Yup, Voyager had no character growth. Like the Doctor, the eternal boring EMH doing only what it was programmed to do, or Seven the Borg Drone who never tried to be more human, or Neelix who was happy to travel with the crew but never showed intimate interest in alpha quadrant cultures. No one had any children or relationships. We never learned more about these characters and their odd interests. They were the same from start to finish, like Ensign Kim.
Just want to say, it made sense that Enterprise started off as episodic. At the same time, it was also more serialised than most people seem to realise.
Regarding the first thing: ENT was supposed to be a series about exploration, not just exploring space like all the other series did, but also exploring the foundations of the franchise. Thus showing Starfleet in a time and setting when they knew even less than in Kirk's time, with fewer friends, fewer different types of ships, fewer member species, less guidance (the Prime Directive and the star charts had to come from the Vulcans) and so on. And at the same time not being so hyper advanced in the technological sense that you lose all connection with today's world (hence the much more mechanic looking visuals and controls).
As a prequel, it really served as a nice bridge between today and the series set into the later, more developed centuries which had a much more established Federation and rounded out universe.
And after the initial exploring with some stories that made for good entertainment, most episodes were actually part of a bigger story - just as some of those first episodes actually were in some regards. If you want to complain about Voyager not using its opportunities for conflict to slowly bring together the two crews (which is a very understandable complaint), you should appreciate the fact that ENT actually did pay some attention to the building of trust, people finding their place on board and so on. Two examples are T'Pol initially being very distrusted and Sato's insecurity.
Moreover, this trust building was actually a major returning element with the Andorians early on, Shran's working relationship with Archer and how this helped settle conflicts with the Vulcans later on - the same Vulcans whose culture was explored as part of those same conflicts. And there were of course the Xindi and the Temporal Cold War arcs, with the former especially continuing to touch upon the themes of cooperation, making friends and gaining trust.
[4:46] [Combat {self}] Your Haymaker deals 23337 (9049) Physical Damage(Critical) to Spawnmother
@somtaawkhar My least favorite Trek too. Some of that is my resentment because it had the potential to be everything it wasn't. You still had a common ground that was a hotbed for character development and interactions and exploration of completely uncharted territory. I felt that they gave up on the original ideas that they had and worked to produce something that was simply palatable. Kes was interesting. The Vidians were ghoulish and redeemable at the same time. They had some good character moments contained in episodes with some of the cast but forgot about others completely. Garrett Wang deserved better and Robert Beltran was wasted on a role that had potential but was just pissed away.
@phoenixc You're splitting hairs on definitions of story. Episodic story format versus longer story formats that have become more prevalent should suffice.
A story format isn't a tool. Let's use art. A brush is a tool analogous to storytelling. A time slot is a canvas. It has finite space to tell a story that must conform to those parameters. Whether that is stand alone serials that happen between commercial breaks where the cliffhangers must keep an audience wondering what will happen after the break, or in 50 minute installments where the writer had more room for exposition and development You can use it well or leave the audience wondering if they feel dumber having subjected themselves to it.
Just because you have big blocks doesn't mean you must be fixiated on the big picture all of the time. You could still have an episode styled story within a larger plot. It would be better if it built or supported the central theme or revealed something more about a character or the big picture but that's part of being a better writer. There are patterns suited to different mediums but appealing to the audience and keeping them engaged over the whole run could be changing the tempo/focus and giving them something unexpected so your whole approach doesn't come across as formulaic. A failure to work with what you have is still a failure of the presenter.
The subject is TV where the time slots are largely set in stone. How they do the story is not.
How loosely or tightly bound an overarching plot is to the show varies greatly, even in oldTrek. DS9 was building up to the Dominion war from very early on. Voyager, meanwhile was only going to get home when the series was cancelled, so they didn't need strongly linked episodes or foreshadowing that DS9 had.
Did you just block quote that or take the time to read it too? Correct. Time slots are fixed. "How they do the story", is critical. If they do it poorly nobody will want to watch it. That means nobody is watching the ads that sponsored the show. It means that companies leave productions no one is watching.
Guy if you're just gonna use this thread to have fight because you don't like same things I'm gonna to have ask this to be closed, so please do behave.
