Voyager was the best spin-off for its first two seasons

[Lynx]

Humanity has endured worse. And this is very short sighted view of humanity. How do you think we got here? To struggle to survive is at the essence of Trek but there is optimism that growth through challenges makes us better.

Viktor Frankl and "Man's Search For Meaning " discusses this at length.


Humanity has had apocalyptic literature for millenia now.

The world is better today than when such literature was first written. Hold fast to the good, and spread it to all you see. That is the power of endurance.

Humanity may have endured worse when people lived in trees and worshipped sticks. But back then they didn't know of a life so much better than that.

I think it would be totally devastating for humanity of today to be struck by a nuclear war and the aftermath of that. It would send the survivers back to the stone age and it would take millennia to recover from that. I don't think it would be beneficial in any way for humanity either because it would most likely result in a "humanity" totally without compassion and will to cooperate. It would be all about survive at any cost and of the expense of others.

I agree with your statement that humanity has had apocalyptic literature for millenia now.

However, there was a time in the 50's and 60's when people actually started to believe that the future would be better than what we had. Unfortunately those dreams seem to be gone now.

It affects the entertainment and literature as well. Back then there were stories about space exploration and development. The creation of Star Trek was a result of that.

Now every movie and new series about space exploration seems to be about some survivers running away from a devastated Earth to find some other planet to destroy. And the main charactersa are mostly unlikeable.

I actually try to hold fast with the good and spread it. But it's not so easy in a world where negativism is poured over me every day by media and those who believe in what media tells them.

Not to mention when I did find a few good books to read and expressed my liking for it, only to discover one day later that the continuation of that book series was nothing for me.

I don't think it would either. Frankly I don't think humanity will fundamentally change, whatever happens. Seeing how humans behave in the Star Trek Universe is a bigger leap of fantasy to me than the invention of warp. A nice daydream though, and something to strive for even though I don't think it will ever happen.

But the question I was attempting to answer was not what would realistically change humanity, but why they came up with the idea of nuclear war and the post-atomic horror in the mid-21st century in the first place as a background history to the Star Trek universe.

I might be naive but I do think that humanity can develope into something better. After all there have been some development in that direction. There were times when war was seen as something natural. Now we at least protest against it from time to time.

If humanity avoid blowing themselves to kingdom come in the upcoming centuries and manage to solve certain problems with over-population and lack of food and natural resources, there might be hope.

But as I wrote above, a nuclear war with its aftermath would send humanity back to the stone age, not only materially but mentally too.

As for Star Trek's solution for a background history, it was made in the 60's which was a very contradictional time.

There was a lot of positive views of the future and dreams about peace, love and understanding. But it was also the time of the Cold War with a possibility that everything could go very wrong. I guess that Gene Roddenberry used the "worst case scenario" as his background history for reasons I don't understand.

 

[fireproof78]

However, there was a time in the 50's and 60's when people actually started to believe that the future would be better than what we had. Unfortunately those dreams seem to be gone now.

Hardly.

Those dreams are being discovering that the romanticism of the past must be met with the practicality of the present troubles. We cannot simply have dreams and go "Oh, tomorrow is another day." That's not how we actually make changes. We make changes by turning off the negativity, be it social media (something I frequent less, and there's evidence to support that), the news, or even relationships that are not positive.

Focusing purely on the negative misses the fact that clean water is increasing, people are increasingly able to improve their lives, and opportunities are increasing. There is growth out there, but it has to face the real world of challenges. To quote Kirk:
Maybe we weren't meant for paradise. Maybe we were meant to fight our way through, struggle, claw our way up, scratch for every inch of the way. Maybe we can't stroll to the music of the lute. We must march to the sound of drums.

Roddenberry, for all his faults and later odd ideas, understood that human beings require a challenge to unite together, to work forward towards. I think that's why he had WW3. People felt it was inevitable, and that it would be the end of the world, a refrain I heard all through my childhood. Except, for Roddenberry, he saw on the other side, the potential of humans to rise up and rebuild based upon shared ambition.

