• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

When did the Janeway hatred truly start to coalesce?

This recent turn in the discussion is an object lesson - though a fairly tame one - as to why I stopped getting invested in the personal lives of artists (and any associated management figures...whenever they crop up).
I can see your point.

Personally I don't care about the private lives and opinions of actors. I focus on the series and characters. The same when it comes to writers, producers and such.

I know that William Shatner has a bad reputation but it don't bother me at all as long I'm not affected in some way of it. I like his portraying of Captain Kirk.

But when the behavior of actors, writers and producers affects a series I like, then I just have to comment on it.
My argumentive nature shows up, or should I say "Mr Hyde"! ;)
 
Last edited:
If they were p***ed off with Wang and took it out on his character, it was very mean and downright childish as well.

And the sad thing is that what they started, many members of the community have gleefully continued. And may never end, given that Harry is tethered to a series that may never see the light of day.

Considering "The kes thing" and their issues with Wang and Beltran and how tension was created between Mulgrew and Ryan, I get the impression that those in charge of the show had difficulties to cooperate with the actors which they were supposed to cooperate with.

In all fairness, actors can be a temperamental lot.

Maybe the best thing would have been to sack Berman, Braga and the others after season 3 and bring in more motivated people with a better attitude to their

Or tell the meddling Paramount exec's to go stick their head in a pig.

But when the behavior of actors, writers and producers affects a series I like, then I just have to comment on it.
My argumentive nature shows up, or should I say "Mr Hyde"! ;)

Argument is fun, as long as you discuss your point of view respectfully, and let the other person have their say. It also shows that your point of view can be logically defended. When a person's only recourse is to "shut down" the opposition through terror tactics or abuse, it shows that they can't defend their position... and they know it.
 
And the sad thing is that what they started, many members of the community have gleefully continued. And may never end, given that Harry is tethered to a series that may never see the light of day.

Still, there is a chance that he might show up in some future series.
Unfortunately there are characters who we'll never see again. :weep:
Maybe Harry can be somewhat restored to glory in some book.

In all fairness, actors can be a temperamental lot.
So true.
Some are downright horrible. Maybe not so many in Star trek but other series or movies have had their fair share of them.

Or tell the meddling Paramount exec's to go stick their head in a pig.
That's also true.

Argument is fun, as long as you discuss your point of view respectfully, and let the other person have their say. It also shows that your point of view can be logically defended. When a person's only recourse is to "shut down" the opposition through terror tactics or abuse, it shows that they can't defend their position... and they know it.

I agree!

I used to have the bad habit of being very aggressive, not to mention the habit of "paying back" when I was attacked. Fortunately I realized what an idiot I was then.

Even if I still can be a "hothead", I try to keep the debates civil and constructive.
 
I know that William Shatner has a bad reputation but it don't bother me at all as long I'm not affected in some way of it. I like his portraying of Captain Kirk.

It's ironic, considering I had recently heard rumors that Leonard Nimoy had been accused of being equally difficult during that show's original run.


Considering "The kes thing" and their issues with Wang and Beltran and how tension was created between Mulgrew and Ryan, I get the impression that those in charge of the show had difficulties to cooperate with the actors which they were supposed to cooperate with.

Why? At least three Trek shows had to deal with inner conflicts within the cast and crew, as far as I know. And yet, "VOY" is the only show being accused of allowing these conflicts to affect its quality? Sorry, but I don't buy it. Yes, VOY had its issues. I don't deny it. But many of the Trek's fandom seemed to harbor this belief that it was the only series between 1966 and 2005 that had any real problems. I've been watching shows and movies from the franchise since I was a kid. I found none of those shows and movies to be perfect. Just about all of them had some major flaws - at least to me. So, I find it incomprehensible to single out VOY as the franchise's "real problem" - at least before 2005. I just cannot accept or embrace this mindset. Including this hullaballoo over Harry Kim not receiving a promotion, when most of the major characters were never promoted, with the exception of Tuvok. Tom Paris had merely regained his old rank after a season-and-a-half. I don't regard that as a true promotion.