I'm gonna leave it up to the mods so say if this has gone too far already but fighting for the sake of fighting is not good for anyone.
You are mixing up seasonal shows and miniseries again.
Nope, you're just making things up again.
Again using the anime comparison. Anime typically run 13 episodes per season, and each season is a complete story that the show could just end on an make sense as an ending. Those seasons are not considered miniseries, and these kinds of anime can get 5-6 seasons, each one a complete story, exactly like Picard or Discovery work.
In television and radio programming, a serial is a show that has a continuing plot that unfolds in a sequential episode-by-episode fashion. Serials typically follow main story arcs that span entire television seasons or even the complete run of the series, and sometimes spinoffs, which distinguishes them from episodic television that relies on more stand-alone episodes.
I also never said they were new, or even implied it. I just said they became more popular.
Code Lyoko is an even better example of a multi-layered arc-episodic structure where the arcs are not in the foreground of the stories.
This also isn't how that works. Code Lyoko is entirely episodic. Being episodic however doesn't mean your villain has to be a complete idiot that never learns, or adjust their method of attack. That doesn't make it an arc.
The same happened in TNG, things like Worf/Duras, or Data's quest to become human. Didn't stop TNG from being an episodic TV show becuase those were the minority of episodes, and not the typical format of the show.
As for depth of story, hour-long shows in the 1960s averaged about ten more minutes of runtime per hour compared to today's shows
Length =/= depth. You could have a 10 hour movie that has less depth then a 5 hour TV miniseries if the movie is just the character faffing about, whereas the miniseries is very plot focused.
The arc-episode format is the best of both worlds with the complexity and length potential of a serial but the flexibility of episodes. Voyager would not have worked as a serial because there was too much off-camera downtime, but it would have been ideal for a tight arc-episodic treatment, though as you pointed out the writers either couldn't or wouldn't do it.
Also just wrong. Voyager would have done great as a serial because you could then dynamically track Voyager's progress in a consistent manner, not have issues like running into Kazon for three years, keep a dynamic count of photon torpedoes, shuttles, crew numbers, etc. There is no reason it couldn't have worked beyond them not doing it.
And no, the arc-episode format is the worst of both world because its a middle ground that fundamentally goes against the idea of an episodic format, but also is too split up with meaningless fluff episodes that don't contribute to the plot that the hard narrative bits get broken up and lost in the crowd.
Serial and the similar-but-narrower miniseries are the "novel length" style for TV. Their strength is that they can be used to tell very complex stories (Westworld is a good example of that, DSC isn't since it is action movie format which is intrinsically shallow and frenetic and was a splice of several smaller arcs).
You keep saying this about BSC, but it quite demonstrably doesn't work this way. Again, you crazy bias towards DSC is showing hard.
No, I am not "making things up", it works the way I described but you seem to be interpreting it in a weird way. And your wiki link says the same thing I did except that they call arc-episodic format serialized episodes. Not everyone uses the term arc ("story arc" was coined in 1988) but the idea is the same, and J. Michael Straczynski was one of the first to use the term "arc episode" in the early 1990s.
The textbooks in the writing classes I took were written in the 2000s so they used the term because that is what Hollywood uses currently, but many older ones do not and use language similar the wiki article you linked. Do try to follow the concepts and not get stuck in exact-word rabbit holes. Serial and episode are vectors on a spectrum, not neat and tidy binary pigeonholes, and the arc terminology is a convenient way to describe mixed states between the two and/or plot structures with dissimilar layers where each fall on different parts of the spectrum, like this blog does in the last two paragraphs:
Also, I never said that serials did not have some plot threads that were contained within one season, what I said was that the story threads spin together into a whole "yarn" that is not necessarily constrained by the season framework. Just like your quote said, some of those may happen to span a single season or two and others can run for the entire length of the series, but what it neglects to mention is that that new threads can come in and old ones end at any point in a season, not just on season boundaries as if they were a miniseries with yearly discreet sequels.
I see you completely missed the point about the extra length allowing more complexity if the writers choose to use it to add to the depth, the fact that they can alternatively use it for "faffing about" with other things is irrelevant. And in fact, it is easier to "faff about" in a serial format, serials with a large number of concurrent threads with people going off in different directions doing things often end up needing "housekeeping" segments where nothing much happens except faffing about to touch bases and synchronize the threads (and yes, it is fairly rare in streaming TV since they usually have fewer threads but it happens a lot in superhero team comics).
