No.Dysfunctional characters are usually developingThat's the best part.
Spoilers R rated content - what does it add?
- Thread starter Smoked Salmon
- Start date
Yes.
Yup
Not agreeing is fine, but sometimes I feel people do it just to be contrary so they can make themselves feel superior. It's something I've found is a thing is most fandoms online that isn't so prevalent in social fan circles.Nothing personal, just seemed a little disingenuous, that's all. "Let's ask a question . . . hey, why are all you people posting the wrong answer!"
For what it's worth, expecting some sort of consensus from Trekkies is a lost cause. We're a famously opinionated and argumentative bunch; we never agree on anything.
That is the nature of online interactions, though. The human element is removed and nonverbal cues are completely absent, so insult and injury are far quicker to be inferred, less quickly to be forgiven, and rarely forgotten.
True. Just last night, in another thread on another board, I had to dig myself out of a hole after I made a flippant remark that was taken way more seriously than I intended. (My bad. I should not have cracked wise in an otherwise serious discussion. Alas, I can seldom resist going for a cheap laugh.)
I also find that internet debates often push participants to extreme polarities, losing the middle ground.
"Star Trek is all about Gene's Vision!"
"Hah! Star Trek is all about making money!"
Whereas, of course, the truth of the matter is that things are seldom either/or. Star Trek is an artistic endeavor and a commercial enterprise and that dynamic has always been in place.
Jillian: You guys like dysfunctional characters?
Holly Day: No.
Beagleman: Yes!
Holly Day: No.
Beagleman: Yes!
Holly Day: No.
Beagleman: Yes!
Holly Day: ...
Beagleman: ...
Holly Day: No.
Beagleman: Yes! I love dysfunctional characters. And so do you.
Holly Day: Yes.
Guilty here too...
(Wasn't the question not about fans liking or not liking though? But about expectations of 'development' in a dysfunctional character?
)
It doesn't matter what it was about-you're still wrong!!!!(Wasn't the question not about fans liking or not liking though? But about expectations of 'development' in a dysfunctional character?
Actually, my point was that dysfunctional characters were developing, regardless of my personal expectations. I don't expect them to develop in a particular way-just that they develop and that is the "best" part of a show for me.
One can certainly make the argument that a "dysfunctional" character has more room for growth (and the tantalizing possibility of going off the rails) than some fully-functional, perfectly well-adjusted, role-model type. Done right, you get a character who is both unpredictable and fascinating.
One of my current favorite shows is GOOD BEHAVIOR, in which the protagonist is both smart as a whip and prone to making terrible choices. She's a hot mess and her own worst enemy, but also ingeniously clever and resourceful when she has to to be. Not to mention having a nicely acerbic sense of humor worthy of, say, Seven of Nine.
"Pleased to meet you."
"Give it time."
EDIT: Can't resist sharing another line from a recent ep:
"I suck at things people ought to be good at, but I'm great at things that people shouldn't be good at."
Dysfunctional, yes. Interesting, absolutely.
One of my current favorite shows is GOOD BEHAVIOR, in which the protagonist is both smart as a whip and prone to making terrible choices. She's a hot mess and her own worst enemy, but also ingeniously clever and resourceful when she has to to be. Not to mention having a nicely acerbic sense of humor worthy of, say, Seven of Nine.
"Pleased to meet you."
"Give it time."
EDIT: Can't resist sharing another line from a recent ep:
"I suck at things people ought to be good at, but I'm great at things that people shouldn't be good at."
Dysfunctional, yes. Interesting, absolutely.
Last edited:
"R rated content - what does it add?" apparently breasts and curse words.
Id like to think an R rating can serve to do two things.
1.) ruin something, done for the sake of doing it
2.) remove limitations for some, letting someone tell the story that they want without having to worry about limitations to their character or story.
whereas there is no promise that the second option will yield a good film or television show, my experience is the second option almost always yields something I don't like watching.
Id like to think an R rating can serve to do two things.
1.) ruin something, done for the sake of doing it
2.) remove limitations for some, letting someone tell the story that they want without having to worry about limitations to their character or story.
whereas there is no promise that the second option will yield a good film or television show, my experience is the second option almost always yields something I don't like watching.
Dysfunctional characters are usually developing
The worst part is that what develops is their level of dysfunction.
Or maybe it's just bad writing.
For you.The worst part is that what develops is their level of dysfunction.
Not sure what you mean. Are you suggesting that TOS was badly written? Or just my silly riff on the theme?
of course not - that hillbilly from iowa had sex with the better part of the quadrant on a family show - no wonder they pulled the plug after just three seasons (everybody knows a trek series has to have seven seasons) - there was also that bestiality scene between a vulcan (spock) and a romulan (i really wonder what they do with these ears)
not trek at all
Similar threads
- Locked