Too many people are convinced that life will always be this way, "Ho hum, woe is me." But, people don't wish to be there. They lack the way forward to grow, and need people who are willing to accept them where they are at, and say "There is a better way."

 

[Oddish]

There's an old saying...
Easy times create weak men.
Weak men create hard times.
Hard times create strong men.
Strong men create easy times.
Sub out "men" for "people", and I think it's pretty apt.

 

[Lynx]

Hardly.

Those dreams are being discovering that the romanticism of the past must be met with the practicality of the present troubles. We cannot simply have dreams and go "Oh, tomorrow is another day." That's not how we actually make changes. We make changes by turning off the negativity, be it social media (something I frequent less, and there's evidence to support that), the news, or even relationships that are not positive.

Focusing purely on the negative misses the fact that clean water is increasing, people are increasingly able to improve their lives, and opportunities are increasing. There is growth out there, but it has to face the real world of challenges. To quote Kirk:
Maybe we weren't meant for paradise. Maybe we were meant to fight our way through, struggle, claw our way up, scratch for every inch of the way. Maybe we can't stroll to the music of the lute. We must march to the sound of drums.

Roddenberry, for all his faults and later odd ideas, understood that human beings require a challenge to unite together, to work forward towards. I think that's why he had WW3. People felt it was inevitable, and that it would be the end of the world, a refrain I heard all through my childhood. Except, for Roddenberry, he saw on the other side, the potential of humans to rise up and rebuild based upon shared ambition.

Too many people are convinced that life will always be this way, "Ho hum, woe is me." But, people don't wish to be there. They lack the way forward to grow, and need people who are willing to accept them where they are at, and say "There is a better way."

There's an old saying...
Easy times create weak men.
Weak men create hard times.
Hard times create strong men.
Strong men create easy times.
Sub out "men" for "people", and I think it's pretty apt.

I'll give you some points here.

As for humanity, I would like to add some words from Quark here:

QUARK: Let me tell you something about humans, nephew. They're a wonderful, friendly people as long as their bellies are full and their holosuites are working. But take away their creature comforts, deprive them of food, sleep, sonic showers, put their lives in jeopardy over an extended period of time, and those same friendly, intelligent, wonderful people will become as nasty and as violent as the most bloodthirsty Klingon. You don't believe me? Look at those faces. Look in their eyes. You know I'm right, don't you?

Which is a reason why I don't believe in wars as "morale boosters" in any way.

Despite that, I do have hope for humanity even if those times we live in right now sometimes give me doubts.

As for Star Trek, I need to find something new to keep my interest for it. The sad thing is that when I think that I have find it, something happens which makes me very disappointed after a while.

As for Voyager, the first three seasons were great.

 

[at Quark's]

QUARK: Let me tell you something about humans, nephew. They're a wonderful, friendly people as long as their bellies are full and their holosuites are working. But take away their creature comforts, deprive them of food, sleep, sonic showers, put their lives in jeopardy over an extended period of time, and those same friendly, intelligent, wonderful people will become as nasty and as violent as the most bloodthirsty Klingon. You don't believe me? Look at those faces. Look in their eyes. You know I'm right, don't you?

It also coincides with my line of thinking that humanity doesn't ever change fundamentally for the better, not even in Star Trek. It's not that hard acting nice and respectful when you lead a nice life. But take those nice circumstances away and people will return to nasty or even savage behavior, even in the Star Trek Universe.

Though I'll grant that in the Star Trek universe, humanity seems to have get rid of those a**holes that already live in quite nice conditions but still want more and more power and money for themselves.

 

[Ragitsu]

There's an old saying...
Easy times create weak men.
Weak men create hard times.
Hard times create strong men.
Strong men create easy times.
Sub out "men" for "people", and I think it's pretty apt.

This seems like a roundabout way for people who support the status quo and believe us to be falling away from it to call themselves strong and their opponents weak (i.e., an elaborate ego-stroke). Basically just saying, "Things were bad, then people like me made it better and we made it so great that now ungrateful people are trying to wreck it because they don't get how great I am...and have been at all moments in history. I guess I'm just too awesome for my own good. Poor me."

