Voyager: Full Circle extract in Star Trek Magazine 16

[PaulSimpson]

Bought the magazine yesterday.

I just have to say that any Voyager fan who refuses to buy it because of who's on the cover or some perceived favoritism to Seven and the Doctor is really missing out. It's a terrific collection of articles, including one very pro-Janeway analysis of her leadership style.

To all involved--great job.

Thank you on behalf of everyone involved. I didn't want to shout too loudly about a pro Janeway argument in the mag, given the current threads, but I was pleased with the argument that Bob Jeschonek presented.

Paul

 

[teya]

It was a good argument. Not one that I agreed with wholeheartedly, but a good argument.

Also loved Christopher Bennett's analysis of Seven's impact on the show. An argument I've been trying to make for years... Fans of the character say, "Thanks."

 

[kimc]

I didn't want to shout too loudly about a pro Janeway argument in the mag, given the current threads,

I certainly hope you wouldn't feel uncomfortable making any kind of argument here and I'm sure the mods for this forum feel the same.

 

[Ktrek]

I enjoyed reading that magazine Paul and I know that there has been some controversy here lately about whether Janeway should remain dead or not but at least for me Janeway remaining dead in the books has nothing to do with dislike for her, because I do like the character. I would say that most would feel the same with the exception of the few Janeway haters out here. I always think people should be free to voice their opinions as long as they don't become personal, but sometimes even that's hard to do.

All the articles were fine although I thought quite a few were rather short and not much new information or things to think about. My favorite article is Jill Sherwin's talk with Bryan Fuller. It was great!

Also, I have a question for you. Is there a policy or something that pics of cast members have to be from the series or something? Don't you all think many fans would like to see what these folks you interview etc. look like today? Just curious because I would like to see some current pics.

Kevin

 

[Christopher]

Also loved Christopher Bennett's analysis of Seven's impact on the show. An argument I've been trying to make for years... Fans of the character say, "Thanks."

Thank you! It's an argument I've made online many times myself, but this was my chance to codify it in print and back it up with data -- and to get paid for it!

Also, I have a question for you. Is there a policy or something that pics of cast members have to be from the series or something? Don't you all think many fans would like to see what these folks you interview etc. look like today? Just curious because I would like to see some current pics.

I've often thought the same thing -- that the interviews really should include current photos of the people being interviewed, not just old clips of what they looked like in character. (Although I do like it that the montages of TOS characters always include their TAS versions where applicable.)

 

[Defcon]

Also, I have a question for you. Is there a policy or something that pics of cast members have to be from the series or something? Don't you all think many fans would like to see what these folks you interview etc. look like today? Just curious because I would like to see some current pics.

I've often thought the same thing -- that the interviews really should include current photos of the people being interviewed, not just old clips of what they looked like in character. (Although I do like it that the montages of TOS characters always include their TAS versions where applicable.)

I have no idea about the publishing business, but maybe Titan has something in their contract with CBS that they can use series pictures relatively cheap, while acquiring new pics (or send a photographer themselves) would be more expensive.

As I said that's just wild speculation on my part.

 

[PaulSimpson]

I didn't want to shout too loudly about a pro Janeway argument in the mag, given the current threads,

I certainly hope you wouldn't feel uncomfortable making any kind of argument here and I'm sure the mods for this forum feel the same.

Thanks for that - where I'm talking for myself, then I'll jump in with both feet, but when I'm talking as editor, then I'm slightly more circumspect. The mag tries to steer a course between the various camps!

All the articles were fine although I thought quite a few were rather short and not much new information or things to think about.

I've found with each of these "season" issues that one article is old hat to some people, while others find the same piece presenting a completely new idea.

Also, I have a question for you. Is there a policy or something that pics of cast members have to be from the series or something? Don't you all think many fans would like to see what these folks you interview etc. look like today? Just curious because I would like to see some current pics.

I've often thought the same thing -- that the interviews really should include current photos of the people being interviewed, not just old clips of what they looked like in character. (Although I do like it that the montages of TOS characters always include their TAS versions where applicable.)