I did mention that with Code Lyoko not everyone can see the layering the writer did with the mostly episodic kids cartoon main thread and arc format psychological thread for everyone else, even when it was pointed out, which the main writer, Sophie Decroisette, did in interviews about the show.
As for VOY, it was more of a "highlights" series of stories, they glossed over a lot of stuff with off-camera breaks that are mostly better left at undefined lengths, with just a good sense of the order of the episodes via reference to past episodes and other arc elements like the torpedo count they abandoned almost immediately and the also largely abandoned friction between crews thread.
Wow, the old "DSC hater" dodge makes another appearance, as if I couldn't see that one coming a mile away. I don't hate DSC (though I make no secret about liking TOS the most, followed by DS9 and ENT), in fact I watch it when I get the chance (though I will say that I am not impressed with what I have seen of PIC).
When I say it is action movie format that is an analysis not a "hater's" slight of the series, and Kurtzman talks about it being in action movie format in interviews so I am definitely not "making it up". It is possible to critique, (and even criticize parts of) a series and to point out things like its plot structure, writing style, and things that do and don't mesh well with previous series without "hating" it or being "biased" against the series.
And it is true that the action movie format is intrinsically shallower than most other dramatic formats since it caters specifically to people who prefer pulse-pounding action and eye candy and don't care as much about plot details as they do the stunts and other visuals. The ultimate example of the format is the Fast and Furious movies.
> @spiritborn said: > Guy if you're just gonna use this thread to have fight because you don't like same things I'm gonna to have ask this to be closed, so please do behave. > > I'm gonna leave it up to the mods so say if this has gone too far already but fighting for the sake of fighting is not good for anyone.
"Guy", is little vague as to who you are addressing. My comment proceeded yours so I will assume you were addressing me. I'm happy to have a civil discussion if someone has read what I wrote and doesn't agree. If someone reinterates something I wrote, presenting it as a rebuttle then they are arguing against something they haven't read. I agree that is pointless. My response was terse, but no there was no namecalling. I did identify a problematic behavior. What would you have written in my place?
> @horridperson said: > > @spiritborn said: > > Guy if you're just gonna use this thread to have fight because you don't like same things I'm gonna to have ask this to be closed, so please do behave. > > > > I'm gonna leave it up to the mods so say if this has gone too far already but fighting for the sake of fighting is not good for anyone. > > "Guy", is little vague as to who you are addressing. My comment proceeded yours so I will assume you were addressing me. I'm happy to have a civil discussion if someone has read what I wrote and doesn't agree. If someone reinterates something I wrote, presenting it as a rebuttle then they are arguing against something they haven't read. I agree that is pointless. My response was terse, but no there was no namecalling. I did identify a problematic behavior. What would you have written in my place?
Not just my dylexia and this heat that made me make a minor misspelling that should read "guys" as in you and Som
@somtaawkhar My least favorite Trek too. Some of that is my resentment because it had the potential to be everything it wasn't. You still had a common ground that was a hotbed for character development and interactions and exploration of completely uncharted territory. I felt that they gave up on the original ideas that they had and worked to produce something that was simply palatable. Kes was interesting. The Vidians were ghoulish and redeemable at the same time. They had some good character moments contained in episodes with some of the cast but forgot about others completely. Garrett Wang deserved better and Robert Beltran was wasted on a role that had potential but was just pissed away.
@phoenixc You're splitting hairs on definitions of story. Episodic story format versus longer story formats that have become more prevalent should suffice.
A story format isn't a tool. Let's use art. A brush is a tool analogous to storytelling. A time slot is a canvas. It has finite space to tell a story that must conform to those parameters. Whether that is stand alone serials that happen between commercial breaks where the cliffhangers must keep an audience wondering what will happen after the break, or in 50 minute installments where the writer had more room for exposition and development You can use it well or leave the audience wondering if they feel dumber having subjected themselves to it.