People have different ideas of what's authoritarian and what's not (and what's "good times" and what's not), based on their personal ideology. It's not an objective scale by any measure. This oft-repeated mantra has many unspoken assumptions baked into it, both about what constitutes authoritarian societies and what constitutes good times versus bad times. Never mind that "strong" does not necessarily equal "moral" and quite a few "weak" men just wanted to go about their lives in peace while happily subscribing to the philosophy of "Live and let live.".

 

[fireproof78]

As for Star Trek, I need to find something new to keep my interest for it. The sad thing is that when I think that I have find it, something happens which makes me very disappointed after a while.

I think if something is consistently disappointing you it is not worth keeping around.

 

[Akiraprise]

I guess I'll redirect us back to some semblance of the original topic. I did enjoy the first two seasons, mostly for the small arc they were trying to do. Which is what the entire series premise seemed to require. Solving the issue at hand and moving onward towards the Alpha Quadrant. They could have done small time jumps of a month or more and sort of micro reset the status quo. Kes finished her studies and became a doctor, Harry got that promotion, they found a compatible species and traded for more torpedoes. All with quick throw away lines and then on to the adventure of the arc. Like they did in ENT S4. That would have probably been the best format for VOY. Alas UPN meddled horribly with the show.

 

[Oddish]

Since I don't consider myself a strong man, I wouldn't really know. But I know that if our society needs saving, I'm not going to be the one who does it.

Regarding Voyager, I think its first two seasons compare favorably to the rest of it. As good a character as Seven and the EMH were, I think that the excessive focus on them later on hurt the show as a whole.

 

[Ragitsu]

Regarding Voyager, I think its first two seasons compare favorably to the rest of it. As good a character as Seven and the EMH were, I think that the excessive focus on them later on hurt the show as a whole.

Plus, if we remain within the confines of the first two seasons, you can excuse Harry's rank.

 

[Oddish]

Plus, if we remain within the confines of the first two seasons, you can excuse Harry's rank.

That too.

 

[Summer Solstice]

You want a season that was all over the place in terms of quality? VOY season 6.

This was how each week went... good, great, okay, great, good, okay, good, great, meh, good, very bad, bad, excellent, terrible, bad, great, awful, terrible, meh, meh, horrible, okay, good, good, okay, horrible.

No consistency in quality at all... the most schizophrenic season of quality ever. And the season premiere, "EQUINOX, PART II", should have been the first clue as to what we were in store for this season. Janeway starts off on her obsessive mission to get Ransom, an obsession so consuming she relieved Chakotay, threatened to do that with Tuvok, nearly got Crewman Lessing killed just to get information, and told the aliens she would be selling out the Equinox. But when Ransom appears on the screen near the end, she suddenly says, "He may have forgotten he was a Starfleet officer for a minute, but he remembers now." Or words to that effect, and is softened up on him. She went from going full Ahab to a reasonable person with no explanation shown. Janeway was written inconsistently throughout the series, but she was never this wishy washy within the same episode. No wonder Ronald D. Moore left after less than a month on staff. (And I will always make the argument that he would have made things much better for seasons 6-7. Just look at the one episode he did for VOY, "SURVIVAL INSTINCT", as proof.)

Now, no season in the franchise is without its misses (except DS9 season 4, where only the A story for "THE MUSE" was meh... the entire rest of the season was pure gold), and while I don't think "THRESHOLD" is anywhere near as bad as people say (though the last 5 minutes does bring it down a lot), season 2 did have a few bad ones. Which is no different than virtually every other season in the franchise. But VOY season 2, I think, had more good than bad in it.

I thought Janeway was out of character at the start of Equinox II when Harry says two people have died and Janeway didn't ask who. Picard wouldn't ask because he doesn't know all his crew by name, but Janeway does.

Season 1 is my favourite season followed by season 4. I think season 3 was more focussed on the characters and season 4 was more focussed on action, clearly partly because season 4 had to introduce Seven so had lots of Borg episodes.

