More on Enterprise's "new direction" [Slight Rant, long]

[Mark]

What can I say. I wear my heart on my sleeve...

 

[buzzard]

Just as I find saying something sucks in total when you are only familiar with a portion of it is ridiculous. So let's delve further into your reasoning and see if we can't sort this out a bit, eh?

Better yet, how about we don't?
I have little desire to get stuck in a discussion with a Voyager fanatic. I'd just as soon avoid your little jihad. I'd have as much luck convincing you, or for that matter, you convincing me, as I would have of convincing someone to like chocolate if they did not.

Let's try objective facts:
1) It was unpopular
2) It is widely subject to derision
3) Essenially everyone I know, who doesn't hate it, merely tolerates it.

Now granted all of the above facts are based upon subjective analysis. However they consist of substancial bodies of opinion, and in subjective matters, you have little other recourse for weighting.

Thus we return to my initial assertion -Voyager sucks. I will add the caveat, IMHO, though it would be more accurate to say in almost everyone's opinion rather than my own, but I speak only for myself.

buzzard

 

[Mark]

Let's try objective facts:
1) It was unpopular
2) It is widely subject to derision
3) Essenially everyone I know, who doesn't hate it, merely tolerates it.

At one time also describing Jimmy Carter, spinach and dentistry...

 

[buzzard]

At one time also describing Jimmy Carter, spinach and dentistry...

Since politics are banned, we'll drop the first example. The others are inane.
Are you somehow implying that Voyager is healthy? Does it somehow contribute to the well being of the viewer (in an objective sense)? Does it alleviate painful or harmful conditions(IMHO it causes them)? Umm, don't think so.

My allusion to someone who doesn't like chocolate would be much closer to reality. The Voyager fan is the one who doesn't like chocolate. Most people do, and neither side is likely to convince the other.

buzzard

 

[Mark]

Since politics are banned, we'll drop the first example. The others are inane.
Are you somehow implying that Voyager is healthy? Does it somehow contribute to the well being of the viewer (in an objective sense)? Does it alleviate painful or harmful conditions(IMHO it causes them)? Umm, don't think so.

My allusion to someone who doesn't like chocolate would be much closer to reality. The Voyager fan is the one who doesn't like chocolate. Most people do, and neither side is likely to convince the other.

buzzard

I think you have your negatives and positives backwards.

A Voyager fan isn't someone who doesn't like something. A Voyager fan is someone who does like something. A person who derides Voyager, or Voyager fans, is someone who doesn't like something. If someone doesn't like something they should avoid that thing and allow those who enjoy it to do so...but that doesn't seem to be your goal, does it?

 

[Umbran]

Now granted all of the above facts are based upon subjective analysis. However they consist of substancial bodies of opinion, and in subjective matters, you have little other recourse for weighting.

Actually, there's is one point of recourse - reference to an even more substantial body of opinion. In this case, the Neilsen families.

In a television environment where something like 50% of all shows fail to make it through a second season, Voyager lasted for seven seasons. Voyager didn't stink so bad that it failed to be profitable. And that's saying a great deal, considering the high production costs of a sci-fi show.

Shows that really and truly stink simply do not survive the competition. While you may not have liked it personally, the worst that can be said for a long-term surviving show is that it was mediocre.

 

[buzzard]

I think you have your negatives and positives backwards.

A Voyager fan isn't someone who doesn't like something. A Voyager fan is someone who does like something. A person who derides Voyager, or Voyager fans, is someone who doesn't like something. If someone doesn't like something they should avoid that thing and allow those who enjoy it to do so...but that doesn't seem to be your goal, does it?

Ahh, but you see I'm having trouble finding an analogy which is equally unpopular as Voyager which people are willing to defend. I imagine there is something of the sort out there, but I haven't thought of it. Ok, maybe the Cincinatti Bengals. That might be appropriate. You're a Bungles fan then. Satisfied?

buzzard

 

[buzzard]

Actually, there's is one point of recourse - reference to an even more substantial body of opinion. In this case, the Neilsen families.

In a television environment where something like 50% of all shows fail to make it through a second season, Voyager lasted for seven seasons. Voyager didn't stink so bad that it failed to be profitable. And that's saying a great deal, considering the high production costs of a sci-fi show.

Shows that really and truly stink simply do not survive the competition. While you may not have liked it personally, the worst that can be said for a long-term surviving show is that it was mediocre.

This is valid. I will certainly grant Voyager the benighted status of being as good as, say, Full House. Maybe even Americas Funniest Videos.

buzzard

 

[Mark]

Ahh, but you see I'm having trouble finding an analogy which is equally unpopular as Voyager which people are willing to defend. I imagine there is something of the sort out there, but I haven't thought of it. Ok, maybe the Cincinatti Bengals. That might be appropriate. You're a Bungles fan then. Satisfied?

buzzard

Why not get really nasty and equate the level of my taste in entertainment with the level of your etiquette? You seem troubled in your life. Have you considered alternatives?

 

[Mark]

This is valid. I will certainly grant Voyager the benighted status of being as good as, say, Full House. Maybe even Americas Funniest Videos.

buzzard

But of the three, you've not watched much of Voyager...