Just because you have big blocks doesn't mean you must be fixiated on the big picture all of the time. You could still have an episode styled story within a larger plot. It would be better if it built or supported the central theme or revealed something more about a character or the big picture but that's part of being a better writer. There are patterns suited to different mediums but appealing to the audience and keeping them engaged over the whole run could be changing the tempo/focus and giving them something unexpected so your whole approach doesn't come across as formulaic. A failure to work with what you have is still a failure of the presenter.
The subject is TV where the time slots are largely set in stone. How they do the story is not.
How loosely or tightly bound an overarching plot is to the show varies greatly, even in oldTrek. DS9 was building up to the Dominion war from very early on. Voyager, meanwhile was only going to get home when the series was cancelled, so they didn't need strongly linked episodes or foreshadowing that DS9 had.
Did you just block quote that or take the time to read it too? Correct. Time slots are fixed. "How they do the story", is critical. If they do it poorly nobody will want to watch it. That means nobody is watching the ads that sponsored the show. It means that companies leave productions no one is watching.
Yes, that was the point. You start off calling story format not a tool, because time slots are the thing that are largely set in stone. You then contradict yourself by noting you can do different story formats within that limitation.
Phoenix's point on story format being a tool was exactly that. You can do one off episodes, or parts of a serial or whatever within the same time slots. Fine brush, wide brush, however you want to make your happy little trees, it varies based on the tool.
If you were trying to make a different point to contradict Phoenix I sure didn't get it.
Yup, Voyager had no character growth. Like the Doctor, the eternal boring EMH doing only what it was programmed to do, or Seven the Borg Drone who never tried to be more human, or Neelix who was happy to travel with the crew but never showed intimate interest in alpha quadrant cultures. No one had any children or relationships. We never learned more about these characters and their odd interests. They were the same from start to finish, like Ensign Kim.
Seven at the start of her apperance was a former Brog drone who didn't understand basics of human emotions and actions, and asked dumb questions, and made silly remarks about them.... Seven at the end of season 7 was pretty much the exact same, except now she is hooking up with Chakotay for some reason.
Its the exact same issue Data had in TNG. Any episodes where they obtain growth are pretty much entirely negated by the next episode in order to maintain the status quo for the episodic TV format.
Picard had more growth for Seven then her 4 years on Voyager did.
Yes Seven was a somewhat dull character. She still had character growth.
On Data that was true for TNG in general. Seasonal growth happened, but not so much between episodes. This was, as I understand, still a time period in which the order the episodes were aired in was not set in stone because it wasn't a serial, so they had to be somewhat ambiguous. You don't want Picard playing a strange flute in one episode before he gets it 3 weeks later. However, seasonally the characters did grow. Data got Spot, for example.
If the networks actually aired things in order despite it not being a serial, then the writers could do better character growth between episodes. Whose fault is it there? It isn't the format, its the executives making decisions.
@somtaawkhar My least favorite Trek too. Some of that is my resentment because it had the potential to be everything it wasn't. You still had a common ground that was a hotbed for character development and interactions and exploration of completely uncharted territory. I felt that they gave up on the original ideas that they had and worked to produce something that was simply palatable. Kes was interesting. The Vidians were ghoulish and redeemable at the same time. They had some good character moments contained in episodes with some of the cast but forgot about others completely. Garrett Wang deserved better and Robert Beltran was wasted on a role that had potential but was just pissed away.
@phoenixc You're splitting hairs on definitions of story. Episodic story format versus longer story formats that have become more prevalent should suffice.
A story format isn't a tool. Let's use art. A brush is a tool analogous to storytelling. A time slot is a canvas. It has finite space to tell a story that must conform to those parameters. Whether that is stand alone serials that happen between commercial breaks where the cliffhangers must keep an audience wondering what will happen after the break, or in 50 minute installments where the writer had more room for exposition and development You can use it well or leave the audience wondering if they feel dumber having subjected themselves to it.
Just because you have big blocks doesn't mean you must be fixiated on the big picture all of the time. You could still have an episode styled story within a larger plot. It would be better if it built or supported the central theme or revealed something more about a character or the big picture but that's part of being a better writer. There are patterns suited to different mediums but appealing to the audience and keeping them engaged over the whole run could be changing the tempo/focus and giving them something unexpected so your whole approach doesn't come across as formulaic. A failure to work with what you have is still a failure of the presenter.
