What killed the Chakotary character?

[stj]

In order of importance, first, dropping the 'shroomatron (or peyote-izer.) Without this mechanical gateway to spirituality, Chakotay's Indian character, instead of a projection of a possible future Indian religion, broke down into a characterless, generic Indian.

Second, Seska being revealed as a Cardassian agent devalued his competence as a leader. When he plaintively asked whether anybody was working for him, drama wise, the answer was, pretty much, just Torres. Ir'a like cutting of a testicle. And Seska basically raping him of sperm (even if they undid it after Piller left,) cut off the other testicle.

Third, the notion of the Maquis as Assholes in Space. Scenes where Chakotay manhandles women (Torres in Extreme Risk or Seven in Human Error) are even worse than Chakotay manhandling his own men (Learning Curve, I think.) This is not leadership. Plus, the general dimwittedness of the Maquis concept meant that Chakotary didn't even had a different perspective to offer. War against the Cardassians was not an option.

The Captain makes the decisions, especially in the excessively militarized Berman/Piller/Taylor Star Trek. So when Janeway makes the decisions (which is to say, is the dramatic center of the show,) that doesn't make her castrating.

Having such a weak second meant that every time Chakotay offered opposition, it was weakened because Chakotay had nothing in his character plausibly motivating it. In pretty much every serious clash with Janeway, his mulish opposition was pretty much counsel to give up a course of action, without offering alternatives. Scorpion was the closest to Chakotary becoming a character making choices for comprehensible. It is no accident it was one of his finest hours.

 

[Harvey]

Chakotay was killed by criminal underuse, although the points you've indicated describe several weaknesses of the character that certainly didn't motivate the writers to give him more material. I don't think the reveal that Seska was a double agent necesarilly undercut him as a leader. But, throw in Lon Suder, his inability to detect Tuvok's true loyalties in Caretaker, and several other disloyal Maquis that I can't remember the names of, and your point definitely holds water.

Ultimately, he was reduced to being the guy who said "shields at 50%, Captain," and at that point he was a day player for some reason in the main titles. At least Beltran managed to earn a paycheck for seven years, if not any sort of creative satisfaction.

 

[Anwar]

What killed him was that since he also a Fleet officer originally, he didn't really have much to offer as a counter to Janeway. Also, his group of Maquis weren't the Fed-Haters that they became after Eddington took over.

All in all, it was kind of dumb to put the Maquis in VOY to begin with because they had no real differences with them to start with.

 

[EJA]

I never thought Chakotay was a particularly interesting character in the first place.

 

[KingstonTrekker]

I never thought Chakotay was a particularly interesting character in the first place.

I agree. He was also portrayed by an actor with very limited abilities. I have seen Beltran in other projects as well -- he has a very limited range and seems to think that the only way to convey emotion is to shout/raise his voice. He rivals Garrett Wang for the title of "Worst Actor In Voyager."

 

[RyuRoots]

Succinctly? Robert Beltran killed the "Chakotary" character. The only episode I remember liking his performance was in "Scorpion". But there, pretty much everything hit a high note.

 

[kes7]

Succinctly? Robert Beltran killed the "Chakotary" character. The only episode I remember liking his performance was in "Scorpion". But there, pretty much everything hit a high note.

I have to admit I enjoyed his performance in "Shattered," as well. I don't care how contrived it was, that was an entertaining episode and Beltran seemed to be enjoying himself for once.

 

[freak]

I will probably repeat myself many times, but it wasn't the actor who was at fault for the character flaws=it was the producers' fault! THEY were the ones who needed to bring out the character's range but never really did. Chakotay showed so much potential for his character to evolve in later seasons, and yet the producers were too busy powdering their noses and using more of Seven, Janeway, and the Doc to really care about Chakotay. I kinda also wished that there had been at least one mutiny aboard Voyager-just to test the trust between Janeway, Chakotay, and Starfleet/Maquis. That would have been really interesting. And I KNOW that they sort of had a mutiny in the ep "Worst Case Scenario" but the thing was a hologram..nothing more. They should have taken over the ship in the beginning. It would have been really interesting and fun to watch, I think.

 

[Lynx]

I think that stj is a bit unfair to the character Chakotay.

I agree on point one. If they wanted an American Indian character, they should have given Chakotay a real tribe. They could have involved some of that tribe's religius beliefs but scrapped the Hollywood mumbo-jumbo.

As for Chakotay being a bad Maquis commander, I have to disagree. Seska and Tuvok were revealed as spies but things like that have happened in many resistance movements. Both of them were also very skilled. As for Suder, there's no way Chakotay could have revealed his true nature, in fact we don't know how long he was on Chakotay's ship. Not to mention the fact that irregular forces do sometimes attract not so nice people, that happened in the WWII resistance movements too. Note also that Chakotay's crew were at least 30 people of which most wee loyal to him. He also haed that much respect that they accepted his decision to join the Voyager crew without complaints.

As for Chakotay manhandling people weren't worse than Kirk's way to manhandle his own people. As for the Maquis cause, I can understand why they fought. The Federation more and less sold them out to the Cardassians.