 

[Oddish]

I thought Janeway was out of character at the start of Equinox II when Harry says two people have died and Janeway didn't ask who. Picard wouldn't ask because he doesn't know all his crew by name, but Janeway does.

Janeway's character vacillated in that regard, though. In "Good Shepherd", she not only doesn't know that several crew are struggling, but she actually has trouble navigating on the lower deck of her ship.

 

[at Quark's]

Janeway's character vacillated in that regard, though.

Wasn't that a problem more in general, that her character fluctuated to fit the story of the week? One episode being very protective of her crew, another episode beyond reckless and gambling on the good outcome of an action? (And just to be clear on this, this is not a criticism on the character but on the writers).

 

[Ragitsu]

A character can't be endearingly fickle ?

 

[Oddish]

Wasn't that a problem more in general, that her character fluctuated to fit the story of the week? One episode being very protective of her crew, another episode beyond reckless and gambling on the good outcome of an action? (And just to be clear on this, this is not a criticism on the character but on the writers).

Yes. The Voyager showrunners couldn't even count out 38 torpedoes or figure out that an ensign is supposed to make lieutenant. Character consistency and character development were somehow, paradoxically, both beyond their abilities.

 

[Lynx]

It also coincides with my line of thinking that humanity doesn't ever change fundamentally for the better, not even in Star Trek. It's not that hard acting nice and respectful when you lead a nice life. But take those nice circumstances away and people will return to nasty or even savage behavior, even in the Star Trek Universe.

Though I'll grant that in the Star Trek universe, humanity seems to have get rid of those a**holes that already live in quite nice conditions but still want more and more power and money for themselves.

I can agree with your last sentence.

I also want to state that my point with quoting Quark here is that what he says fit perfect with my theory that war doesn't change anything to the better because it brings out the worst of people. Give humanity peace, good living standard and development and it will slightly change to the better, even if it never will be perfect.

This seems like a roundabout way for people who support the status quo and believe us to be falling away from it to call themselves strong and their opponents weak (i.e., an elaborate ego-stroke). Basically just saying, "Things were bad, then people like me made it better and we made it so great that now ungrateful people are trying to wreck it because they don't get how great I am...and have been at all moments in history. I guess I'm just too awesome for my own good. Poor me."

People have different ideas of what's authoritarian and what's not (and what's "good times" and what's not), based on their personal ideology. It's not an objective scale by any measure. This oft-repeated mantra has many unspoken assumptions baked into it, both about what constitutes authoritarian societies and what constitutes good times versus bad times. Never mind that "strong" does not necessarily equal "moral" and quite a few "weak" men just wanted to go about their lives in peace while happily subscribing to the philosophy of "Live and let live.".

I don't find the quote as bad as you make it look. It often happens that way.
Not to mention that everything doesn't have to be authoritarian either. "A few good men" can actually inpire others to become better too.

I think if something is consistently disappointing you it is not worth keeping around.

What if there are no other options?
Maybe Star Trek after all is the most acceptable for me compared with all other crap they call "entertainment". I mean, not even NCIS is watchable anymore.

Yes. The Voyager showrunners couldn't even count out 38 torpedoes or figure out that an ensign is supposed to make lieutenant. Character consistency and character development were somehow, paradoxically, both beyond their abilities.

Since I don't consider myself a strong man, I wouldn't really know. But I know that if our society needs saving, I'm not going to be the one who does it.

Regarding Voyager, I think its first two seasons compare favorably to the rest of it. As good a character as Seven and the EMH were, I think that the excessive focus on them later on hurt the show as a whole.

Oh, I could probably inspire people to do something good. But I'm surrounded by too many cowards who won't oppose the system.

Note that this comment isn't dreicted at the Trek BBS people who I can have constructive debatea about Star Trek with, even if some of us might have different opinions. I'm referring to the people in the society and environment I live in. Which is a reason that I need the Star Trek Universe to unwind and relax in.

Otherwise I totally agree with your statements here. Sloppy writing was really dragging the series down.

