A2Z said:
Thanks. I think it needed to be said.
Brown Jenkin said:
How about I write an erotic furry star trek with me as the lead character.
(Wish I could find the link, could someone with the search feature who gets this please post it.)
Furries frighten and confuse me. Wait. That's not quite true. Web sites that I have seen that are devoted to furries frighten and confuse me. I think it might be all of that fur.
Eternalknight said:
Mark! You da man! Several months ago, I started a "Why do so many people hate Voyager" thread and I came to the same conclusions as you: If you hated it, why watch it? And, show me something you can do that is better. So, I second your thoughts Mark 
I remember the thread. Like all of the Star Terk incarnations, there's something about Voyager that was unique and worthwhile. It's my understanding that Gene Roddenberry had a handful of ideas for Sci/Fi (only some of them ST spin offs) that were initiated (IIRC) during the time when he was pitching TNG. DS9 was proffered as an idea that used his ST universe, but stepped away from the "following a single ship of exploration" formula by using a space station. Sadly, the wave of people who disliked it because it didn't have enough "shoot em up/blow em up" scenes prompted them to add in the Defiant later in the series and to bring in/back Worf. Voyager just turned the regular formula on its head by dumping the ship way out yonder and allowing it to journey back home. In this I felt they might have gone a bit further to develop unusual races, though I also felt that some of the antagonistic and cooperative beings found along the way were interesting and innovative (liquidic space?).
uv23 said:
Mark, if you don't like reading about people's opinions other than your own then you should do your blood pressure a favor and not waste your time on internet message boards.
I never mind reading opinions when they include some form of constructive content. Unfortunately, the lack of content is only discovered after having read a post. Perhaps, in those cases, we can get people to label their posts as [ drivel]? BTW, thanks for your concern about my health. All is well.
uv23 said:
As far as improving Enterprise goes, there are countless ways.
Theoretically, true. I see you have chosen to present five. Thanks, at least, for that and I'll comment on each.
uv23 said:
a) Time travel is bullocks. Its a stupid concept that has been beaten to death by every next gen series before it. Voyager's entire ending was based on time travel for cripes sakes.
I, on the other hand, like that ST has explored the idea of time travel and, while sometimes confused by their choices, do not think they should simply avoid the notion. There were several episodes of TOS that worked with time travel. It's hard to ignore an entire segment of theoretical science in Science Fiction without straining creative credibility of the whole. How is any creative idea so easily dismissed by you as "bullocks", btw? If what you mean is that it isn't viable and therefore not worth exploring, wouldn't you have to be from the future to state this definitively?
uv23 said:
b) Everything is too easy. This is pre-Kirk. I want to see ingenuity, hard work, blood and sweat. I don't want to see more miracle creations from the engineer as he single handedly staves off the destruction of the ship by combining parts from a hand blender and a warp nacelle.
I must have missed the irrascable "blender episode" so I'll reserve comment on that until you can tell me more about it. As to how easy it is or is not, I think the ending of this season's opener included a rant by the Vulcan ambassador detailing just how often the first Enterprise was screwing up. The innovation of utilizing their technology in new and interesting ways has been a staple of ST since the first series. Are there only some examples that you are willing to support, while all of the newer attempts fall short of your expectations? If so, why? I'll admit that I was a little surprised that the shuttle doors could withstand the blast from that mine, but they supported the idea with some dialog, so I was willing to suspend my disbelief.
uv23 said:
c) No one ever dies. This is a much harder time. Give the show some edge by inserting the occasional casualty. To my knowledge, they don't have force field technology at the time so why did no one get sucked out when the entire side of the enterprise's saucer section get ripped out? This is no galaxy class cruiser - there's not a lot of room to spare that wouldn't be populated.
No one on the Enterprise has died...yet. There are a number of ways that the lack of deaths in the particular episode you mention can be explained, including that damage was confined to crew quarters areas of the ship while the crew was on alert and at their stations. I, too, would have preferred that they address this in some way in the dialog. I think they are probably shying away from crew member deaths to avoid having to explain why the Enterprise isn't being recalled. It may also be that they wanted to avoid having any crew member deaths in the first season while they coaxed a new audience to the show. *shrug* Kind of a shame that Porthos survived, IMO.
uv23 said:
d) Its too clean. Brannon Braga needs a hard lesson in watchign some of the grittier sci-fi movies out there. I just watched Alien 4 again the other night. And while its no masterpiece, I foudn myself far more involved and creeped out because of a greater feelign of realism rather than the comfort of beautiful plasticky bulkheads.
I'm of the opinion that a sterile environment (ALA
2001) is more likely than the psuedo-WWII-era-submarine environment you suggest should be the norm in space travel. I do not think that dirt equals grit. I want my grit to be in the character's personalities, not on the walls. I also think the lighting should be much better. I find it hard to believe that a highly technical work environment would be bathed in shadows. It's not condusive to easily and properly maintaining the ship. It is, I'll grant you, much spookier and helps to scare small children.
uv23 said:
e) Enough with the soap opera! If I wanted soap opera, I'd watch the Young and the Restless. They pull it off far better. Give us real storylines and real drama - not some adolescent sexual tensiuon between horny human captains and their ridiculous bodysuit-wearing vulcan science officers.