The subject is TV where the time slots are largely set in stone. How they do the story is not.
How loosely or tightly bound an overarching plot is to the show varies greatly, even in oldTrek. DS9 was building up to the Dominion war from very early on. Voyager, meanwhile was only going to get home when the series was cancelled, so they didn't need strongly linked episodes or foreshadowing that DS9 had.
Did you just block quote that or take the time to read it too? Correct. Time slots are fixed. "How they do the story", is critical. If they do it poorly nobody will want to watch it. That means nobody is watching the ads that sponsored the show. It means that companies leave productions no one is watching.
Yes, that was the point. You start off calling story format not a tool, because time slots are the thing that are largely set in stone. You then contradict yourself by noting you can do different story formats within that limitation.
Phoenix's point on story format being a tool was exactly that. You can do one off episodes, or parts of a serial or whatever within the same time slots. Fine brush, wide brush, however you want to make your happy little trees, it varies based on the tool.
If you were trying to make a different point to contradict Phoenix I sure didn't get it.
Yup, Voyager had no character growth. Like the Doctor, the eternal boring EMH doing only what it was programmed to do, or Seven the Borg Drone who never tried to be more human, or Neelix who was happy to travel with the crew but never showed intimate interest in alpha quadrant cultures. No one had any children or relationships. We never learned more about these characters and their odd interests. They were the same from start to finish, like Ensign Kim.
Seven at the start of her apperance was a former Brog drone who didn't understand basics of human emotions and actions, and asked dumb questions, and made silly remarks about them.... Seven at the end of season 7 was pretty much the exact same, except now she is hooking up with Chakotay for some reason.
Its the exact same issue Data had in TNG. Any episodes where they obtain growth are pretty much entirely negated by the next episode in order to maintain the status quo for the episodic TV format.
Picard had more growth for Seven then her 4 years on Voyager did.
Yes Seven was a somewhat dull character. She still had character growth.
On Data that was true for TNG in general. Seasonal growth happened, but not so much between episodes. This was, as I understand, still a time period in which the order the episodes were aired in was not set in stone because it wasn't a serial, so they had to be somewhat ambiguous. You don't want Picard playing a strange flute in one episode before he gets it 3 weeks later. However, seasonally the characters did grow. Data got Spot, for example.
If the networks actually aired things in order despite it not being a serial, then the writers could do better character growth between episodes. Whose fault is it there? It isn't the format, its the executives making decisions.
The trouble is that they tried to force things with Seven.
You've got B'Elanna blaming her for being Borg, like she had a choice. You've got Tom Paris saying that he'll never judge her etc, but then slag her off in the Mess Hall and then the whole Chakotay thing at the eleventh hour, just to stop Beltran from quitting.
I personally think we saw a LOT more development in Seven than we did in most of the Voyager characters.
Janeway and Torres probably evolved the furthest, but it's a shame that Chakotay hadn't been more like Roga Danar or the Outrageous Okona, (or actually Rios) instead of immediately falling into Starfleet line.
The Seven requiring surgery to be human touch was awful and I liked her being a cold fish...but also loving that 20-years later and you can see the change. We really only did see four-years of her on Voyager, so it makes sense that she'd evolve as a person.
I'm so looking forward to seeing her full-time in Picard...
Yes, that was the point. You start off calling story format not a tool, because time slots are the thing that are largely set in stone. You then contradict yourself by noting you can do different story formats within that limitation.
Phoenix's point on story format being a tool was exactly that. You can do one off episodes, or parts of a serial or whatever within the same time slots. Fine brush, wide brush, however you want to make your happy little trees, it varies based on the tool.
If you were trying to make a different point to contradict Phoenix I sure didn't get it.
There was no contradiction. The space is finite. If you want to paint big happy trees you might get a couple in there. Smaller trees means more. Whatever you do in the space is still confined by it, and it is immutable. What you do on the canvas is your prerogative but it still has to fit or it's incomplete. It's a time block on a network, not a TARDIS .
