Losing Voyager

[Lynx]

That's not dystopian to acknowledge our dark side. That's ridiculous.

Definition of dystopian: of, relating to, or being an imagined world or society in which people lead dehumanized, fearful lives.

So, all of human history is dystopian? O_o

Sorry, but I like my Star Trek were the negative is acknowledged and humanity is shown to have choice:

ANAN: There can be no peace. Don't you see? We've admitted it to ourselves. We're a killer species. It's instinctive. It's the same with you. Your General Order Twenty Four.
KIRK: All right. It's instinctive. But the instinct can be fought. We're human beings with the blood of a million savage years on our hands, but we can stop it. We can admit that we're killers, but we're not going to kill today. That's all it takes. Knowing that we won't kill today. Contact Vendikar. I think you'll find that they're just as terrified, appalled, horrified as you are, that they'll do anything to avoid the alternative I've given you. Peace or utter destruction. It's up to you. (emphasis added).

ETA: One of my favorite ways to illustrate this is via a song:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

You do have some points here.

And no, I don't consider human history dystopian.
But there have been periodes when it comes close to that.

And sometimes I just get tired of having it rammed down my throat.

As for Star Trek, I think that DS9 had the best mixture. It had episodes which could be considered as dark and gloomy from time to time.

But there were always "lighter" episodes between them and even in the darkest hours, there was a feeling that the good side would prevail.

That's what I want!

Not downright dark stories of people living on or leaving a devastated Earth or doom-and-gloom and destruction just for the sake of it.

 

[fireproof78]

Not downright dark stories of people living on or leaving a devastated Earth or doom-and-gloom and destruction just for the sake of it.

Good thing Star Trek hasn't done that.

ETA: To expand, has Star Trek recently gone in to darker territory? Yes, absolutely it has. In my opinion, that is in line with the TOS view that humanity means a struggle. TNG preached a lot about the capability of humanity being evolved, but would often reflect the darker aspect, be it with admirals seeking power on their own (Pressman, Satie, Kennerly, Jameson), or technology gone awry, in Data and Lore. There are still flawed aspects of humanity. Ignoring them reflects a view that isn't supported in Trek.

Recent Trek has asked harder questions including "What are the consequences of the Dominion War? Of the loss of Romulus? Of the Borg virus?" These are legitimate questions because there are always consequences to our choices.

 

[Lynx]

Good thing Star Trek hasn't done that.

ETA: To expand, has Star Trek recently gone in to darker territory? Yes, absolutely it has. In my opinion, that is in line with the TOS view that humanity means a struggle. TNG preached a lot about the capability of humanity being evolved, but would often reflect the darker aspect, be it with admirals seeking power on their own (Pressman, Satie, Kennerly, Jameson), or technology gone awry, in Data and Lore. There are still flawed aspects of humanity. Ignoring them reflects a view that isn't supported in Trek.

Recent Trek has asked harder questions including "What are the consequences of the Dominion War? Of the loss of Romulus? Of the Borg virus?" These are legitimate questions because there are always consequences to our choices.

The destruction of Romulus and Vulcan are exactly what I'm against when it comes to nuTrek.

Totally unnecessary and just an act of egomaniac stupid writers and producers who want to set their mark on the product.

I refuse to watch any movies or series where those events are stated as facts.

I have no problems with power-seeking admirals or technology gone awry as long as thse problems are solved.

 

[fireproof78]

Totally unnecessary and just an act of egomaniac stupid writers and producers who want to set their mark on the product.

Just no.

I refuse to watch any movies or series where those events are stated as facts.

Then we can't call them "grimdark" or "dystopian" without context.

The destruction of Romulus and Vulcan are exactly what I'm against when it comes to nuTrek.

I mean, that's a ridiculous line to me but you do you.

 

[Lynx]

Just no.

I do think that it is that way.

Then we can't call them "grimdark" or "dystopian" without context.

how does my decision not to watch series and movies in which such meaningless and unnecessary destruction of places and characters are stated as facts affect what is regardes as "grimdark" and "dystopian".
I see them as such and my decision not to accept it is based on principles. If I don't like something or find it very disturbing, I don't watch it.

I mean, that's a ridiculous line to me but you do you.

No, it's exactly what I think.

 

[fireproof78]

I do think that it is that way.

So, you think the writers are stupid? Got it.

I see them as such and my decision not to accept it is based on principles. If I don't like something or find it very disturbing, I don't watch it.

I don't watch things I find disturbing either. The destruction of a planet is used for storytelling and dramatic effect. It has a purpose behind it and I'm engaged with that purpose.

