• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

The erotic tension between Seven and Janeway in "The Omega Directive"

Well, I don't know if the tension is "erotic" here but for sure, Janeway and Seven's relationship has changed a bit since 2 or 3 previous episodes --it's still intense, but more respectful. Seven doesn't act as wilfully as before; her instincts may still be running strong, but she's learning to rein them in when given an order. Particularly given the intensity of her belief in the molecule, her obedience to orders she disagreed with is a mark of maturity she didn't possess a month ago. Her differences with Janeway were resolved with words, not acts.

But I agree, I tthink that the relationship between Janeway & Seven could have been more than just a "mother/daughter"'s one, like the scene between them near the end of "The Voyager's Conspiracy". Besides, I read that Bryan Fuller has asked that Seven be interested in women, emotionally and physically.

The last scene in Holodeck 1, when DaVinci's program is running, is sweet. These are the moments Janeway lives for--to be present when a crewman undergoes a major life-changing experience, and she can be there to share it and to put it into some sort of perspective.
I'll have to watch for the Voyager's Conspiracy episode... haven't gotten to that one yet. Also, that's interesting regarding Bryan Fuller; at least someone somewhere was thinking about this (other than us viewers, I mean). I agree it is much more mother/daughter than anything else, although I think had this show been made now and not 20 years ago the producers/writers might have had more courage to branch out into a racier or more progressive area with regards to the relationship, esp. given they were all basically stranded light years from home.
 
Other way around.

They both thought that they were the other's mother.

Seven, had more of a right to be Janeways mother though, since she knew everything, when all Janeway brought to the table was the same social graces anyone else on the ship except Tuvok could teach Seven.
I kind of like in 'Dark Frontier' where Janeway goes and gets her girl back. Like a mother fighting for her child - albeit a big one. Even the last scene where Janeway tells Seven to regenerate is like tucking her into her alcove.
 
I found an article from 1998 from Kate's website. Here is a copy paste of one of her responses to this:
How do you like your relationship between Captain Janeway and Seven of Nine?

Kate Mulgrew: I like it. It’s rather a mentor/student relationship than a mother/daughter relationship. And God knows, how much we have explored that relationship in the fourth season. I was surprised myself. I thought “She has something special". The camera loves her, her strength and her unpredictability. We worked very well together. The camera likes this relationship, there seems to be something prickling about it. But we truly explored this relationship and now it is time to get back to the whole crew. I believe things will calm down a bit and that makes the next season even more interesting.
 
This point I respectfully disagree with... as a work of art it's automatically and fully open to interpretation by the viewer. If someone wants to see something that is personal and different than the intent of the artist, then they should be permitted, freely, to engage in that vision. I would say that TV shows, with their more direct, linear way of storytelling, fall less into this category or realm, but this unequivocally (imho, of course) holds true for static works of art and film.

And I'd have to respectfully disagree with you, and I would have to say it is unequiviocally the other way for all works of art. If all art means what we want it to mean, then all art is the same and we might as well look at blank walls as we can have exactly the same meaning from a blank wall as from a Shakespeare play or Voyager episode, if we so choose. Of course you are free, for example, to interpret Hamlet as a play mostly about star-crossed love. Or you can think that Othello is gay, if you want to, and has a thing for Iago. But your interpretations (interpretations so far from the artist's intent that they amount to projections) won't gain currency, and among those who believe that what they are actually seeing means something, Janeway and Seven will remain uninterested in each other romantically.

Presumably we are watching artists because they have talent we lack. We should try to enter THEIR visions, not project our fanfics upon them, if we want to appreciate them fully and in any way that gives us value. What use is it to study Rembrandt's the Painter in the Studio but insist, insist, that it is really Goya's Saturn Devouring One of His Chldren? And then say we are all free to interpret art to mean any damn thing we want it to mean. What do we gain by denying the artist's vision and substituting our own? Shall I think my eye for beauty and the world as great as Rembrandt's? There's no self-growth and no exaltation in this solipsistic concept of art appreciation. It's all you and no artist.
 
Last edited:
And I'd have to respectfully disagree with you, and I would have to say it is unequiviocally the other way for all works of art. If all art means what we want it to mean, then all art is the same and we might as well look at blank walls as we can have exactly the same meaning from a blank wall as from a Shakespeare play or Voyager episode, if we so choose.
I don't believe this at all and it wasn't my point when I posted earlier. It's probably my fault for not being clear enough though. I'm not sure how being open-minded regarding interpretation of art equates to looking at blank wall or seeing every piece of artwork as the same. That's never what I saw or envisioned in all my years at school and for some as a practicing artist. and, in fact, is nearly the opposite of what I believe in this area.

Presumably we are watching artists because they have talent we lack.

I disagree here as well.... do you not think artists look at other artists' work? I sure do, and so does every single other artist in any medium that I have ever known thus far in my life.

We should try to enter THEIR visions, not project our fanfics upon them, if we want to appreciate them fully and in any way that gives us value. What use is it to study Rembrandt's the Painter in the Studio but insist, insist, that it is really Goya's Saturn Devouring One of His Chldren? And then say we are all free to interpret art to mean any damn thing we want it to mean. What do we gain by denying the artist's vision and substituting our own? Shall I think my eye for beauty and the world as great as Rembrandt's? There's no self-growth and no exaltation in this solipsistic concept of art appreciation. It's all you and no artist.

I agree about the fanfic piece to an extent... and this thread was a bad time for me to start this convo because I do agree with that in regards to the topic of this thread.
However, I disagree regarding the Rembrandt example you used. That almost seems like a "thought police" type of mentality. Looking at a piece of artwork is a very personal event for me, and I know that at least some of the other people I know who are artists feel the same way (not that matters really). It's almost like Seven looking at the Omega particle, when she has a moment of clarity. That's happened to me before when watching films, looking at a painting, etc. It invokes a feeling in me that may lead me to other thoughts, other feelings, and quite possibly, other interpretations of the work. Regardless of what Rembrandt intended, if his work invokes this in me I cannot understand how that's "wrong" or "incorrect". That type of thinking just doesn't gel for me. My own artwork is abstract and I create it from a feeling or vision that resides within me, so I do have a vision when I create a piece. That doesn't mean that other people, when viewing my work, are not free to glean a different feeling or vibe. Perhaps they can recognize my vision, perhaps not... it doesn't have the effect of denigrating my own vision or the piece itself.
I will concede that his holds less (if it's true at all) for most TV shows. By their concrete nature and mainstream storytelling that tries to reach a broader audience this is probably not normally the case. There is far less room for flexibility from the viewer, unless perhaps you consider someone like David Lynch. I consider him an anomaly as far as television goes though. Just my opinion...

Anyway, I appreciates your thought, even if I disagree... it's an interesting topic to ponder. :)
 
1940s female MC in a tuxedo = Lesbian.

Is that a huge stereotype, or did brainwashed Janeway have a girlfriend in WWII?
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top