Comments
Regarding the first thing: ENT was supposed to be a series about exploration, not just exploring space like all the other series did, but also exploring the foundations of the franchise. Thus showing Starfleet in a time and setting when they knew even less than in Kirk's time, with fewer friends, fewer different types of ships, fewer member species, less guidance (the Prime Directive and the star charts had to come from the Vulcans) and so on. And at the same time not being so hyper advanced in the technological sense that you lose all connection with today's world (hence the much more mechanic looking visuals and controls).
As a prequel, it really served as a nice bridge between today and the series set into the later, more developed centuries which had a much more established Federation and rounded out universe.
And after the initial exploring with some stories that made for good entertainment, most episodes were actually part of a bigger story - just as some of those first episodes actually were in some regards. If you want to complain about Voyager not using its opportunities for conflict to slowly bring together the two crews (which is a very understandable complaint), you should appreciate the fact that ENT actually did pay some attention to the building of trust, people finding their place on board and so on. Two examples are T'Pol initially being very distrusted and Sato's insecurity.
Moreover, this trust building was actually a major returning element with the Andorians early on, Shran's working relationship with Archer and how this helped settle conflicts with the Vulcans later on - the same Vulcans whose culture was explored as part of those same conflicts. And there were of course the Xindi and the Temporal Cold War arcs, with the former especially continuing to touch upon the themes of cooperation, making friends and gaining trust.
[3/25 10:41][Combat (Self)]Your Haymaker deals 26187 (10692) Physical Damage(Critical) to Orinoco.
Did you just block quote that or take the time to read it too? Correct. Time slots are fixed. "How they do the story", is critical. If they do it poorly nobody will want to watch it. That means nobody is watching the ads that sponsored the show. It means that companies leave productions no one is watching.
I'm gonna leave it up to the mods so say if this has gone too far already but fighting for the sake of fighting is not good for anyone.
No, I am not "making things up", it works the way I described but you seem to be interpreting it in a weird way. And your wiki link says the same thing I did except that they call arc-episodic format serialized episodes. Not everyone uses the term arc ("story arc" was coined in 1988) but the idea is the same, and J. Michael Straczynski was one of the first to use the term "arc episode" in the early 1990s.
The textbooks in the writing classes I took were written in the 2000s so they used the term because that is what Hollywood uses currently, but many older ones do not and use language similar the wiki article you linked. Do try to follow the concepts and not get stuck in exact-word rabbit holes. Serial and episode are vectors on a spectrum, not neat and tidy binary pigeonholes, and the arc terminology is a convenient way to describe mixed states between the two and/or plot structures with dissimilar layers where each fall on different parts of the spectrum, like this blog does in the last two paragraphs:
https://writingabouttv.wordpress.com/2011/03/12/beats-episodes-and-arc/
Also, I never said that serials did not have some plot threads that were contained within one season, what I said was that the story threads spin together into a whole "yarn" that is not necessarily constrained by the season framework. Just like your quote said, some of those may happen to span a single season or two and others can run for the entire length of the series, but what it neglects to mention is that that new threads can come in and old ones end at any point in a season, not just on season boundaries as if they were a miniseries with yearly discreet sequels.
I see you completely missed the point about the extra length allowing more complexity if the writers choose to use it to add to the depth, the fact that they can alternatively use it for "faffing about" with other things is irrelevant. And in fact, it is easier to "faff about" in a serial format, serials with a large number of concurrent threads with people going off in different directions doing things often end up needing "housekeeping" segments where nothing much happens except faffing about to touch bases and synchronize the threads (and yes, it is fairly rare in streaming TV since they usually have fewer threads but it happens a lot in superhero team comics).
I did mention that with Code Lyoko not everyone can see the layering the writer did with the mostly episodic kids cartoon main thread and arc format psychological thread for everyone else, even when it was pointed out, which the main writer, Sophie Decroisette, did in interviews about the show.
As for VOY, it was more of a "highlights" series of stories, they glossed over a lot of stuff with off-camera breaks that are mostly better left at undefined lengths, with just a good sense of the order of the episodes via reference to past episodes and other arc elements like the torpedo count they abandoned almost immediately and the also largely abandoned friction between crews thread.
Wow, the old "DSC hater" dodge makes another appearance, as if I couldn't see that one coming a mile away. I don't hate DSC (though I make no secret about liking TOS the most, followed by DS9 and ENT), in fact I watch it when I get the chance (though I will say that I am not impressed with what I have seen of PIC).
