Do you think the writers in voyager were closet sexists?
- Thread starter Infern0
- Start date
I honestly don't see anyone inside Trek twisting their moustache plotting a fictional character's downfall.
Overall, I found Janeway to be a very strong leader. Flawed? Yes. But can you say Kirk, Picard or Sisko were perfect?
Do I think the writers were closet sexists? That I don't know, I'll leave that to the rest of you. However, Kirk himself was pretty sexist. Sure, it wasn't intentional for the writers there because of prevalent 1960s hegemonic thought, but I wouldn't cite Kirk as the bastion of gender equality there
Just going over this list again, let's think about coverage:
Ellen Ripley - Four movies, and in one she's a clone.
President Roslin - Four seasons, wonderful depth and coverage
Sarah Connor - Two films. Two short seasons of an alternate-timeline series.
Olivia Dunham - Three (?) seasons.
Zoe Washburne - Half a season.
Dana Scully - Nine (?) seasons.
Princess Leia - Three films.
Buffy - Seven seasons.
Hit Girl - Minor role in one film.
Xena - Five seasons.
So, in terms of coverage, that is to say, time spent with the character, I really think only Xena, Buffy, Scully and Roslin can really compete in terms of answering: Who is this person? What drives them? What do they like to do in their spare time? Who are their friends? How do they treat their friends? In other words, they are developed. I think Janeway was a fully realized character who was not defined by the fact she was a woman. I think Buffy and Scully can also be described in this manner. Xena, while great, was something of a pastiche, but I'm willing to agree that she can also be described in this manner. But what I'm saying is that in a list of ten 'better' female leading characters than Janeway, a bunch of them are actually not very developed. I loved Zoe, but I never found out much more about her than that she was Mal's kickass right-hand (wo)man.
Ellen Ripley - Four movies, and in one she's a clone.
President Roslin - Four seasons, wonderful depth and coverage
Sarah Connor - Two films. Two short seasons of an alternate-timeline series.
Olivia Dunham - Three (?) seasons.
Zoe Washburne - Half a season.
Dana Scully - Nine (?) seasons.
Princess Leia - Three films.
Buffy - Seven seasons.
Hit Girl - Minor role in one film.
Xena - Five seasons.
So, in terms of coverage, that is to say, time spent with the character, I really think only Xena, Buffy, Scully and Roslin can really compete in terms of answering: Who is this person? What drives them? What do they like to do in their spare time? Who are their friends? How do they treat their friends? In other words, they are developed. I think Janeway was a fully realized character who was not defined by the fact she was a woman. I think Buffy and Scully can also be described in this manner. Xena, while great, was something of a pastiche, but I'm willing to agree that she can also be described in this manner. But what I'm saying is that in a list of ten 'better' female leading characters than Janeway, a bunch of them are actually not very developed. I loved Zoe, but I never found out much more about her than that she was Mal's kickass right-hand (wo)man.
Again, these are just off-the-cuff examples of characters that *I* think are better developed and more interesting than Janeway. And I don't think you need 4 or 5 seasons or more to develop a character. Great movies can do that in less than 2 hours. By that rationale, there aren't any well developed, fleshed out characters in the Godfather.
That's bad reasoning.
If you develope a character in only 2 hours in a TV show no show would last beyond one season. Character development over time is main element in keeping the audience returning. Exploring a character psyche is just as important to a veiwer as the story developing around them. Even two hour movies lately don't fully develope a character, that's why many have sequels. The best modern example is Chris Nolan's Batman series.
But it's harder if they keep making sequels t stay true to the development of the first drafter. Imagine if they got up to Godfather 40? By the fortieth movie, what they had decided upon as the new truth about these people would have rendered the first movie irrelevant and even wrong.
Exactly. Continuous sequels and more stories can cause to dilute the quality of a character. I'm not saying that 4 or 5 seasons can't make a stronger character, but it's not an absolute necessity. That's just ridiculous. Nolan's Batman was a very good character in the first movie and without the sequel, he still would have been. The sequel just gave him another situation to respond to and he responded to it IN CHARACTER as established in the first movie.
Hell, even without the Godfather sequels, using just the first movie, Michael Corleone is arguably a more complex character than any of the characters created in Star Trek and developed over 7 seasons in any of the series.
Hell, even without the Godfather sequels, using just the first movie, Michael Corleone is arguably a more complex character than any of the characters created in Star Trek and developed over 7 seasons in any of the series.
Huh? How does this even make sense? What ass did you even pull sitcoms out of? How does this even come close to addressing the point or even being in the same time zone of the point?
If you understood writing for TV, it would.
My degree is in TV/Film production.okay, then. I had forgotten about all of your TV writing credits. Never mind that your last post was completely incoherent in regards to the discussion we were having, clearly I'm the one who doesn't understand...
So yeah, I do have an idea of what I'm talking about, just as I'm aware you don't.
If you knew what you were talking about, you understand my reply, the difference in sitcom writing vs. drama and how it does relate to your opinion.
Regardless of how I personally describe it, it doesn't change the fact for someone claiming to have the same degree not to relate the writing style of a sitcom vs. drama in terms of character development. That being said, you should also understand from a production stand point why it's important to the audience, entire staff & story of why character development needs to take place over the course of several seasons.
Oh, I'm quite aware of the difference in both style and substance. What I'm not aware of is how that relates to my point that a character can be as well developed in a 2 hour movie as they can be in 7 years of a TV show. At no point did I even mention sitcoms. That's all on you.
Similar threads
