Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mark" data-source="post: 438964" data-attributes="member: 5">Thanks.  I think it needed to be said.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.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?).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.Theoretically, true.  I see you have chosen to present five.  Thanks, at least, for that and I'll comment on each.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?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.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.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.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.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.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.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.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.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. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />I was born and have always resided on Earth.  As of yesterday, for forty years.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.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. 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!"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.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.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?  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /></blockquote>

Verification