Totally agree with Sisko. The best flaws come from the best strengths. Sisko is a very bold, passionate man, especially in the captain's chair - that's both a blessing and a curse. Picard is all about reason and diplomacy - again, that can sometimes be good and sometimes be bad. Just look at their enemies. Sisko, a man of action, had to deal with the very politically minded Founders. One reason In the Pale Moonlight works so well is because that kind of action goes directly against Sisko's modus operandi. Picard, a man who always valued individual life and diplomacy, was forced to deal with the Borg, a hive mind that couldn't be reasoned with. Janeway had... the Kazon? I always think they should have played up Janeway's background as a science officer. She would be extremely smart and practical, but not too experienced with the military aspects of command and too intellectual to readily bond with her crew - at first, she'd be more respected than loved. Her intelligence is her strength and her weakness. This would make a great Kirk/Bones/Spock dynamic where Tuvok appeals to Janeway's logical side and Chakotay is more of the people person, good in a fight type figure. See, the main problem with Janeway being so capable is that it doesn't leave her two senior officers with much to do from a storytelling perspective. Chakotay and Tuvok should have been the two best characters after Janeway, but they were ruined by her.
Captain Janeway from Year of Hell is the captain I wanted to see on Voyager the entire series, but we didn't get that captain Janeway most of the time. An actor can only do so much with the scripts their given. Voyager's writing improved in the latter half, somewhat (bye Kazon, bye Kes) but the damage was done, and it was probably just funner to write for EMH and Seven than the rather boring ensemble they shared a ship with.
I try to ignore the events that happened "In the Pale Moonlight" for me that episode was a big "fuck you" to everything Star Trek, and it seems Disco is following those kinds of dystopian ethics. Feh. I'd rather accept Sisko as an honorable man than a person who shits on his own personal principles. He's a completely different character in the War seasons. I agree the producers should've played the science background for Janeway, it would've pumped up Chakotay's character and would've been that balance for her to rely on him -- in the beginning like in the first 3 seasons -- for tactical purposes and be more focus on her passion to explore. The producers really wanted it all for that character; I recall Janeway and B'Elanna spouting off treknobabble engineering stuff in one episode - - something I suspected would be out of Janeway's expertise, but there she was talking lingo with an engineering genius. Oh my God!
I know among Star Trek Fans, In the Pale Moonlight and a lot of DS9 is controversial. But that's really the whole point, the Federation was facing an existential threat that it seemed it could not defeat, this is addressed many times throughout DS9, but how does the more idealistic version of society Roddenberry envisioned, deal with such a threat when faced with complete annihilation. All in all, I can understand why some people do not like it, but it asks and answers a very important question about the how such a seemingly idealistic society has to face the reality, not everyone else in the galaxy is gonna play by its "bubbly, cloy and happy" rules to quote Quark.
I think though both Picard and Janeway are pretty idealized, Janeway comes off as a lot more idealized. Both characters are depicted as outright ethically wrong very rarely, for Picard probably just disrespecting Wesley in season 1 (at least "Datalore") and being initially reluctantly willing to relocate the Native American colonists in "Journey's End", Janeway just outright with regard to Chakotay in "Equinox" and maybe with regard to the Doctor in "Latent Image" and "Flesh and Blood" and Torres in "Nothing Human". I do think TNG allowed both Picard and a crewmember or guest star to both be right in a conflict, it being up to the viewer to decide who was more right (examples "Reunion", "Ethics", "I Borg", "The Enemy", "Unification", "Homeward", also him (partially) changing his mind pretty believably in "Symbiosis" and "Pen Pals"), more than Voyager did ("Latent Image", "Nothing Human", "Flesh and Blood", "Remember", "Thirty Days", "Memorial", "Scorpion" and "Tuvix", being very few times it was even unclear). I think there were additional TNG Prime Directive conflicts/controversies and OTOH with Voyager Janeway seemed pretty inconsistent about how dedicated she as to the Prime Directive and not even admitting when or why she was making an exception. Aside from ethical morality, Janeway also seems brilliant in science and battle tactics, in comparison Picard seems exceptional in diplomacy but not that much and it's not focused on as much; instead, Picard is outright allowed to lose a confrontation sometimes ("Data's Day" and "Clues" and kind of the first two times against the Borg). Further, Janeway's crew is seen as good as their jobs but still pretty much everymen while all of Picard's seem the best of the best so it seems more unbalanced, more Janeway being really great/idealized/savior. And with "Samaritan Snare" and "Tapestry", TNG also admitted that Picard wasn't always so fully admirable, was very different and less admirable in his youth, and could have easily instead ended up being mediocre, Janeway seems to have always been brilliant and dedicated without early flaws let alone big flaws.
This is a good point that I haven't seen here before... the fact that the crews (and the environment that those crews occupy) are quite different in TNG vs. VOY, which makes the (perceived) "disparity" between the crew and his/her Captain more evident in one as opposed to the other.