But aside from Season One of "Discovery", I've found it difficult to embrace the shows and movies released or aired after 2005. I really believe the Trek franchise should have died after "Enterprise". Or after "Voyager".
 
Last edited:
Some are downright horrible. Maybe not so many in Star trek but other series or movies have had their fair share of them.

To paraphrase Lincoln, if you would know the true character of a person, offer them power. And actors have it.

I used to have the bad habit of being very aggressive, not to mention the habit of "paying back" when I was attacked. Fortunately I realized wha

Attacks on your opponent are never a good thing. Once I reduced an adversary to ad hominem attacks, I knew my point was made.

Why? At least three Trek shows had to deal with inner conflicts within the cast and crew, as far as I know. And yet, "VOY" is the only show being accused of allowing these conflicts to affect its quality? Sorry, but I don't buy it.

I didn't say VOY's general quality was affected by actor conflicts. It was mainly affected by sloppy writing and executive interference.
 
Are we still hating on Janeway in this thread or is it more of a general discussion now? We seem to have digressed. Much. Which after 69 pages isn't that unexpected I suppose. ;)
 
Are we still hating on Janeway in this thread or is it more of a general discussion now? We seem to have digressed. Much. Which after 69 pages isn't that unexpected I suppose. ;)
I think that Janeway hate has been talked to exhaustion, especially given that there really aren't any Janeway haters here. Even those of who think she made some questionable choices (Tuvix, the Equinox) don't actively hate her.

If anyone else has thoughts about anti-Janeway hate, they should feel free to post them. I think mine are back on Page 1.
 
People who legitimately hate fictional characters kind of baffle me. They're fictional characters. There are so many better things in this world to spend one's energy on.
 
People who legitimately hate fictional characters kind of baffle me. They're fictional characters. There are so many better things in this world to spend one's energy on.

It could be argued that emotional investment is emotional investment, be it hate or love (and it can also be argued that hate is kin to love). Hell, there's this whole notion of "Love to hate" concerning particular characters.

Are we still hating on Janeway in this thread or is it more of a general discussion now? We seem to have digressed. Much. Which after 69 pages isn't that unexpected I suppose. ;)

Well, we have always discussed the "why" (i.e., "Why do people hate Janeway?"); internal friction that leads to performances which people find sharply disagreeable is just one part of the equation.
 
I think people tend to hyperbolically use the word "hate" (maybe, or maybe not, less so with "love") when they mean "dislike", but it muddies the waters for me, because I don't feel the two are interchangeable, and disliking a fictional character makes sense to me, while hating a fictional character does not.

Was this thread supposed to be about why people dislike the character of Janeway, or was it really intended to talk about people hating the character?
 
I've watched several Youtubers discuss their thoughts on Janeway, and it seems to range from "I disagree with certain decisions she made" to "Janeway is a mad interstellar despot". I think a lot of the latter was from the writers not willing to have Tuvok or Chakotay stand up to her more (because God forbid that Trek's first woman captain be fallible).
 
The megaloathe is %100 justified.

The Chuck Norris of Star Trek cares not for the disdain of puny humans. She sent Death scurrying back to hell empty handed, made Fear crap a brick, and blew off an amorous near-omnipotent being like Kira blowing off a random horny Ferengi in Quark's. She unbaked the Tuvix cake as easy as pie... if not easier. And if you make her upset, she'll tell you that she's giving serious thought... to deleting your wife.
 
Tuvix was 4 people.

All of Neelix, all of Tuvok, an Ocampan Lung and a million year old case of sapient space herpies.

Actually if Neelix's lungs grew back when they separated Tuvix... His "new" body would have been saturated with oxygen, and been sorta drunk for the rest of his life.

All four of them should have walked away from that day with the post hypnotic commands to murderspree all the Maquis.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top