The positive Voyager thread: What was good with the series?
- Thread starter Lynx
- Start date
What did Lien do again? Well, she had an important role in "American History X". As for the rest, I won't go into that now. Maybe Berman and his gang has an answer.
Personally I think that Crosby did a good job and Tasha yar was a good character. As for TNG, it would have been a success with or without Yar anyway.
I can agree about Beverly Crusher who I actually like and personally I think that the Sela plot was bad. They shouldn't have killed off Yar. She could have returned in some episodes as guest.
Prax wrote:
Seven was Braga's Mary Sue which made him inspired to write stories especially about her. OK, my Kes stories might be the same but I don't try to hide it.
Last edited:
I'm a bit torn about 7.
I don't like the character concept much - yet another tired rehash of an outsider trying to come to terms with being sentient/human/individual, having an outsider's perspective on humanity. She went where Spock, Data, the EMH (and possibly Odo) had gone before, even though (as in all preceding her) of course the nuances were slightly different. Also I don't like how her appearance was obviously tailored to "sex up" the show - though I agree with Jmidnight_99 it probably still wouldn't have worked had Jeri not been such a good actress who put down a strong role.
And that's the other side of the medallion for me. Jeri still managed to make 7 's character at least somewhat interesting, give the character some unique flavour by how she played it, despite the relatively poor concept she was handed to play. I don't think I can blame the actress for being handed material that was both way above the average in quantity but below it in quality.
I don't like the character concept much - yet another tired rehash of an outsider trying to come to terms with being sentient/human/individual, having an outsider's perspective on humanity. She went where Spock, Data, the EMH (and possibly Odo) had gone before, even though (as in all preceding her) of course the nuances were slightly different. Also I don't like how her appearance was obviously tailored to "sex up" the show - though I agree with Jmidnight_99 it probably still wouldn't have worked had Jeri not been such a good actress who put down a strong role.
And that's the other side of the medallion for me. Jeri still managed to make 7 's character at least somewhat interesting, give the character some unique flavour by how she played it, despite the relatively poor concept she was handed to play. I don't think I can blame the actress for being handed material that was both way above the average in quantity but below it in quality.
You're right, but, it's not communicated in a positive way.
"I like Kes, I thought the Ocampa were interesting, blah blah blah." This is a positive comment, and no one would disagree with it. But every conversation either starts or collapses into a mud slinging contest against Seven, and her tits, and her tight suit. When we get into that area, we get into the simple differences between an actress and a character that could carry complex story lines and move the series forward, and one who simply could not. If you were tired of the Borg, imagine 25 story lines that centered around Kes meditating with Tuvok or whispering in sickbay.
Well, you wouldn't have had to, because the series would have been cancelled.
Enough with Kes. If I see any more threads getting derailed with it I'll start taking infraction action.
@jmidnight_99 please use the multi-quote feature and tag the user you're quoting if you need to respond to 6 or however many people after an absence. Rather than spamming threads with multiple posts in a row.
This is a positivity thread. Peace and Love from here on out!
@jmidnight_99 please use the multi-quote feature and tag the user you're quoting if you need to respond to 6 or however many people after an absence. Rather than spamming threads with multiple posts in a row.
This is a positivity thread. Peace and Love from here on out!
Thanks for the compliment, I can see what you mean, about the Spock/Data/Worf/Seven connection... The characters are sort of a "fish out of water" type, with lots of internal conflict. This is the formula, and whether we like it or not, these are the characters that make these series interesting.
I don't know what you mean by "lower in quality". Lower than what?
I'll try... maybe there is a tutorial somewhere on how to use these features?
https://xenforo.com/community/threads/multi-quote.156556/
That's how to use multi-quote. Pretty easy.
If you use an @ and start typing a persons user name it'll normally pop up so you can click it to tag. @jmidnight_99
It's like learning that Jennifer Lien and Roxann Dawson switched roles.
Don't tell me that they did!
I've seen Robert Picardo in lots of shows. Class act. And the EMH is my favorite character in ST, mostly because I have the same "bedside manner". "Living Witness" is one of my top 10 Voyager episodes.
I do struggle with 'sentient" though... for Data and for the EMH. As a programmer, I know that programs can simulate intelligence, and certainly if a program was ever to simulate 'sentience', it would be just that- a simulation.
"Sentience is the capacity to feel, perceive or experience subjectively. Sentience is a minimalistic way of defining consciousness."
I get in a lot of trouble with my peers, because I just don't buy that computer programs, no matter how advanced, will ever be conscious.
Ok Thx.
If a program shows all the signs of consciousness, I don't know if we're gonna be able to tell the difference. Our brains are so different from computers than if consciousness comes to a computer it'll probably won't be the same way as to how it did to us.
That said I don't see a fundamental impossibility in computers (or programs) someday becoming conscious, but IMO it won't be random, it will be after we've understood how it works and how to transpose it to programs. Otherwise, as you say, it will only be simulations, sophisticated simulations even. Any second rate A.I. is capable of beating the Turing test without a sweat now.
However, why would someone want an A;I. to reach conscience is beyond me. That seems a rather cruel endeavor not to mention dangerous.
As a programmer, I can tell you that things like the Turing test is more hem than haw. We made programs that could calculate a long time ago. Now we make programs that can calculate based on a simulation of "intelligent behavior". AI might be a collection of if-then statements, or a complicated statistical model that maps sensory data to symbols. AI self-modifies, which is again, nothing new.
But don't get confused by this. There is nothing remotely "intelligent" going on, the only intelligence is in the person who designed the system. Someone wrote a program to gather data, and make decisions based on new input, and that data.
"Self awareness" is a whole different megillah. Maybe someday it will be simulated (it can probably be simulated now), but you'd be hard pressed to pass something off as "self aware" when there is no "self" in the equation.
I just thought of something else. If you take two identical AI systems and provide them with the exact same input, they are identical entities. If you take two identical human beings and do the same, they will still become different individuals. This goes a long way to help define "self".
I am not a complete noob in those areas, so I already know that. If a program gets random inputs (like we do), it will be impossible to have two programs behaving the exact same way and that's your individuality right there!
What's makes us "unique" is that we get billions of inputs from millions of nerve endings and that can't possibly be duplicated.
I already said that self-awareness will have to be understood before it could be duplicated but there's no reason why it couldn't. I don't buy into any mystic crap. In the end, we're just machines.
As usual, you misunderstood the information, missed the point, and filled the gaps with illogical nonsense. If two persons receive the same "inputs" and still become entirely unique individuals, then those "inputs", random or otherwise, aren't primary causal factors associated with individuality.
"What's makes us "unique" is that we get billions of inputs from millions of nerve endings and that can't possibly be duplicated." is a false statement, because we become individuals regardless of "inputs".
"If a program gets random inputs (like we do), it will be impossible to have two programs behaving the exact same way and that's your individuality right there!" is another false statement, because a programmer can make the program do whatever he wants it to do, which includes filtering and otherwise manipulating "inputs" to achieve a particular goal. The goal might be to have every instance of the program behave exactly the same way.
Just the professional opinion of a 25+ year computer scientist.
It's more a discussion of individuality (Seven) and sentience (the EMH) than it is "AI". Of course, Voyager (and many other ST series) discussed both of these, but it's become borderline off topic, I agree.