However I do agree that Chakotay suffered from bad writing, especially in the later seasons but that doesen't make him a bad character. As for Beltran's acting, I think it was good.

 

[KingstonTrekker]

I will probably repeat myself many times, but it wasn't the actor who was at fault for the character flaws=it was the producers' fault! THEY were the ones who needed to bring out the character's range but never really did.

I completely agree that the character of Chakotay was written poorly and lacked development. However, I doubt that Beltran could have done much better as an actor even with better material. Again, have you seen his non-trek acting gigs? He is horrendous...

 

[JustKate]

^ I have (well, a couple of them). I wouldn't call him brilliant, but he's at least competent. These things are subject to opinion, you know.

Edit: I've never seen any of his stage work, but he gets decent reviews, from what I've seen, and I just looked up a review or two just a few minutes ago.

Sometimes it's hard to separate this stuff, that's for sure. How do you separate the character from the actor, the actor from the writing, the writing from the character, etc.? I don't know. I quite liked the character, but then again, I wasn't given much material to work with either way.

Me, I think Beltran wasn't given enough to work with, and if he had been, we would have had a much better character. But we'll never know, will we?

 

[RyuRoots]

I think it's possible to be a good actor amist bad writing. Picardo is living proof of that through early Voyager. Chakotay is okay as a character, but only okay (but also not bad). Beltran is so wooden in his performances that it's hard to feel much about the character.

 

[Anwar]

Beltran is so wooden, I wondered why getting hit with a phaser didn't make him burst into flames.

 

[teya]

Sometimes it's hard to separate this stuff, that's for sure. How do you separate the character from the actor, the actor from the writing, the writing from the character, etc.? I don't know. I quite liked the character, but then again, I wasn't given much material to work with either way.

How to separate writing from character: Um, you can't. The character isn't a real person, so the writing and the acting combine to be the character.

How to separate actor from writing? Read some scripts. Then you'll see how much is the actor and how much is the writing.

How to separate character from actor? The character is the fake guy, the actor is the real person.

And for the record, as much as I think Beltran's politics are insane, that doesn't figure into my dislike for the way Chakotay was presented.

But then, as has been determined by the majority on this board, I'm talking out my ass with my complaints about Chakotay. After all, he's not a real person so why should he have a real tribe? And if white people think he seems Indian enough, then that's good enough.

Wouldn't want to disturb any romantic fantasies about the indigenous population of the Americas.

 

[JustKate]

^ Did I say anything about him being Indian enough? Or are you talking about the writers? Because although I rather liked the character, no, he was not "Indian enough" for me.

 

[teya]

^ Did I say anything about him being Indian enough? Or are you talking about the writers? Because although I rather liked the character, no, he was not "Indian enough" for me.

Just referring to what I've been told in other threads.

I am not supposed to disagree with the way the character was written because I have no more insight into Indian cultures than anyone else on the board. He was written as a European romanticization and that's absolutely a-okay.

Thus sayeth the majority and therefore I must stop whining and get that big-ass chip off my shoulder.

I don't really understand how you can separate it though. You say that he wasn't "Indian enough" for you, but then you won't criticize the writers (where the fault lies IMO) or the actor for anything. So whose fault is it?

 

[JustKate]

^ But I do criticize the writers - I've criticized them often. Apparently not often enough?

Or maybe you're confusing me with someone else?

Because yes, I blame the writers for a lot of stuff on Voyager, including Chakotay, and I am saddened to think about what might have been. Really. Probably not as saddened as you, but jeez...

I mean, if they didn't want to write an American Indian, and apparently they did not, why did they even pretend to?

 

[teya]

^ But I do criticize the writers - I've criticized them often. Apparently not often enough?

Or maybe you're confusing me with someone else?

Because yes, I blame the writers for a lot of stuff on Voyager, including Chakotay, and I am saddened to think about what might have been. Really. Probably not as saddened as you, but jeez...

I mean, if they didn't want to write an American Indian, and apparently they did not, why did they even pretend to?

Because then they can say how wonderful they and their franchise are--how multicultural.

Besides, he's no different from any other American Indian on TV. He's the evolution of Tonto. That's what audiences expect, that's what St. Jeri Taylor gave 'em.

 

[JustKate]

^ I have wondered if they wanted an American Indian because to the folks in Hollywood, "American Indian" is shorthand for "spiritual...but not in a, you know, annoying way." Could they really have thought it was just that simple? You know, they might have.

 

[Akiraprise]

I am not supposed to disagree with the way the character was written because I have no more insight into Indian cultures than anyone else on the board. He was written as a European romanticization and that's absolutely a-okay.

Thus sayeth the majority and therefore I must stop whining and get that big-ass chip off my shoulder.

teya knock it off. You know you can talk about his Indian culture, or lack thereof, all you want. Just don't expect everybody to agree with your viewpoints. Lightbulbs aren't going to automatically go off in people's heads just because teya said something insightful into a topic that's been discussed so many times before.

Losing the chip might not hurt your cause either...