Even TOS transformed into a primarily character driven show before its end. To suggest that all of the drama and storylines should come from outside of the ship, would be a bit narrow-minded and limiting. Personally, I think that of all of the ST incarnations, TNG (once it found its feet) seemed to handle the plot/sub-plot formula as well as any, if not best; serving up an outside influnce, and simultaneously a character driven thread, switching between which was the primary and which secondary from time to time.
uv23 said:
And I could go on and on and on.. I wanted this show to be good, which is why I am doubly dissapointed by the fact that it is not. If you don't like it, too bad. I will continue to express my opinions regardless.
I think you are taking my words personally when they seemingly aren't directed at you given your ability to make a point. Thanks for the content but please check your blood pressure.
Eternalknight said:
Of course, these are just your opinions. Again, no one is forcing you to watch it....
What I think Mark is getting at, is that some people whine and carry on, forcing us to endure "This is crap! And whatever anyone else says, unless they agree with me, is wrong", and Mark (and other poeple, including myself) are sick of it. (Hope you don't mind me responding for you Mark! 
)
Don't mind a bit but I hasten to add that I have no problem with people having opinions. I would just find them more worthwhile if they were coupled to something that goes beyond the usual bitching. It's kinda like having a conversation in a restaurant about a movie you've just shared with a friend and having someone at the next table turn to you and shout, "That sucked!" only to go back to their meal as if nothing had just transpired. Not only is it ridiculous, its not civil, constructive or interesting. I fear that the Internet has empowered people to share their thoughts but that some people haven't learned to focus their energies and respond to topics thoughtfully.
Femerus the Gnecro said:
Wow.
That is one of the most pretentious, opinionated, self-important posts I have ever read on these boards.
Out of curiosity, what makes you any different than the vocal majority of long winded, opinionated internet trek posters? You complain about how people complain about specific series, yet you devote two and a half paragraphs talking about why DS9 was awful.
Self reflection is a *good* thing.
-F
I complain about people that complain about ST without adding any content. What makes me different is the addition of content. As long as you are rolling your eyes back toward yourself, please heed your own words and reflect.
Wolf72 said:
I try to beat mark to the punch ... but he seems to get it in there pretty quick.
I liked most things star trek, 'cept DS9 and voyager ... which I didn't watch.
I can't believe how bad the first season of TNG was until I saw the reruns ...
To the first season of TNG's credit, they were developing the characters to lay a foundation for future seasons. I think that the acting was the most damaging thing to the first season of TNG but character driven Sci/Fi television was much less accepted back then. I am actually surprised how quickly the actors got into the swing of it, in retrospect, though I must admit to cringing a few times when I watched it originally.
Umbran said:
Femerus:
Mark has a point that you seem to be missing.
Let us, for the sake of argument, say that you really, really like cheese. You live near a small grocery that sells gourmet cheeses, and at this market, you have a little weekly club with friends where you sit, do cheese tasing, and discuss all things cheese.
And some guy comes in every week, walking through your meeting wearing a placard that says, "Cheese is nasty!" He picks up a piece from your plate, sniffs it and cheerfully says, "Mmmm! Smelly!". He recites a little poem about how cheese is in essense rotted milk. He repeatedly puts a damper on your cheese club activities.
Now, you may feel that he's got a right to an opinion, but you'd probably also be a little annoyed. With the right to have an opinion comes the responsibility to state that opinion wisely. The guy is thoroughly rude, and non-constructive.
Mark is right, in that it really doesn't make sense that folks who really don't like the show (and admit they don't actually watch it!)come in to gripe. If you don't like it, and don't watch it, fine. If you really must talk about it, go start another thread debating the merits of other sci-fi over Star Trek. There's no bloody need to come around and harass people who do like it.
The internet allows folks to slip into rude behavior if they don't think. I doubt that uv23 would state his position in quite the same way if he had to walk into a fan club meeting and say it to fan faces. That wouldn't be acceptable. But it is here? Right, sure. 
For the record, there are many cheeses I wouldn't touch with a ten foot pole. I would not, however, shout unsubstantiated opinions of cheese over someone's shoulder while they were eating.
Umbran said:
Mark,
I ask this with some humor - What planet are you from?
I was born and have always resided on Earth. As of yesterday, for forty years.
Umbran said:
I'll admit that the internet crowd is largely ignored these days - the demise of Farscape stands as pretty sure evidence of that. However, I'll have to disagree with your contentions about DS9. I don't see how you can say that DS9 was the worst of the series, when there's Voyager stitting there in front of you.