I think this is well stated. I think when Janeway faces some big threats she can step up and be a leader. But, those felt very few and far between, or she was too good at defeating the Borg, or the Think Tank, or the Hirogen. It just didn't flow as well, but I hold that against the writing and the tendency to write solutions in 45 minutes.
I didn't buy the Dominion was a serious threat because most of the cast of DS9 were still around in what was supposed to be a some great war. The episode asks and answers questions for trekfans, who had outgrown and can't stand nor tolerate the utopian standard Star Trek stands for. Sisko thinking like a person from the 20th Century was beneath him, and shame on the writers to do that to a character like him. The producers would've never done that to Picard or better yet their darling superwoman Janeway.
Perhaps. Had the DS9 cast been replaced for 75% at the end, all others being "casualties of war" it would have been more realistic, but also extremely depressing. Not sure I would have wanted to watch that series, I watch it for my enjoyment after all, and to see an exciting story. Not to be shown the (actual) grim realities of war. I appreciate In The Pale Moonlight for what it is, a somewhat more realistic tale of sliding morality. That does not mean I "can't stand nor tolerate the utopian standard Star Trek stands for", though I realise it is an unrealistic and unattainable ideal. I think the 24th century perhaps drifted too far from its roots. A man like Kirk probably would have had no problems admitting that beneath all their beautiful ideals reality sometimes would dictate ugly decisions. Sisko and Picard perhaps lived in a time where people had become too sheltered from these truths. Both had to learn the hard way they weren't the evolved humans they perhaps thought themselves to be (Sisko in In the Pale Moonlight, Picard in First Contact).
Part of the "optimistic future" of TOS was simply that humanity had survived. The "evolved humanity" didn't come until TNG and that was a bit off-putting to the writers, as it limited dramatic potential due to mandates such as "humans don't mourn the dead" and the elimination of a lot of interpersonal conflict. While I can see "In the Pale Moonlight" as being similarly off putting if one things of Trek in utopian point of view, it also is a reflection of that TOS attitude. Kirk and Company going on espionage mission to infiltrate a Romulan ship, and kidnapping a Romulan officer. Kirk's willingness to decimate an entire planet to stop his crew from being killed. Even Picard went on an espionage mission and nearly died for it. Despite TNG and onward being very utopian at times, there are many times where our heroes do some rather harsh things to preserve their Federation. Even Janeway did so and she was just trying to protect her crew. Ultimately, as much as we would like to avoid it, humans are still capable of savagery.
I don't think that's unrealistic. Consider who they are. They're not assigned to a ship that's actively going and confronting the Dominion. They're assigned to DS9, comfortably hang around the Sol sector while DS9 is occupied, then retake it, and then the front line shifts away from the wormhole to the Cardassian border. Even if they were on a combat ship, shipboard fatalities during combat seem to be quite rare unless the ship is heavily damaged or destroyed, and given their positions they just don't have occasion to be in that situation. Never mind the fact that bridge officers, mostly being seated and not near anything loose and dangerous, are among the least likely candidates for injury or fatality during combat (as opposed to, say, someone guarding a cargo bay and getting crushed by a loose container, or someone working next to the shield generators when they overload) Remember they're all basically field HQ officers. Field HQ officers don't tend to die very much. They're rarely in the line of fire. Look at how many commissioned officers served in WW2, the Korean War and the Vietnam War and still lived to tell the tale. It's not like they're cannon fo...I mean, grun...I mean, enlisted.
Mulgrew is not a producer's puppet, or an actor robot; during the series she had to have some input on her character. Now I'm curious to read her book, I heard there were chapters dedicated about her tour of duty on Voyager.
Totally agree.I always thought that the writers made Janeway omnipotent, all- knowing.There`s no room for Tuvok and especially for her first officer.
Couldn't agree more. And I don't think that would depend on crisis, per se, as in always having the ship falling apart in utter desperation. But rewatching Voyager, I've been amazed at how much effort would be put into 1 episode, and then 5 episodes that followed seemed thrown together in a haphazard way that just looked like lazy writing. Every minute of "Year of Hell" was well thought out, well executed, compelling in the small things, compelling in the big things. But then it's like the writing staff took extra long lunches when it came to writing many other episodes. I wish they would've put the same amount of effort into those other episodes as they did for "Year of Hell," because I think it would've made the entire series much more memorable and compelling for Trekkie and non-Trekkie alike.
Or ship's cook. Wouldn't it be great to see her shiv Neelix? Tuvok could hold back his arms. EDIT: Picture came up a lot larger than expected...
I quite liked KM as Captain KJ. So many people were crossovers (like Robert), but she came in with no ST background and had a firm command of not only the bridge but also the jargon. Some people don't know that Geneviève Bujold was originally cast as the captain, and I don't think she made it out of the badlands scene before quitting. Her attempt at technobabble was so rough, it really did sound like babble. I think it's on YouTube. KM was a good choice for KJ.