Why is the Trek community so negative about Voyager?

[kimc]

Says who? There are plenty of story telling avenues you can take an enemy, even one as powerful as the Borg, if you have IMAGINATION and creativity.

Not really. No.

You aren't even anywhere near qualified to make a blanket statement like that.

Look guys, if you don't like the way someone posts then put him/her on "ignore" and save me the paperwork of having to give out warnings. Otherwise, we're going to have to shut this thread down.

 

[number6]

A lot of that stuff sounds good on paper, but as spoken dialog it can easily become crap. And about 1/3 of the time it was.

But B5 is a good example of what happens when one guy is in charge all the way through (it still had some problems though. It WASN'T perfect). Every time VOY tried that, said Showrunner ended up fired off the show.

Which show runner got fired from VOY?

 

[TheGodBen]

I don't see where he said any of that nor is he throwing out names of those involved or uninvolved in this particular debate but one. I'm sorry but I think you completely misunderstood what he said. His commens are on how we debate each other, not on what we're neccassarily debating about.

Perhaps so, perhaps I did misunderstand the post and he was referring to the method of debate. I still don't think he has a point as the majority of criticisms made against Voyager in this thread are nothing like the nonsensical extreme points of view that Anwar claims "haters" have.

Look guys, if you don't like the way someone posts then put him/her on "ignore" and save me the paperwork of having to give out warnings. Otherwise, we're going to have to shut this thread down.

Aww, but this thread is over 700 posts of absolute gold! There's not a single pointless, stupid, extreme, laughable, obnoxious, self-indulgent, or just plain silly post anywhere in this thread. It's amazing the level of quality it has been able to maintain over such a long period. Obviously, my posts have been the best.

 

[Anwar]

First Piller ("asked to leave" or something), and then Taylor about 2 seasons later.

 

[Saquist]

The would come off as inept no matter what. It's either do a story about them, or just have them ignore VOY for whatever reason. Having them ignore VOY wasn't dramatically feasible.

I don't agree. TNG set the stage for ignoring but not oblivious. That's the difference between a conscious mind and the Collective that TNG brought to the fore.

TNG stopped treating them as a "Force of Nature" all the way back in "I, Borg". The Borg as a "Force of Nature" used up its mileage after BOBW and weren't viable anymore.

Actually, I Borg was an isolated situation. It didn't represent the entire Collective. The same as in Descent. Their intent wasn't to humanize all of the Borg.

Nope, the only way to make the Borg a recurring enemy while keeping them as a big boring Collective would be if they were played off a second enemy (of interesting individuals) who were the real enemies of the story. As in, have VOY be fighting someone else when the Borg show up to start blasting people so all the REAL drama and interactions are with the individuals.

I don't think so.
writing is more fluid and dynamic than you describe.
It's the focus of the camera that matters. If you're talking simple adventure stories then you're right but Trek introduced the Borg as a Greater and a true Challenge for the Federation. There is a powerful dynamic that Voyager never dealt with. The Borg are essentially living dead...mindless automatons by the TNG standard.

No one has dealt with their begining and That is what Voyager could have done. No one has dealt with actually freeing those people from the Collective....There is more venture and adventure then the "Night of the Living Dead" Premise than the short sighted writers of First Contact dreamt of.

Terminator uses machines that can talk and think on their own, not a Collective.

In a very limited fashion.
"You will be assimilated." vs. the almost zero speech from the Terminators.

Same deal, not a Collective.

TomAto~Tomato.
Machines work in the same collective arrangement.
You're thinking Hive Mind which is a First Contact Concept that was never apart of the Borg before. A Collective is merely an assembly of minds working toward a common task.

A collective is a group of entities that share or are motivated by at least one common issue or interest, or work together on a specific project(s) to achieve a common objective. ...~wiki

The Reapers aren't a Collective, they're all individual machines that enslave individuals to their will while letting them keep their individuality (thus, are not boring).

The Reapers and Geth represent Collectives.
They work the same way as the Borg. Sovereign was an assembly of thousands of programs working toward a common Goal. Legion was a multitude of programs downloaded into one mobile platform. Legions mission was to find Sheppard. Sovereign Mission was to Vanguard.