In a lot of cases it is down to sheer availability of pictures. You'll note that for the new movie, we have been running shots of the actors, because they are easily available, and yes an up to date shot of say Jeri Ryan or Bob Picardo isn't that hard to find. However that doesn't apply across the board, and I'm not willing to have long-lens shots taken at cons just to have an "up to date" shot.

The animated version is something that I brought in - I regard that as the fourth season of the original series, and "The Counter Clock Incident" was incredibly helpful in providing shots of the cast as youngsters for our "teaser" interviews for the new cast.

Paul

 

[Ktrek]

But Paul, when one of the writers is at a con interviewing in person is it too much to ask them to snap a couple of photos to attach to their article?

Kevin

 

[Christopher]

^^Indeed, I thought it was standard practice for magazines to send photographers along with their interviewers. Is it perhaps that more interviews these days are conducted by phone or e-mail?

 

[Ktrek]

^^ Terri Osborne's interview was at Dragon Con so I would have thought she could have gotten a couple of pics of Robert Picardo. I do imagine that most interviews today are done by phone or email but it seems to me that contacting their management agency would probably secure some more recent photos - since anytime someone grants an interview it is a way to promote themselves.

Kevin

 

[Christopher]

^^ Terri Osborne's interview was at Dragon Con so I would have thought she could have gotten a couple of pics of Robert Picardo.

But photographs meant for magazines need to be professional-quality, which is why you hire a professional photographer to take them. It's not just a matter of sending a writer with a cell-phone camera.

 

[Ktrek]

I've seen lots of photos in magazines that look like they were taken with a digital camera. I don't see why a professional would be needed. They likely would crop the image anyway for a montage.

Kevin

 

[Christopher]

I've seen lots of photos in magazines that look like they were taken with a digital camera. I don't see why a professional would be needed. They likely would crop the image anyway for a montage.

That's a non sequitur on every level. For one, of course professionals use digital cameras these days; surely you didn't think they only used film? There are digital cameras that are far more high-end than any camera phone, just as there are film cameras far more high-end than a Kodak disposable. Second, cropping isn't the only thing that defines good photography. There's lighting, composition, shot selection, the ability to bring out the essence of one's subject -- matters of artistry, skill, and experience rather than mere equipment. It's a skill like any other, something that a trained professional can do at a far higher level than an amateur. Now, I've been told I have a pretty good eye for composition when I take snapshots, but I would never be so arrogant as to think I'm anywhere near qualified to take professional-level photographs that would be worthy of publication in a magazine. There are people who devote years of training to become good enough to do photography as a profession, and it's not only naive but insensitive to dismiss what they do as just a matter of pointing and shooting, something that any random person could do at an equivalent level.

 

[kimc]

There are people who devote years of training to become good enough to do photography as a profession, and it's not only naive but insensitive to dismiss what they do as just a matter of pointing and shooting, something that any random person could do at an equivalent level.

I agree. Sure, digital cameras and even some phones can give a decent-looking picture but true photography is more about the person behind the camera than the camera itself.

 

[TerriO]

^^ Terri Osborne's interview was at Dragon Con so I would have thought she could have gotten a couple of pics of Robert Picardo.

But photographs meant for magazines need to be professional-quality, which is why you hire a professional photographer to take them. It's not just a matter of sending a writer with a cell-phone camera.

Christopher, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt with this way off generalization, since you couldn't possibly know I've done photography professionally off and on for 20 years.

Now, to actually address the circumstances of said interview, Bob was doing several interviews in one big sweep during his time in the autographing area. He managed to squeeze me in between two other interviews during a lull in the autograph queue. We managed to find time at the last possible second. Trust me when I say that I wouldn't ask anyone to pose for a shot for a magazine after they've been through a Dragon*Con autographing. As someone who's been on both sides of the table, I'm happy with whatever time the person can spare for me, and won't ask for more than was originally discussed.

And, to be quite honest, Paul never asked me to discuss pictures, and I'm not about to presumptively second-guess my editor, either. If he wanted pictures to go with the article, he'd have asked. He's good that way.

Damn, now I'm wanting to get my old photography portfolio back in order.