Mileage will vary.

No, it's exactly what I think.

That doesn't make it less ridiculous to me. I mean, when does destruction become problematic then? The wholesale wiping out of an entire moon and ecological disasters for the Klingons in TUC? The attack on Earth by the Dominion in DS9 or Betazed? The deaths of multiple crews in TMP because of V'Ger? The attack on Earth by the Xindi in ENT and all the people who died there?

Sorry, it's a line that I don't parse very well.

 

[DonIago]

We probably shouldn't talk about some of the episodes of TOS with high body counts either?

 

[Lynx]

So, you think the writers are stupid? Got it.

Not actually stupid but very destructive.

I've seen too much of totally unnecessary destruction of too many great main characters in too many episodes and books and I just don't understand why.

I don't watch things I find disturbing either. The destruction of a planet is used for storytelling and dramatic effect. It has a purpose behind it and I'm engaged with that purpose.

Mileage will vary.

That doesn't make it less ridiculous to me. I mean, when does destruction become problematic then? The wholesale wiping out of an entire moon and ecological disasters for the Klingons in TUC? The attack on Earth by the Dominion in DS9 or Betazed? The deaths of multiple crews in TMP because of V'Ger? The attack on Earth by the Xindi in ENT and all the people who died there?

Sorry, it's a line that I don't parse very well.

I can accept some of the events you have mentioned above as necessary parts of an ongoing story.

But why wipe out Romulus and Vulcan thus totally changing the premise for two of the most important species in the Trek Universe, now that is stupid and utterly destructive.

And meaningless too since they could achive whatever effect they might want by just letting some place they invented themselves or so be blown up if they wanted too.

I mean, if I had been smart enough to come up with something lso great as Star Trek and years later some destructive writer or producer with an ego should wipe out something which I had created, something with an important role in "my Universe", I would either sue that person and prevent the story from being printed or, if I had happen to taken a permanent place in the Heavenly Star Trek Universe, then I would come back from the grave to haunt that person.

 

[fireproof78]

But why wipe out Romulus and Vulcan thus totally changing the premise for two of the most important species in the Trek Universe, now that is stupid and utterly destructive.

No, it's change.

Study history and realize great powers rise and fall and sometimes due to internal circumstances or external.

It's called drama snd exploring consequences. It's not stupid.

I mean, if I had been smart enough to come up with something lso great as Star Trek and years later some destructive writer or producer with an ego should wipe out something which I had created, something with an important role in "my Universe", I would either sue that person an

The originator of the story no longer owns Star Trek. You can't sue. Otherwise we wouldn't have TWOK or TUC. Definitely not DS9.

 

[Anwar]

Good writers is what Trek need. It worked on DS9.

DS9 had easy access to the resources necessary to do a proper big Galactic Epic, Voyager did not. Voyager was ridiculously constrained in comparison to DS9 and TNG

 

[Lynx]

No, it's change.

Study history and realize great powers rise and fall and sometimes due to internal circumstances or external.

It's called drama snd exploring consequences. It's not stupid.

No, it's destructive and definitiely stupid to destroy the homeworlds of two of the most imoortant species in the Star Trek Universe.

Totally unnecessary too since there are hundreds of other options if they absolutely want mass destruction as a background to a story.

Change for the sake of changing is the most stupid thing to do. It ruins more than it creates and never works out good.

The originator of the story no longer owns Star Trek. You can't sue. Otherwise we wouldn't have TWOK or TUC. Definitely not DS9.

I wasn't mentioning "the originator of Star Trek", I was mentione what I would have done if I had been the originator of Star Trek and someone abuse my creation.

Not to mention that I would still own it or at least my family would. I would never ler my masterpiece be abused bu some destructive fools from the dystopian 21th century.

DS9 had easy access to the resources necessary to do a proper big Galactic Epic, Voyager did not. Voyager was ridiculously constrained in comparison to DS9 and TNG

Voyager had an excellent premise and excellent characters. Unfortunately both the premise and the characters weren't used the way they should have been.

 

[fireproof78]

It ruins more than it creates and never works out good.

Strong disagree. Nothing was ruined.

Not to mention that I would still own it or at least my family would. I would never ler my masterpiece be abused bu some destructive fools from the dystopian 21th century.

This is hard to take seriously. Trek isn't dystopian and artistic choice is not abuse.

Voyager was ridiculously constrained in comparison to DS9 and TNG

Art works with limits.

 

[Lynx]

Strong disagree. Nothing was ruined.

Vulcans and Romulans have been ruined.
Two of the most interesting species in the Star Trek Universe has been destroyed.

