Jump to content
SteveHNo96

Stellar vs. Beatrice

Recommended Posts

I'm going to admit something that I'm sure would cause a flurry of "WHAT? Are you kidding me?"

 

I honestly think Roger is too good for Beatrice.

 

I've played SQV, Incinerations and VSB and Beatrice has one thing in common in all of them. She is borderline psychotic in the abuse department. She's almost as bad as Judge Judy (assuming Judge Judy isn't alive in the canon of Space Quest, but you never know -- if only the good die young, she'll outlive all of us). Beatrice is willing to complain about every little thing in the universe that Roger might do. In fact, the only time I've ever heard her really say anything semi-romantic was when you score perfect in Incinerations.

 

Stellar, admittedly, is not a total sycophant but at least treats Roger more like a friend as opposed to Bea teaming up with the narrator to verbally abuse Roger until he has no choice but to put a pulseray in his mouth and pull the trigger. I recently read that in Space Quest 6, Stellar even tried to get the narrator to stop being a dick to him.

 

I honestly would make a move on Stellar, have a kid that's not a total screw-up and maybe instead of him just being a time rip junkie, he can do something really awesome like be a 24th century Hugh Hefner in addition. ;) What's to keep him from having billions of buckazoids and all the babes he'll ever need? :)

 

Do the Two Guys really hate Roger so much that they're willing to have his girlfriend, the narrator and every creature in the universe give him a friggin' inferiority complex?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand Beatrice's reaction to Roger in SQ5 because it worked great for the storyline. It wasn't that she was treating him like crap, but moreso that Roger is just (unsurprisingly) terrible at first impressions. It worked great for the age-old story because Roger had to prove himself by doing what he does best to impress her. But initially, Roger was just a huge disappointment to her. Especially when everytime he encountered her he did something clumsy and stupid. It's perfect for a love story.

 

Incinerations and VSB were fangames too so they don't count lol. I dislike how SQ6 just ignores Beatrice altogether and brings along this other person trying to pass her off as better. Plus the wrinkles on her forehead were ugly. I always thought that she was an alien and that those wrinkles were her distinctive alien...er..distinctions. I guess she was human (er, Xenonian?) after all? I was just not impressed with Stellar at all. She must have been pretty desperate to stoop to the likes of Roger, after all. Must be something wrong with her! lol Not really, I suppose, but even so, she just seemed like a suck up and a fangirl too much. It was almost the exact opposite roles compared to Roger and Beatrice.

 

And yes, The Two Guys will do anything to Roger. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember, Bea's personality was almost exclusively developed by Mark Crowe and David Selle for SQ5, without the input of Scott Murphy. The only thing we see of Beatrice in any of the Two Guys' games is the hologram at the end of SQ4. So we don't know if Bea was always supposed to be this take-no-bullshit strong woman type (although, personally, I see that as a great fit for someone like Roger).

 

But if we take Bea's character from SQ5 (and in subsequent fan games) as read, then I'm actually with Bea. Roger's a complete fuck-up when she first meets him; he does come through for her and rescue her from the mutant pukoids, but, really, how is that a basis for any relationship? And once they return to StarCon, he's immediately busted back down to janitor and is back to being a fuck-up. Basically, it's the clichéd end line from the movie Speed: "I've heard relationships based on intense experiences never work." Apart from rescuing her (and doing so only because he's been told that this is his wife-to-be!), Roger hasn't really done anything to connect with her on an emotional level. At least, not from what we've seen.

 

We've basically never seen them be "boyfriend/girlfriend," is what I'm saying. And something tells me that Roger's scatterbrained and clumsy approach to life, coupled with his supreme laziness, doesn't necessarily make him good boyfriend-material when there isn't a life-threatening danger around for him to foil.

 

So that's one of the reasons I was so impressed with the way Chris Ushko handled the love triangle in Incinerations and also why I don't think Bea is "a bitch" (as many have accused her of) at all. I think she's behaving very rationally and, frankly, I understand her. She's not a mind reader; she doesn't know Roger's feelings, and he's not exactly adept at displaying them (they tend to come out wrong, if they come out at all).