When I say it is action movie format that is an analysis not a "hater's" slight of the series, and Kurtzman talks about it being in action movie format in interviews so I am definitely not "making it up". It is possible to critique, (and even criticize parts of) a series and to point out things like its plot structure, writing style, and things that do and don't mesh well with previous series without "hating" it or being "biased" against the series.
And it is true that the action movie format is intrinsically shallower than most other dramatic formats since it caters specifically to people who prefer pulse-pounding action and eye candy and don't care as much about plot details as they do the stunts and other visuals. The ultimate example of the format is the Fast and Furious movies.
> Guy if you're just gonna use this thread to have fight because you don't like same things I'm gonna to have ask this to be closed, so please do behave.
>
> I'm gonna leave it up to the mods so say if this has gone too far already but fighting for the sake of fighting is not good for anyone.
"Guy", is little vague as to who you are addressing. My comment proceeded yours so I will assume you were addressing me. I'm happy to have a civil discussion if someone has read what I wrote and doesn't agree. If someone reinterates something I wrote, presenting it as a rebuttle then they are arguing against something they haven't read. I agree that is pointless. My response was terse, but no there was no namecalling. I did identify a problematic behavior. What would you have written in my place?
> > @spiritborn said:
> > Guy if you're just gonna use this thread to have fight because you don't like same things I'm gonna to have ask this to be closed, so please do behave.
> >
> > I'm gonna leave it up to the mods so say if this has gone too far already but fighting for the sake of fighting is not good for anyone.
>
> "Guy", is little vague as to who you are addressing. My comment proceeded yours so I will assume you were addressing me. I'm happy to have a civil discussion if someone has read what I wrote and doesn't agree. If someone reinterates something I wrote, presenting it as a rebuttle then they are arguing against something they haven't read. I agree that is pointless. My response was terse, but no there was no namecalling. I did identify a problematic behavior. What would you have written in my place?
Not just my dylexia and this heat that made me make a minor misspelling that should read "guys" as in you and Som
Yes, that was the point. You start off calling story format not a tool, because time slots are the thing that are largely set in stone. You then contradict yourself by noting you can do different story formats within that limitation.
Phoenix's point on story format being a tool was exactly that. You can do one off episodes, or parts of a serial or whatever within the same time slots. Fine brush, wide brush, however you want to make your happy little trees, it varies based on the tool.
If you were trying to make a different point to contradict Phoenix I sure didn't get it.
Yes Seven was a somewhat dull character. She still had character growth.
On Data that was true for TNG in general. Seasonal growth happened, but not so much between episodes. This was, as I understand, still a time period in which the order the episodes were aired in was not set in stone because it wasn't a serial, so they had to be somewhat ambiguous. You don't want Picard playing a strange flute in one episode before he gets it 3 weeks later. However, seasonally the characters did grow. Data got Spot, for example.
If the networks actually aired things in order despite it not being a serial, then the writers could do better character growth between episodes. Whose fault is it there? It isn't the format, its the executives making decisions.
The trouble is that they tried to force things with Seven.
You've got B'Elanna blaming her for being Borg, like she had a choice. You've got Tom Paris saying that he'll never judge her etc, but then slag her off in the Mess Hall and then the whole Chakotay thing at the eleventh hour, just to stop Beltran from quitting.
I personally think we saw a LOT more development in Seven than we did in most of the Voyager characters.
Janeway and Torres probably evolved the furthest, but it's a shame that Chakotay hadn't been more like Roga Danar or the Outrageous Okona, (or actually Rios) instead of immediately falling into Starfleet line.
The Seven requiring surgery to be human touch was awful and I liked her being a cold fish...but also loving that 20-years later and you can see the change. We really only did see four-years of her on Voyager, so it makes sense that she'd evolve as a person.
I'm so looking forward to seeing her full-time in Picard...
There was no contradiction. The space is finite. If you want to paint big happy trees you might get a couple in there. Smaller trees means more. Whatever you do in the space is still confined by it, and it is immutable. What you do on the canvas is your prerogative but it still has to fit or it's incomplete. It's a time block on a network, not a TARDIS