Not a Collective, in fact the Cylons are more than capable of fighting one another (even same type cylons).

They are more individuals you mean but they are still a collective. They have a common goal.

BOBW only worked because it was the first real "Borg Invasion" story, and because of Locutus. It would get really boring if everytime the Borg invaded they assimilated a main character to serve as their mouthpiece. And Borg invasions would be boring after BOBW as well.

Why would they keep doing same Invasion tactic.
Yeah that would be boring.
No self respecting writer would do that over and over and over and over and over again.

TNG made it clear that you can't run from the Borg. Not successfully.

Doesn't mean you don't do it.

By DS9, they all did fly around in squadrons and stuff. Before it was mainly because of budgetary concerns.

That's war time, not peace time.

They were already getting defanged in "I, Borg". And it was either a choice between emasculating the crew or defanging the Borg. No one wants to watch a show about a bunch of cowards who run away from everything when prior shows have the Fed crews always winning.

How does this one Borg equal "they" (plural)?

But the fact of the matter is that Crusher, with a SKELETON CREW, still managed to destroy the Borg Cruiser.

The fact is: It was a trump Card. The Vessel wasn't defeated one on won. Voyager did just so on at least one occasion (not the last episode)

Oranges and apples, but they still won in the end.

You mean at the end of the Saga.
At the end of the Movie was a failure and cliff hangar but both Luke and Leia/Chewy. That was suspense. Running creates that. That's why there is a chase sequence in good horror films or in movies like Enemy of the State . Mission Impossible 1,2,3. Jumper, Matrix and Matrix Revolutions...chases are a part of Great Movie Suspense. When the danger is real and a chase insues the Rise in Climax is heightened.

 

[number6]

First Piller ("asked to leave" or something), and then Taylor about 2 seasons later.

Neither of them were fired.
Piller developed two shows and wrote INS and still sat in on story meetings. Taylor retired. They were also producers/creators of the show, not just the show runners.
You said that everytime a showrunner tried to be the only writer like on B5, a showrunner got fired. Show us how you know this or basically you've proven to us all that you're just pulling stuff out of your crack and posting it as fact. Or why don't you just do us all a favor and confirm what we all know: You don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Servo]

I disagree, especially if what you're saying is that Archer and Kirk can be held to a lower ethical standard because they came earlier.

Your comprehension of my post leaves a lot to be desired.

As I already pointed out, Janeway herself viewed the Starfleet Officers of Kirk's era as a different breed, one more ready to walk the moral line and take risks. She even pointed out that they would have been booted out of her Starfleet as a result of their actions. That's simply the way it is. You can't just disregard that because it doesn't fit with your arguments.

One could also argue that given Voyager's situation of being lost in the Delta quadrant without Starfleet backup Janeway should have gone the Ransom route and jettisoned all ethics. In fact, one hears this criticism of Voyager quite a bit. Consequently, your argument doesn't hold much water.

Bullshit. The whole point of Voyager was to continue to embrace and perpetuate the ideals of co-operation and exploration, even when the Federation is thousands of light years away. There was never any question of whether they should abandon their ethics. Ransom's morally ambiguous actions were fine for a two-parter to illustrate how Voyager could have ended up, but it wouldn't have lasted as the premise of an entire series.

Nice try though.

Don't fucking patronise me.

You aren't even anywhere near qualified to make a blanket statement like that.

Look guys, if you don't like the way someone posts then put him/her on "ignore" and save me the paperwork of having to give out warnings. Otherwise, we're going to have to shut this thread down.

Are you fucking serious? I've been one of the most civil people in this thread, and yet you're quoting my post as an example of you having to hand out warnings?

It's no wonder this forum has the reputation it does. People like you are so fucking scared of anyone bashing their favourite show, you shut down any kind of debate and start threatening people with warnings the minute anyone strays from the "I LOVE VOYAGER!" mantra. Pathetic.