 

[Ktrek]

That's a non sequitur on every level. For one, of course professionals use digital cameras these days; surely you didn't think they only used film? There are digital cameras that are far more high-end than any camera phone, just as there are film cameras far more high-end than a Kodak disposable. Second, cropping isn't the only thing that defines good photography. There's lighting, composition, shot selection, the ability to bring out the essence of one's subject -- matters of artistry, skill, and experience rather than mere equipment. It's a skill like any other, something that a trained professional can do at a far higher level than an amateur. Now, I've been told I have a pretty good eye for composition when I take snapshots, but I would never be so arrogant as to think I'm anywhere near qualified to take professional-level photographs that would be worthy of publication in a magazine. There are people who devote years of training to become good enough to do photography as a profession, and it's not only naive but insensitive to dismiss what they do as just a matter of pointing and shooting, something that any random person could do at an equivalent level.

You know Chris... I don't know why you so often feel it necessary to talk down to fans like their just complete idiots! I'm 52 years old and I think I probably would know everything you pointed out without having to have all the details slammed in my face. I wasn't at all suggesting that a damn photoshoot needed to take place! A nice photo of Robert signing autographs would have been fine as far as I'm concerned and no I do NOT believe you have to be a professional for that. Almost all digital cameras today can take a photo with good enough quality for a magazine so don't tell me that you have to own a $2000 camera to even be able to submit an acceptable photo. I don't buy this crap that only the "professionals" should have anything to do with what goes into a publication.

Kevin

 

[PaulSimpson]

But Paul, when one of the writers is at a con interviewing in person is it too much to ask them to snap a couple of photos to attach to their article?

Kevin

^^Indeed, I thought it was standard practice for magazines to send photographers along with their interviewers. Is it perhaps that more interviews these days are conducted by phone or e-mail?

Christopher has basically nailed it. I'd say of the interviews I've done or commissioned for the magazine in the last two and a half years, maybe five at most were done in person. Conventions are the *last* time actors want to be doing interviews, in the normal course of events: they're there to talk to the fans, and to interact with them. It wouldn't have surprised me in the slightest if Bob Picardo had asked Terri if they could set a time to talk on the phone after the con.

And yes, major glossy mags like Vogue will send photographers along for something that's set up that way, but that's not the sort of magazine that we do - I know that some of the SF mags have flirted with that in the past but I'm not sure that they do it that often nowadays.

And while a picture is worth a thousand words, be honest - which would you rather have? A nice pic and 1000 word interview, or shots from the show and 2000 words?

Paul

 

[Christopher]

You know Chris... I don't know why you so often feel it necessary to talk down to fans like their just complete idiots!

That wasn't my intent. It sounded to me like you were dismissing the work that professional photographers do, assuming that any random amateur could do the same work that professionals do. That sort of dismissiveness toward professionals hits me close to home, because I so often come across people who assume they could write as well as I do, as if the many hard years of practice and discipline I put into it counted for nothing. In general, I believe people deserve credit for their efforts, and if I think anyone is being treated unfairly or dismissively, I rise to their defense. I'm not trying to put you down, I'm objecting to what I perceived as you putting professional photographers down.

 

[TerriO]

^Dude, seriously, quit while you're behind.

 

[LightningStorm]

Prior to yesterday, I had never ever picked up (or even seen for that matter) a Star Trek magazine (I'm not a big magazine person in general so I'm never in that section of any store). While I had known of its existence I was never even interested in picking one up. However I have actively sought out and purchased (yesterday) the latest one (due in no small part to this very thread).

I must say, I have been seriously missing out. I read half of it before falling asleep last night. I like it a lot, granted not enough to go and get a subscription (sorry Paul) but enough that I'll be paying more attention to it and will more likely pick up future issues that have content I'd be interested in.

Good stuff, but I do have one very small complaint. The page with the article with white text on the light brown background was difficult to read, I think the brown part needed to be darker and not have white lines running through it.

The high points of the parts I did read were Mack and Bennett's articles about Neelix and The Doctor and Seven. Good stuff with good points in both.