Worst from the perspective of not sticking with their original intention. While adding the Defiant to the series pumped up the action, it was a complete turn around. The plan was to avoid any big space battles and use only the space station as the primary setting. It's my contention that the out pouring of sentiment on the Internet about the show not having enough action was largely responsible and perpetuated this change in plans. I think that the Internet is currently viewed as a place where most centrists of opinion on various topics lurk, while the strongly empassioned and crack pots spout off. Likely, most people would suggest that I fall into the latter category though I maintain a generally centrist position on most subjects.
Umbran said:
Maybe you didn't like the characters. Maybe you didn't personally like where the plot went. Maybe you didn't like them not staying to "one true vision" for the series. But as a piece of drama, DS9 was superior to Voyager in every way.
You may have had me until you wrote "every" The characters from both series had their moments. I'll have to go through the episode guides for them and make some notes. I'll add them to a future thread on the subject because my time is limited today. Sorry.
Umbran said:
Whether you liked them or not, the DS9 characters were all fully utilized. They actually worked as an ensemble, every character saw significant development,and the characters largely drove the plot. As opposed to Voyager, where the enseble rapidly turned into the Doctor, Seven of Nine, and the Captain, with all else as backdrop. And one of those three didn't even notably develop - the captain did not grow as a character, which didn't really matter because the plot wasn't diven by the characters anyway.
Much like Sisko of DS9, Janeway is the pivotal character around which all others are developed in Voyager. Unlike DS9, Janeway remains true to her character and isn't treated as a minor deity (Emissary?) Perhaps Janeway would have been more interesting if they ran into a race whose entire fate was in her hands and used that as the through line for the entire series, as they did with Sisko. Then again, we'd be in a situation where everyone would cry "It's been done!"
Umbran said:
How, then, is DS9 the worst? It wasn't DS9 that left the world thinking about whether there would or would not be another series after that...
Stated above, in regard to it sticking to its original vision. I can imagine that after DS9, many people felt that the world simply wasn't ready to allow people to create a series based on ST again. It certainly seemed from the Internet that the television industry couldn't develop a series without a great deal of input from the general public. I often wonder how many creative works would have been made in the past if every decision was made while thousands of people stood behind the creators shouting out how poorly they were doing. I think that Voyager, regardless of personal opinions regarding the quality of the show, demonstrated how the creative skin of the television industry had thickened against online technology and opinion. I think this is the fault of a vocal minority from the general public, not a fault of the producers.
Umbran said:
It isn't DS9 that suffered by the production people listening too much. It was Voyager that was ruined by listening too little. By all reports I have read, Voyager suffered from a simple problem - the Producers had a formula, and they were going to stick to it, come hell or high water. The actors complained, the writers complained, the audience complained. The producers stuck to the formula. The human characters had to be made "vanilla" to allow the aliens to seem more alien and interesting. They would not allow much character development, as that would mean eventually modification of the formula. This means the characters don't grow, and must have the plot inflicted upon them.
I'd venture a guess that while the producers of Voyager insulated themselves from online opinion, other areas of talent did not, and rather than follow the production's vision, spent too much of thier claiming things should be changed. It's very difficult to do your best work when you aren't trying to do the work you've been contracted to do. This puts the success or failure of the show in the hands of the writers and actors. If, for instance (and I suppose none of us know for sure), the overall vision is simply to drop the ship way out there and for the writers to find a way to get it home, what's done is done. Unless the producers agreed to allow the ship to come home early, there really isn't a whole lot that the producers can do other than to take whatever the writers offer as their best work and go with it. I don't think that the acting in Voyager was bad given the material with which they had to work. If I was to suggest a place to look for the presumed failure (and I not in the camp that thinks of Voyager as a failure overall), I'd have to look toward the writers as a primary target not the producers.
Umbran said:
This is not to say that Voyager did not have some really fine episodes. It did. The actors, writers,and directors were all good, talented people. And, when allowed to show their stuff, they did so. But, on the whole they weren't allowed, so while there were good episodes, the series as the whole was horribly weak drama, by comparison.
I fail to see how writers weren't allowed to do anything they wished beyond having to follow the series arc (get the ship closer to home) and develop the characters. More likely they wrote what they thought would be easily digested and were maybe steered toward particular characters because of ratings (after failing to come up with useful material on their own). I'm sure that if any of the writers had come forward with any brilliant ideas for specific characters, they would have been weighed against others and utilized in some fashion. I have yet to see any "lost scripts or story ideas" promoted as the ones that should have been used but were not (furries, aside). I've not run across anything to suggest that the writers managed to come up with scads of material that was not only unused but far better than what was actually produced. I've only seen people claim that anything, but what was used, would have been better. I think that the writers got lazy early on, and the addition of 7of9 and "doctor plots" was in an effort to repair damage done by that laziness.
On the other hand, I do not read ST novels or surf through absolutely everything that is online. I am quite willing to look at evidence to the contrary and adjust my opinion if warranted. So, by all means, help me change my mind. Is there a place somewhere that the producers have said they rejected brilliant writer input in favor of making things suck?