 

Welp. My two buckazoids there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess my opinion is skewed because I dealt with my own version of Bea Wankmeister, spending nearly three years in college dealing with a woman who was cold, uncaring and would bitch more than anyone. (Literally I had to walk away because she was so hurtful on two separate occasions). I always liked to root for the underdog as it were and there needs to be someone out there that gives him one iota of respect, otherwise he might as well be called Larry Laffer and there's already a game about THAT problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, as far as SQ5 and 6 are concerned, I like Stellar better, although I'm sure SQ7, whether a Sierra one or a Colin Davis/Josho one would have given us a lot to think about regarding that situation.

 

The good thing about Stellar is that she makes sense. She's Roger's superior by the time of SQ6, but Roger had a higher rank than her at one point and she obviously has affection and a good opinion of him, despite his goofy ways. I actually like how Roger is portrayed in SQ6 as well, but I love SQ6, so i'm probably biased.

 

The point is, now that SQ5 and 6 are complete, and no SQ7 ever happened, what direction does Roger's relationship with these 2 go in. We know a couple things:

- Roger marries Bea in the future

- In the original SQ6 ending, Josh would have had Roger and Stellar going on a date, or something close to

- Zondra from SQ10

 

I guess I view Stellar as a transitional girlfriend. From my perspective, it would make sense if Roger and Stellar had some sort of relationship from SQ6 end on, and then it doesn't work out for whatever reason (Stellar finds a guy with cranial ridges, who knows), and then Zondra comes along, and then Beatrice again. Or maybe Bea overlaps a lot, but they spend a lot of time apart, because she's an Ambassador and he's dommed to always be a lowly janitor (think ofthe Gary Owens line from SQ6 in Roger's quarters about the poster).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So that's one of the reasons I was so impressed with the way Chris Ushko handled the love triangle in Incinerations and also why I don't think Bea is "a bitch" (as many have accused her of) at all. I think she's behaving very rationally and, frankly, I understand her. She's not a mind reader; she doesn't know Roger's feelings, and he's not exactly adept at displaying them (they tend to come out wrong, if they come out at all).

 

This. I've commented about Bea and/or Stellar in other threads before, so I'll just summarize by saying that Troels' summary is the perfect summarization of what my summary would be summarizing were I to be summarizing it again here. :huh:

 

But, yeah. Especially in the writing for SQ6, Bea is meant to be less "bitch" and more "violently jealous for comedic effect". I.E. She's the sort of woman who genuinely likes Roger, but does *not* like him getting pseudo-romantically entangled with other women, and the whole thing is played for laughs at Roger's expense (due to his...less than macho personality). Bea is a strong, authoritative woman who Gets Things Done and doesn't take any crap, while Roger is a (relatively) laid-back, dismotivated guy who usually needs some outside motivating factor (such a life-threatening crisis) to get him in gear. They really are a perfect match, in that sense. ;)

 

Meanwhile, I actually really like Stellar, and think that she's *also* a good match for Roger, albeit in a different way. I rather liked the multiple endings of Incinerations, and part of me kept hoping that, even if the whole fiasco with Bea fell through, he might end up with Stellar instead for an unexpected, but still happy, ending. That didn't quite happen, of course, but I did love the Stellar ending regardless - it put a nice bow on their friendship-turned-unresolved-romantic-tension-turned-friendship again relationship, Again, Incinerations did a great job of doing justice to her character and her relationship with Roger without playing favorites or bashing anyone's character along the way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thing about women is they don't get how much freedom they do have. Specifically, they're totally free within the domain of sandwich-making. That's a privilege if ever there was one. I can't see why no one has picked up on this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't really get it either. I'm not a huge fan of sandwiches anyway. If I had a choice, I'd much rather have a nice, home-made pizza or maybe a healthy serving of chili con carne. But misogynists seem to settle for the most boring choice of food humanely possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank goodness I know for a fact that you three are socially conscious liberal types, or we'd have to have words. ;)


Okay, long quasi-academic post forthcoming!