 

[Anwar]

I don't agree. TNG set the stage for ignoring but not oblivious. That's the difference between a conscious mind and the Collective that TNG brought to the fore.

And it's dramatically very boring if there was an entire episode of VOY simply flying through Borg space and not doing anything to get their attention, leaving safely by the end.

No one has dealt with their begining and That is what Voyager could have done. No one has dealt with actually freeing those people from the Collective....There is more venture and adventure then the "Night of the Living Dead" Premise than the short sighted writers of First Contact dreamt of.

"Dealing with their beginnings" isn't very interesting. No one really cares about some "Borg origin" story, just what they can do in the here and now.

And VOY did deal with freeing folks from the Collective, "Unimatrix Zero".

"You will be assimilated." vs. the almost zero speech from the Terminators.

They can still talk and actually do stuff. And in Terminator Salvation they're full of individuals.

Machines work in the same collective arrangement.
You're thinking Hive Mind which is a First Contact Concept that was never apart of the Borg before. A Collective is merely an assembly of minds working toward a common task.

It was clear in the beginning that the Borg had no individuals at all. They were always a Hive mind, which is very boring as a recurring enemy.

The Reapers and Geth represent Collectives.
They work the same way as the Borg. Sovereign was an assembly of thousands of programs working toward a common Goal. Legion was a multitude of programs downloaded into one mobile platform. Legions mission was to find Sheppard. Sovereign Mission was to Vanguard.

And they both are treated as Individuals within the Reaper "species" with full personalities and independent action. They can talk and think, whereas no individual Borg can do that. If they COULD then it'd be cooler.

They are more individuals you mean but they are still a collective. They have a common goal.

Borg are a Hive Mind, there are no individuals in the Collective. What they should've done is shown that there ARE individuals who can talk and do stuff within the Borg, but they still have to take orders from the big Collective voice. Like the Zerg Cerebrates have to obey the Zerg Overmind but are still individuals capable of creativity and thought.

No self respecting writer would do that over and over and over and over and over again.

That's all the Borg can do. They aren't interested in subtlety or infiltrations or anything INTERESTING, just full-on assaults.

Doesn't mean you don't do it.

If the writers already know it won't do anything, then it's bad writing.

That's war time, not peace time.

Also, Fed ships can easily call upon other ships for help if they need it, that deep in their own space. And if one goes missing then others will come to look.

How does this one Borg equal "they" (plural)?

Hugh showed that a Borg could be talked to as an individual and not the decentralized big Voice. And then Descent went further and showed it happening to a whole group of them. It defanged the Collective by showing it could be broken.

The fact is: It was a trump Card. The Vessel wasn't defeated one on won. Voyager did just so on at least one occasion (not the last episode)

They only destroyed a Probe ship, all other times they just held out for a bit before they Borg left them for something else. In the last episode, they had help from the future.

You mean at the end of the Saga.
At the end of the Movie was a failure and cliff hangar but both Luke and Leia/Chewy. That was suspense. Running creates that. That's why there is a chase sequence in good horror films or in movies like Enemy of the State . Mission Impossible 1,2,3. Jumper, Matrix and Matrix Revolutions...chases are a part of Great Movie Suspense. When the danger is real and a chase insues the Rise in Climax is heightened.

But an episodic series isn't the same as a movie series that you know will get a continuation. Episodic stories have to be totally wrapped up with little-to-no cliffhanger stuff by the end. It would be like if "Balance of Terror" ended with the Romulan ship still out there, damaged but prepared for another attack, instead of the ENT destroying it/forcing a self-destruct.

As for Number6, I concede I went too far and said they were fired for trying to do B5-style storytelling. But the fact stands that every attempt at doing a serial-style story was shut down by UPN. It wasn't going to happen.

 

[exodus]

I still don't think he has a point as the majority of criticisms made against Voyager in this thread are nothing like the nonsensical extreme points of view that Anwar claims "haters" have.

If that was his point, which it still wasn't.
Taking things in context was.

 

[exodus]

I disagree, especially if what you're saying is that Archer and Kirk can be held to a lower ethical standard because they came earlier.

Your comprehension of my post leaves a lot to be desired.