This is hard to take seriously. Trek isn't dystopian and artistic choice is not abuse.

The 2000s are dystopian, especially the 2020s and it affects Star Trek too.
"Artistic choice" is abusive when destructive people ruin something good.

Art works with limits.

Maybe, f it is clever and constructive people who are the artists.
If not, then it can be destructive, even with more or less limits.

 

[fireproof78]

Vulcans and Romulans have been ruined.
Two of the most interesting species in the Star Trek Universe has been destroyed.

No.

The 2000s are dystopian, especially the 2020s and it affects Star Trek too.
"Artistic choice" is abusive when destructive people ruin something good.

Still waiting to see this "ruination" of Star Trek that gets talked about. Pretty sure it started with TNG though.

If not, then it can be destructive, even with more or less limits.

Well, I guess you and I define destructive differently.

 

[Anwar]

Voyager had an excellent premise and excellent characters. Unfortunately both the premise and the characters weren't used the way they should have been.

The premise was "Gilligan's Island" in space, that's a very constrained premise.

Art works with limits.

Tell that to "Living Witness". A great piece, utterly disregarded for years and only remembered for its flaws instead of its strengths

 

[fireproof78]

Tell that to "Living Witness". A great piece, utterly disregarded for years and only remembered for its flaws instead of its strengths

Will do, on my next rewatch.

"Dear, Living Witness."

The premise was "Gilligan's Island" in space, that's a very constrained premise.

Work with it.

 

[at Quark's]

The premise was "Gilligan's Island" in space, that's a very constrained premise.

Many people initially said something similar about DS9. "A space station instead of a ship? But they are just sitting there and they have to wait till aliens visit them! They'll quickly run out of stories to tell!"

(Granted, they did eventually get the Defiant, of course).

And I agree that the Voyager premise sets some significant limitations, yes, but a good writing team can work with that.

 

[Lynx]

No.

Yes, they are ruined.
They could as well blow up Earth too, have the remaining humans settling on some backward stone-age planet and get the perfect dystopian 2020s series when they are still at it.

Still waiting to see this "ruination" of Star Trek that gets talked about. Pretty sure it started with TNG though.

No, it didn't.

It started with series like Star Trek Enterprise, Star Trek Discovery and the NuTrek movies and have continued with Star Trek Picard.

Well, I guess you and I define destructive differently.

We do seem to have different opinions of that.

The premise was "Gilligan's Island" in space, that's a very constrained premise.

But the premise was good despite that and the series had excellent characters.

It could have worked if the series had had writers instead of clowns and egomaniacs.

What Voyager would have needed was more recurring characters.

Look at DS9 which had such excellent recurring characters as Garak, Nog, Rom, Gowron, Dukat, Winn, Sloan, Keiko, Leeta, Vic Fontaine, Martok, Weyoun and so many others.

Voyager with its somewhat constrained premise would have needed such characters too.

OK, due to Voyager being a ship traveling from place to place, it would have been impossible to come up with such diversity among the characters as DS9 had.

But we did have characters like Carey, Rollins, Samantha Wildman, Dalby, Henley, Chell, Gerron, Seska, Hogan, Jonas, Suder, Culluh.

Many of those could have been used better. Why was cared ditched after season 2 and why did we only see Dalby, Henley, Chell and Gerron in one episode?

 

[Farscape One]

I am in agreement with you about VOY and more recurring characters on the ship. The premise almost demanded it, since there would be no way to get new Starfleet (or Maquis) crew. The lack of recurring characters, particularly after season 2, is glaring. Especially when compared to DS9, which ran concurrently with each other until DS9 ended. It's hard not to make this comparison when both series aired new episodes on the same night back to back. (They did in Miami, anyway.)

 

[fireproof78]

Yes, they are ruined.
They could as well blow up Earth too, have the remaining humans settling on some backward stone-age planet and get the perfect dystopian 2020s series when they are still at it.

How? You can still tell stories with Romulans and Vulcans. That's not ruined to me.

No, it didn't.

It started with series like Star Trek Enterprise, Star Trek Discovery and the NuTrek movies and have continued with Star Trek Picard.

Hardly. The fan reaction to TNG was that Trek was ruined because it isn't Star Trek without Kirk or Spock.

Two, art will always reflect life. The world chsnged in 2001 and we see the darker themes explored, which is something Trek has always done since TOS divided Kirk in half and he had a good side and a evil side.

That is Trek. Not just blind optimism that ignores darkness. Otherwise it becomes a fairy tale irrelevant to daily life, if it hasn't already.