 

I don't think Space Quest 6 goes out of its way to deny the existence of Beatrice, nor her significance in Roger's life. I know that Scott took a sledgehammer to Mark's creation ("perpetrating a sequel without authorization"), but the game does drop hints, esp. in some of the click events in Roger's quarter, that he and Beatrice are still chatting - intimately, at that. I'm aware that conventional video game (and fictional) storytelling basically denies the feasibility of long-distance relationships, but it's not as if any conscious attempt was made by Scott or Josh to eviscerate said relationship, though pretty much any other trace of Space Quest 5 had been figuratively denied any sort of entry into the game. Furthermore, it's not evident at the end of Space Quest 6 that anything further is likely to transpire between Roger and Stellar. It's hard to be sure of that since there was an ending scene deleted from the game which seemed to hint at a closer relationship between the two, but as far as we know, Roger's general attitude towards Stellar is strictly platonic and professional. Contrast to Stellar who basically went out of her way to save Roger when nobody else would.

 

Oh, sure, Roger goes out to rescue Stellar when he realizes the truth of the matter, but she saved his sorry butt twice. Methinks he felt slightly indebted, no?

 

Oh, and looking back, throwing Stellar into the mix essentially muddies the waters even further since - as pointed out above - we know for a fact that Roger got together with Zondra at some point in the series. :P The question is when? Roger at some point presumably said to her that "he couldn't be tied down" and that "he had to be free to roam the galaxy". So, was this in-between sequels? Did Zondra and Roger date prior to Space Quest 1? Did Roger suddenly have a mid-life crisis between SQ7 and SQ10, where he abandoned all of his love interests and went cruising round the star systems with Zondra, at least up to the point where she decided that it was time for them to go steady?

 

We also know for sure that Roger Jr. has to enter the equation, otherwise no one can go back in time to save Roger from the Sequel Policemen. Since Space Quest 4 was made by both Scott and Mark, there can be no second-guessing that. That means at some point, Roger and Beatrice marry and have a kid. Then something, presumably a life-altering experience, happens to both of them. I'm inclined to believe Daniel Stacey's sequence of events as outlined in Future's History. So that's two things we know as fact: At some point Roger dated Zondra, and at some point Roger had at least one child with Beatrice. All of these things hold true regardless of Space Quest 5's place in the series, because at the very least Scott and Mark agreed upon the aforementioned in Space Quest 4.

 

Disclaimer: Regrettably I have not played Incinerations, but since it's a fangame it's not established canon anyway. ;) At this point we are simply left to our own imaginations what happened after the last released game in the official series. Incinerations is as good an interpretation as any.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have a problem with anyone having their own opinions, but there's hopefully a world of difference between a meek, doormat passing as a human female and a psychotic bitch that looks like what happens when you cross-breed the Cryptkeeper with a rabid pit bull (that's Judge Judy, not Bea, although Bea has a lot of her personality quirks).

 

women are supposed to be kind, sensitive, caring. I know loan sharks that are more affable than Bea. Somewhere in between a Disney movie heroine and a Disney movie villain has to be the right balance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We've tended to reward bad behavior though in too many ways. I hate to pick on Judge Judy but I bet she was the one who drove Socrates to eat that hemlock. If you want another example, take Berta from Two and a Half Men. Basically, because she's heavier than most forklifts she thinks she can just say anything and people will laugh at it.

 

The way I look at it, Roger has enough strikes against him. He's part of a Sierra game so one wrong step and he's toast. Second, the announcer clearly hates his guts. Ignoring the fact that he's voiced by Gary Owens (a man who might be a God in human form), we have to say that it's fairly obvious that the announcer is giving him a serious inferiority complex. this is only exacerbated by the fact that apparently he screws up so badly that even his co-workers wonder how the hell he's still on the payroll.

 

I'm looking at this objectively from Roger's perspective. He goes to work, his boss reminds him of how much he's a failure. he has very few buckazoids to last him until Starcon sees clear to give him another paycheck, a huge race of green and red-skinned aliens invade and he manages to defeat them using a drain snake, only to find out that he was in a restricted airspace to save the universe from being blown to bits so even the robots won't talk to him, and he's cleaning toilets for a month. He just wants to sit down at home with some Keronian Ale and heeeeeeeeere comes Ms. Complaint Department herself, Beatrice, reminding him that he left his toilet seat up and he smells bad because he's got alien goo on him.