As I already pointed out, Janeway herself viewed the Starfleet Officers of Kirk's era as a different breed, one more ready to walk the moral line and take risks. She even pointed out that they would have been booted out of her Starfleet as a result of their actions. That's simply the way it is. You can't just disregard that because it doesn't fit with your arguments.

One could also argue that given Voyager's situation of being lost in the Delta quadrant without Starfleet backup Janeway should have gone the Ransom route and jettisoned all ethics. In fact, one hears this criticism of Voyager quite a bit. Consequently, your argument doesn't hold much water.

Bullshit. The whole point of Voyager was to continue to embrace and perpetuate the ideals of co-operation and exploration, even when the Federation is thousands of light years away. There was never any question of whether they should abandon their ethics. Ransom's morally ambiguous actions were fine for a two-parter to illustrate how Voyager could have ended up, but it wouldn't have lasted as the premise of an entire series.



Don't fucking patronise me.

You aren't even anywhere near qualified to make a blanket statement like that.

Look guys, if you don't like the way someone posts then put him/her on "ignore" and save me the paperwork of having to give out warnings. Otherwise, we're going to have to shut this thread down.

Are you fucking serious? I've been one of the most civil people in this thread, and yet you're quoting my post as an example of you having to hand out warnings?

It's no wonder this forum has the reputation it does. People like you are so fucking scared of anyone bashing their favourite show, you shut down any kind of debate and start threatening people with warnings the minute anyone strays from the "I LOVE VOYAGER!" mantra. Pathetic.

Dude, I understand you're upset and kinda why but this isn't the place for it. It's better if you delete this and take it to a PM. If you think you're in the right, posting this here will take major points away from you and make you the aggressor and not a defendant.

Just a word of friendly advice.

 

[zar]

Skimming some more, and still seeing people pretending that only what they personally said in this thread counts. Ignoring context is falsification. (Falsification is polite for lying.) No one shows they have sophisticated, perceptive views by attacking someone else for criticizing the crazy. Especially since everyone knows the crazy has indeed been around for years.

The real problem is that the supposedly nuanced thinkers who don't hold the extreme positions can't articulate the differences between their intelligent, commonsense views and the simplistic, extreme views. Claiming Anwar has the responsibility to discern the nonexistent dividing line is gall, not an argument.

Nonexistent dividing line? No. The difference between our actual opinions and Anwar's incessant exaggeration is plain and obvious to anyone who a) isn't as delusional as Anwar himself, and b) has actually followed this thread as opposed to your "skimming". We have articulated our opinions just fine, but Anwar refuses to actually address what is being SAID and instead chooses to attack nonexistent arguments. Even people who disagree with our criticisms agree that Anwar is being ridiculous.

stj didn't call anybody out by name, why do you think he's directly talking about you if you don't feel you fit the claim?

It's plain to see who he believes "fits the claim". Read his second paragraph. Me, TheGodBen, etc., are the ones who have been referring to "extreme views" and telling Anwar that it's his responsibility to provide evidence that we hold them. The fact that we can put two and two together and see that stj is talking about us isn't an indicator of our "guilt".

Not really. No.

You aren't even anywhere near qualified to make a blanket statement like that.

Look guys, if you don't like the way someone posts then put him/her on "ignore" and save me the paperwork of having to give out warnings. Otherwise, we're going to have to shut this thread down.

Char Aznable's post was deserving of a warning and he got one. Not the other posts, the least of which Servo's, who just joined the thread a day or so ago and has been completely civil. Here Anwar made a blanket statement and was called out on it, that's all. I've been moderator of a forum before and this thread is nowhere near being worth locking. With due respect you're being ridiculous.

 

[Saquist]

And it's dramatically very boring if there was an entire episode of VOY simply flying through Borg space and not doing anything to get their attention, leaving safely by the end.

I don't believe anyone suggested such a plot even remotely.

Dealing with their beginnings" isn't very interesting. No one really cares about some "Borg origin" story, just what they can do in the here and now.

Well, I know you're wrong. While it escapes your interest I know many have desired to know where the Borg came from and they have covered that in the novels Voyager.

