Endgame as it was first intended...
- Thread starter Praetorian
- Start date
I'm guessing it might because she didn't want the first featured woman captain in a Trek series to be viewed as a failure.
Think about it, if Starfleet captains are meant to have diplomatic skills. How would we view Janeway if she couldn't find some common ground to even unite her crew? The audience would never look up to her as a leader, especially if they she couldn't get Voyager home.
Janeway would never rank up there with Kirk, Picard & Sisko.
Taylor wanted Janeway to be someone who inspired you to unite, not someone who you reluctantly would. How could you trust a captain/leader that allowed conflict?
So then, DS9 would have ended with the Federation losing somehow (as I've heard rumored) and VGR would find itself having to deal with that?
I suppose that was what Taylor was doing - trying not to let the first female captain fail. However, as others have said I think too big of a deal was made over her being the first female captain.
I hate to make a comparison, but Sisko was the first lead black captain but he was treated no differently than anyone else (with one specific exception in 'Far Beyond the Stars' which handled it brilliantly IMO) and no one ever questions the Sisko to this day. I think had Janeway been handled the same way - with no special effort made to emphasize her being the first lead female captain - the character and the series would have been better-served. (On a side note, I've always felt that '11:59' had the potential to be VGR's 'Far Beyond the Stars' but failed.)
I do disagree, however, that failing to get the crew to agree 100% of the time would make her appear less competent. There should have clearly been a planned 'arc' to the crew integrating both as a crew and then as a family, and perhaps there was. A family still argues internally, often worse than individuals without personal involvement, despite loving each other.
Sisko maybe Black but Sisko was still a man & as a character had less to prove to a mostly male audience than Janeway did. Until characters like Kira & Janeway, Trek was mostly a boys club as far as fanbase.
You misunderstand. Failing to get her crew home combined with failure to end conflict with Maquis/Starfleet crew would have made her come off as less competent, not just the one alone. Also take note at fans comments about Janeway after Taylor left. They often found her erratic & them less likely to follow her than when Taylor had control.
Indeed.
As a matter of fact, one of Braga's scathingly brilliant ideas was to kill Seven off in the finale. She was supposed to sacrifice herself to save the ship and get her crewmates home. Why? Because she realized that she would never be able to regain her humanity!
Isn't that just a *wonderful* idea? Toss everything she worked for for 4 years out the airlock because there is no point to trying to regain a semblance of humanity after being Borg.
In other words she was irredeemable.
Sorry, that's an idea I'm glad was shot down, even though I know it's hugely popular with some fans.
Understood and noted. However, I never had a problem with women in command, in Trek or real life, and I'm a male. But I do understand that some do.
Oh, I don't disagree that Taylor had a good hold on the character and how she should behave - or at least in maintaining consistency in how she should behave. There are other unseen factors to consider too - such as Mulgrew's input, influences by the network, and so on.
I also see that having her 'fail' would make her appear less competent, and, being that she was a woman, might have far-reaching implications in the fandom. However, I still maintain that eschewing good storytelling in favor of maintaining the high status of Our Heroes is bad writing, period. No matter who is involved.
Well, I'd argue that's a bad idea because the series had already proven that Seven of Nine was fully capable of regaining her humanity, given the great strides she made following 'The Gift.' Indeed, at times her social ineptitude seemed forced to me, as if they wanted to keep her from being too human.
Had the character actually been portrayed throughout the series as incapable of regaining her humanity, I could see that working, but the depiction across the last four seasons clearly illustrates that was not the case. C/7 had more foreshadowing than that.
Incidentally, do you know more about this unmade finale's plot? 'Heroic sacrifice' in a series finale reeks of 'TATV' ...Blech.
Understood and noted. However, I never had a problem with women in command, in Trek or real life, and I'm a male. But I do understand that some do.
Oh, I don't disagree that Taylor had a good hold on the character and how she should behave - or at least in maintaining consistency in how she should behave. There are other unseen factors to consider too - such as Mulgrew's input, influences by the network, and so on.
I also see that having her 'fail' would make her appear less competent, and, being that she was a woman, might have far-reaching implications in the fandom. However, I still maintain that eschewing good storytelling in favor of maintaining the high status of Our Heroes is bad writing, period. No matter who is involved.
Well, I'd argue that's a bad idea because the series had already proven that Seven of Nine was fully capable of regaining her humanity, given the great strides she made following 'The Gift.' Indeed, at times her social ineptitude seemed forced to me, as if they wanted to keep her from being too human.
Had the character actually been portrayed throughout the series as incapable of regaining her humanity, I could see that working, but the depiction across the last four seasons clearly illustrates that was not the case. C/7 had more foreshadowing than that.
Incidentally, do you know more about this unmade finale's plot? 'Heroic sacrifice' in a series finale reeks of 'TATV' ...Blech.
Just that Braga was planning Seven to be an ultimately tragic character.
Maybe TATV was his revenge for not being able to kill off Seven?
I just ignore TATV as though it never existed...
I would assume it was hard to write for the show because they did have too many cooks in the kitchen, as you pointed out the previous paragraph. Plus, the two other Trek spin-off's before it. I think it was just clear by the time Voyager was created, the barrel of creativity of Trek was hitting near the bottom.
On a personal note, I just don't believe Trek was meant the type of program to have so many spin-offs in such a short period of time. I think even fans were getting sick of it.
I tend to agree - I'd have liked the spinoffs to have been more spaced out. Even so, I think it was still all the more necessary for each series to have a unique and strong premise - which to me, they did - but then for the producers and writers to dedicate themselves to executing that premise to the fullest of its storytelling potential. In that area, I'd say they often failed to varying degrees.
My man, you just bought the church!
What's TATV?
"These Are the Voyages"--Enterprise's execrable finale.
What's TATV?
"These Are the Voyages"--Enterprise's execrable finale.
Dunno what you're on about, anyone else ever heard of this?
No, I hit a reset button in my head.What's TATV?
"These Are the Voyages"--Enterprise's execrable finale.
Dunno what you're on about, anyone else ever heard of this?
ENT. never happens in my universe.
My man, you just bought the church!
Why thank you.
What's TATV?
"These Are the Voyages"--Enterprise's execrable finale.
You had to remind me.
*hits reset button*
What's TATV?
What's TATV?
"These Are the Voyages"--Enterprise's execrable finale.
Dunno what you're on about, anyone else ever heard of this?
I stopped watching Enterprise when I realized Porthos was my favorite character but from what I've heard a major character (not Porthos) was killed off.
