeless that may have gotten deleted. I thought I read somehwere that there was supposed to be something more in her quarters at that dinner when she said she was tired and had waited long enough. Maybe those are the two eps he got confused.
I wouldn't want to be alone, either - but then again, maybe that's why neither you (I'm assuming!) nor I ought to be captains. It takes a lot of special qualities to be captain, and I expect that I, at least, ain't got 'em. One other thing...this is kind of hard to put into words, but it seems to me that for some people participating in this thread, Janeway and Chakotay have only two options in the Delta Quadrant: To be isolated and alone and live a life of bleakness or to give in to their feelings. But that's really not the case. To me, the idea of two people - two friends, whatever else they may feel for each other - putting their feelings aside for the benefit of the crew isn't bleak at all. It's, well, beautiful. Maybe that sounds sappy, but it's true, too. Those are the kind of people I'd want to be my leaders. So maybe my primary problem with J/C comes down to that - I want them to be the kind of officers I'd like to have, if I were depending on them to make the right decisions and to get me home. And, at least from what they showed on screen, that's exactly what they were. It's understandable that you might think that, actually - when people start talking about how leaders need to control their emotions, that sometimes is code for "Women have a problem with this." That wasn't what I meant, of course, but I understand why you might think so, and I should have made myself clearer. That works for me. Really.
It doesn't sound sappy to me, not at all, but neither does it sound beautiful. I guess I'm just not as sure as you. I think I'd rather have a boss who's a complete woman - captain or CEO of a company doesn't matter to me. Of course it would depend on the woman and the man, but... Oh well it's still just a show to me...real life often sucks so maybe I'll just choose to be less sceptic in this regard unless something else is proven to me. Doesn't mean I don't see the complications though.
It is kind of beautiful. It is approaching the state of unselfish love, "larger than life" love affair, since love is often quite selfish in the first place. So I do get where you are coming from.
^ OoooOOoooh, I am feeling validated again! Oh, and Gorf...in a way, I'm being less sceptical than you are - at least in one way. Oh, yeah. Because I am asking a lot of these particular people, and what's more, I expect to get it. So we are both being idealistic, really, but about different things.
I'm getting confused. Here I thought we'd just decided that you were the more sceptical one. Just kidding of course. Either way is fine with me. *hug*
Now that we're all in a big ol' group hug - everybody agreeing to disagree while still respecting everybody's opinion and understanding where they are coming from even if they disagree yadda yadda yadda - there is one thing that's still bugging me a bit, and that is the assumption that a captain is nothing more than a CEO of a starship. That comparison is useful, particularly for those of us who have never had much experience with the military, but it's far from perfect. I'm guessing that few of you have ever been in the military? I haven't either, but I've spent a lot of time around people who have been in the military, including being the daughter of one and the wife of another (trust me: once a Marine, always a Marine). I also worked as a reporter covering a town that's home to a large Marine Corps base. And I'm here to tell you that in the military and (I am sure) in the quasi-military world of Starfleet, a captain needs to be something special - far more so than any CEO I've ever heard of. So whereas some valid comparisons between CEO and Starfleet captain might be made, there really are some large and extremely important - startling, even - differences. Your CEO might be your leader, and your income and economic welfare is at least partly dependent on that person's leadership, but a CEO doesn't hold even close to the same power over his subordinates that a military/quasi-military officer does. A captain isn't just a leader. He (I'll just alternate between the gender-neutral "he" and the gender-neutral "she" - what the heck? ) is a commander - responsible for virtually everything that a ship does and everything that happens to the people on that ship. So she orders people into battle, yes, but she's also responsible in virtually every conceivable way for the welfare of the people under her command. So does this mean that comparisons between CEOs and Starfleet captains are completely invalid? No, it does not. But it does mean that a Starfleet captain (or a Navy captain) is held to a higher standard than even the loftiest CEO. He has to be, and the reason is that he has so much more responsibility. Oh, and if you think I sound really opinionated on the subject of J/C, you should hear my husband, the former Marine. Just the thought of a captain and a first officer romantically involved makes him shudder. Really. You should have seen him during Voyager's run.
Let's first extend the group hug up here to Canadia.... ...so the comparisons aren't invalid; maybe incomplete? It's unsanitary to put words in other people's mouths, but are you saying that extra responsibility is the reason a ship's captain shouldn't be involved with a subordinate or have a family? I'm not totally convinced I wanted Janeway to have a family within the context of their seven-year voyage, but I'm also not convinced of that particular reasoning. If captains are held to a higher standard, why would that also not apply to serving with their loved one/family? In theory, they are merely other members of the crew... Picard commented a couple times on TNG that having families aboard was a bad idea. The relationship example that jumps to mind from any of the TV series is Worf/Dax, and it exemplified why they should *not* be responsible for each other. That said, Worf was not captain-trained. (And, as an aside, I didn't buy that he would neglect his duty and sacrifice the operative; didn't seem very Klingon-ish, Worf-ish or Star Fleet-ish, but that's another forum.) Are there other examples of how this was portrayed in Trek?
A ha! So even for him it was apparent that there was something going on between Janeway and Chakotay?