 

Is that the life of a hero? You would think his girlfriend would at least give him some support.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've always been intrigued by Roger & Zondra...what exactly were the circumstances behind THAT encounter?

 

I think ultimately though, despite her "bitchy qualities", in the end Bea gives Roger a push to be more motivated. I believe that the path Roger took in Space Quest 5 subconsciously sprang from seeing the hologram of Bea in the future...

 

Another thing I wonder is...Roger obviously remembers traveling through time...when the Super Computer enters it's construction phase, does he simply accept his fate...or perhaps it is the bright minds themselves that want to keep Roger out of the way...I doubt they would believe or care about his claims...what if Professor Lloyd's message ended up preaching to the very man he "disposed of"?

 

I hope this makes sense I'm more than "slightly buzzed" haha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've always been intrigued by Roger & Zondra...what exactly were the circumstances behind THAT encounter?

My money's still on Roger having a midlife crisis while raising a family with Beatrice and Roger Jr., and running off and becoming something akin to Leisure Suit Larry In Space.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We've tended to reward bad behavior though in too many ways. I hate to pick on Judge Judy but I bet she was the one who drove Socrates to eat that hemlock. If you want another example, take Berta from Two and a Half Men. Basically, because she's heavier than most forklifts she thinks she can just say anything and people will laugh at it.

That is quite a sexist thing to say. But since I assume you mean no malice, perhaps you should think about why that could be construed as offensive.

 

Who gives a damn how Judge Judy or Bertha behave? Is there a specific way women are supposed to be? Meek, polite, not "a bitch"? Why are men not held up to the same standard? Is Barney from How I Met Your Mother "rewarded" for his behaviour? What is the standard by which women should be judged?

 

If a woman wants to say "outrageous" things, why the hell shouldn't she? Why shouldn't a woman in a position of power be condescending and patronising? If a man did any of those things, I doubt you'd be so quick to judge.

 

If you don't like Bertha or Judy, fine (I'm probably with you on that score). But to suggest that this is bad behaviour for women, or that it is somehow "rewarded" pretty much ignores the way that women are disciplined in general through their lives. 

 

Women shouldn't be anything other than human beings. The question of whether people in general ought to behave in certain ways is certainly up for debate. But leave gender out of it. It has nothing to do with the issues at hand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is quite a sexist thing to say. But since I assume you mean no malice, perhaps you should think about why that could be construed as offensive.

 

Who gives a damn how Judge Judy or Bertha behave? Is there a specific way women are supposed to be? Meek, polite, not "a bitch"? Why are men not held up to the same standard? Is Barney from How I Met Your Mother "rewarded" for his behaviour? What is the standard by which women should be judged?

 

 

Oh look out. Here comes the PC police with the big four of BS. (that being "racist", "sexist", "bigot" or "homophobe"), basically if any protected group acts in a way another person doesn't like, why that person should be treated like Hester Prynne and completely excommunicated from the human race. Why? Who cares. We are the PC Police and we have the right to bully and mistreat anyone we want.

 

Alright, let's put it this way. Judge Judy and Berta from Two and a Half Turds act in such a way that they act like they have a complete vendetta against all of humanity. Barney from HIMYM may be manipulative, however, he at least is likable not because he's a sleazebag, but because under it all, he's just the average person trying to succeed more with women. If he went in and said even 10% of the stuff that Judge Judy or Berta said, he wouldn't have a girlfriend or a hook-up, they'd call him a name I can't repeat here (it begins with "A" and ends with "E" and has seven letters) and no one would want to be within fifty miles of him. This has nothing to do with gender, it has to do with overall disposition. Friendliness goes a long way, even in manipulation. You do catch more flies with honey than with vinegar, except apparently with Judge Judy and Berta they're hoping to catch flies with a Durian.

 

Again, especially in 'Murica, we tend to reward behavior when female characters are borderline psychotic. A perfect example of that is in the Leisure Suit Larry series of games, which I contend only have gotten famous because they play on the very real fear that men have regarding women. If a woman had even one of the tortures that happened to Larry happen to her, people would say "HEY! HOW CAN YOU BE SO MISOGYNISTIC?". Some of the death scenes in the series are flat out reprehensible and physically disgusting and people go "ha ha ha. What a loser".