The problems with those writers were that they simply didn't care. They came up with some really stupid scenarios, like the limited supply of torpedoes, the silly Ocampa nine-year lifespan and all those destroyed shuttles and must at some point have realized that it didn't work. But they didn't care, it was just like "ah, never mind, the viewers won't notice". But the viewers did notice!

The only positive aspect of all this is that all those faults inspired me to come up with the Kes Website and to try to find out explanations for all those inconsistencies, like the page on the Kes Website named Voyager Mysteries-and how to solve them.

Not to mention my most splendid idea: The Torpedo And Shuttle Building Team and my efforts in saving characters which I found ruined for no reason at all (Garak, Gowron etc.)

Consider those contributions (the Kes Website, the solving of inconsistenices and saving some characters and The Torpedo And Shuttle Building Team) as my gift to the Star Trek Universe!

I guess I'll redirect us back to some semblance of the original topic. I did enjoy the first two seasons, mostly for the small arc they were trying to do. Which is what the entire series premise seemed to require. Solving the issue at hand and moving onward towards the Alpha Quadrant. They could have done small time jumps of a month or more and sort of micro reset the status quo. Kes finished her studies and became a doctor, Harry got that promotion, they found a compatible species and traded for more torpedoes. All with quick throw away lines and then on to the adventure of the arc. Like they did in ENT S4. That would have probably been the best format for VOY. Alas UPN meddled horribly with the show.

You really hit the nail on the head here with your comments.

That's exactly what Voyager should have been.

Voyager was great until they left Kazon space. It was like the writers lost direction then. Season 3 was still OK but had more mediocre episodes than the two previous seasons.

And UPN messed it up even more.

Those in charge of Voyager should have had the freedom that the DS9 writers and producers had.

 

[Oddish]

Oh, I could probably inspire people to do something good. But I'm surrounded by too many cowards who won't oppose the system.

Sometimes it's not a matter of courage. If you are forcibly gagged, as can be easily done (especially in an online forum), it is impossible to oppose the "correct" ideology.

Note that this comment isn't dreicted at the Trek BBS people who I can have constructive debate about Star Trek with, even if some of us might have different opinions.

Or about other subjects. Our discussion about conservatives and Trek delved into politics, but it didn't degenerate into abuse or one side trying to "shut down" the other.

The problems with those writers were that they simply didn't care. They came up with some really stupid scenarios, like the limited supply of torpedoes, the silly Ocampa nine-year lifespan and all those destroyed shuttles and must at some point have realized that it didn't work. But they didn't care, it was just like "ah, never mind, the viewers won't notice".

And by 1994, they should have known better.

Not to mention my most splendid idea: The Torpedo And Shuttle Building Team

The inspiration for several of my own ideas for explaining away this ludicrous inconsistency.

Voyager was great until they left Kazon space. It was like the writers lost direction then. Season 3 was still OK but had more mediocre episodes than the two previous seasons.

And UPN messed it up even more.

Someone did, that's for sure.

Those in charge of Voyager should have had the freedom that the DS9 writers and producers had.

Can you imagine VOY with 20+ developing characters, an evolving storyline with consequences, characters who didn't fit the Starfleet ideal*, and everyone getting promoted realistically? Combined with the cast they had, it would have been in the same league as TOS, TNG, and DS9.

*Neelix and Kes might not have worn uniforms... but that was a stylistic decision. Either of them could have.

 

[Ragitsu]

Deep Dish Nine was the Anti-Trek, though; I wouldn't want that in Voyager.

 

[Ragitsu]

I don't find the quote as bad as you make it look. It often happens that way.
Not to mention that everything doesn't have to be authoritarian either. "A few good men" can actually inpire others to become better too.

The original quote uses "strong" and not "good"; again, "strong" does not necessarily equal "moral" (i.e, "good"). In the states, there are folks who are of the mind that "weak" men instituted The Immigration and Nationality Act
circa the 1960s along with The Civil Rights act and that created "hard times" for "upstanding Americans" by letting in the "bad" people in addition to empowering already-present ethnic minorities. Their philosophy is that we need "strong" men to right this decades-old wrong. See? Very subjective.