 

 

 

If a woman wants to say "outrageous" things, why the hell shouldn't she? Why shouldn't a woman in a position of power be condescending and patronising? If a man did any of those things, I doubt you'd be so quick to judge.

 

See my last post.

 

 

 

If you don't like Bertha or Judy, fine (I'm probably with you on that score). But to suggest that this is bad behaviour for women, or that it is somehow "rewarded" pretty much ignores the way that women are disciplined in general through their lives.

 

Take 3: If any man said even 10% of the stuff that "independent" women ever since Roseanne have said, they would not be rewarded for it. They'd be heavily ostracized and the average person would say "What an" (Here's that word again. I'm sorry but no other word seems to fit). trust me, no man could get away with having anywhere near as foul of a disposition as they are, and this is my problem with Beatrice.

 

Beatrice is never nice to Roger. Not once. How can he even put up with that? Is he so desperate for any degree of attention that he'd take someone that quite honestly, would want him dead almost as much as the Arnoid Annihilator from SQ3.

 

Stellar is at least understanding that Roger is trying to better his life. She's only really nasty to him when she has to be or he doesn't get the point. Why exactly he doesn't try to hook up with Stellar and have a child that could, theoretically, be a Time Ripper is anyone's guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First off, at least I was trying to be civil.

 

Second, I am not "the PC police."

 

Third, my issue is over the idea that women OR men are "expected" to behave in a certain way. I agree with most of what you say about psychopaths and manipulators. My point is that there's no need for it to be about gender. My points about male behaviour were a request to think about it, not an assertion that men should or shouldn't do anything. Beatrice is a bad PERSON, not a bad woman. A simple idea. A simple request. One which you're more than welcome to ignore, if that floats your particular boat.

 

But we've had these discussions elsewhere, and I'm frankly tired of them. You're looking to take offence, which I find deliciously ironic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know whether I should be proud or horrified that this discussion partly arose because of the way Bea was interpreted in two fangames I worked on. If you find Bea "borderline psychotic" in VSB or SQInc, just be happy it's not, and will never be, canon. Bea was portrayed in SQV, and that's her only authorised appearance.

 

I will say that I've never understood why some people can't put themselves into her shoes in the latter game. The story explicitly states she's been continually neglected by her oblivious buffoon of a boyfriend for the past ten years. If you don't allow the character to express anger, frustration and resentment at that -  and yes, she may be imperfect in that she is prone to overreacting, but hey, you're allowing Roger to be an obviously imperfect character - and simply call her "psychotic", a "bitch" or whatever, I think that says some fairly unfortunate things about the way you look at relationships and I can only hope it only applies to those that are fictional.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh look out. Here comes the PC police with the big four of BS. (that being "racist", "sexist", "bigot" or "homophobe")

This is probably the dumbest thing I've read today; pardon my bluntness. Are you actually suggesting that we shouldn't care about racism, sexism, bigotry or homophobia? To me, writing "big four of BS" about these topics is just self-servingly ignorant.

 

Don't get me wrong. I'm not intent on upholding some PC standard for behavior or to encourage self-censorship in any way. I'm just going to reiterate the point that I already quoted Carlin on in the "damsel in distress" post, which is that it's the intent behind a statement that's offensive, not the words or wordings themselves. Your "intent" here, however, seems to be that anyone who decries racism, sexism, bigotry or homophobia is by default trying to control your thoughts and force you to conform to a certain world view.

 

Not so. You can tell me a racist joke if you're not racist, because I know it's not coming from a prejudiced mind. You can tell me a sexist joke or a gay joke, too, if you fundamentally believe in gender equality or gay rights. If you don't, however, and tell me a joke on either of these anyway, I'm going to assume that you're just a bigoted a-hole who thinks it's funny to pick on people different than yourself. That's the fundamental difference between being PC and being able to joke about things.

 

It's not self-censorship. It's not about giving up your freedom to say what you want. It's about having values that don't demean or belittle other human beings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...