I'm not saying that it would be fantastic and Epic...but could be. That depends on the writer.

And VOY did deal with freeing folks from the Collective, "Unimatrix Zero".

Yes, on a very very small scale.

They can still talk and actually do stuff. And in Terminator Salvation they're full of individuals.

Still, that doesn't mean they are not a collective even if that were true.

It was clear in the beginning that the Borg had no individuals at all. They were always a Hive mind, which is very boring as a recurring enemy.

The word "Hive MIND" was only used in First Contact."
They weren't always a Hive. A Collective isn't the same as a Hive Mind. They are exactly the opposite. A Hive works under the direction of a Queen. Yet a Collective Borg are intelligent even if short of sentient.

And they both are treated as Individuals within the Reaper "species" with full personalities and independent action. They can talk and think, whereas no individual Borg can do that. If they COULD then it'd be cooler.

Not according to Legion who says "we are geth, we have no individual designations" at which point EDI names him "Legion".

Picard and Seven could talk but theirthoughts were of the whole not just the individual. Seven says numerous times that she misses the voices of the Collective, Picard says he remembers the Queen and he two heard the voices, So they are self aware to some extent. It's the same with Sovereign and the Geth...you hear one person speaking but it is the voice of many whether they replicate the numerous voices or not.

What they should've done is shown that there ARE individuals who can talk and do stuff within the Borg, but they still have to take orders from the big Collective voice. Like the Zerg Cerebrates have to obey the Zerg Overmind but are still individuals capable of creativity and thought.

It's a thin difference.
The Cerebrates are controled by the overwhelming power of the telephatic link to the Overmind. Remeber what happened to Seven when she crash landed with the rest of her local Collective. She behaved as she normally would in the collective but just like the Kerrigan without the influence of the Overmind she had more control. I think it's the same concept.

That's all the Borg can do. They aren't interested in subtlety or infiltrations or anything INTERESTING, just full-on assaults

.

Well just as society never gets tired of disaster movies whos forces are no more interesting than utter mayhem the same is true with the Borg. You don't focus on the personality of Tornado no more than you would of a Borg...you just fight to survive it...and those desasters are always going to happen.

If the writers already know it won't do anything, then it's bad writing.

Bad writing is ineffectual story telling dealing with the Plot and Characters. A chase scene is just a plot device and it's all in how you use it.

Also, Fed ships can easily call upon other ships for help if they need it, that deep in their own space. And if one goes missing then others will come to look.

How many times has the Enterprise been the only ship in the Sector...I can't count them on two hands.

Hugh showed that a Borg could be talked to as an individual and not the decentralized big Voice. And then Descent went further and showed it happening to a whole group of them. It defanged the Collective by showing it could be broken.

He was shielded from the Collective.
The Descent group were the result of the program Geordi uploaded through Hugh.

They only destroyed a Probe ship, all other times they just held out for a bit before they Borg left them for something else.

Like the Transporter thing hadn't been done to them Before?
You see..inept.

But an episodic series isn't the same as a movie series that you know will get a continuation. Episodic stories have to be totally wrapped up with little-to-no cliffhanger stuff by the end. It would be like if "Balance of Terror" ended with the Romulan ship still out there, damaged but prepared for another attack, instead of the ENT destroying it/forcing a self-destruct.

TNG did their chase scenes plenty of times.
Star Trek has gotten away from it.

As for Number6, I concede I went too far and said they were fired for trying to do B5-style storytelling. But the fact stands that every attempt at doing a serial-style story was shut down by UPN. It wasn't going to happen.

That maybe true but I've always believed in a melding between episodic and serialized series. Certain plots should care farther then one episode.

 

[exodus]

The fact that we can put two and two together and see that stj is talking about us isn't an indicator of our "guilt".

Keep in mind, those are your words not mine.
I never implied or directly said any such thing.


However, I think folks are starting to get overly emotional in here and for once I agree with kimc, that closing this thread is a good idea. All that's being said is Anwar this and Anwar that. If he & his POV bothers everyone so much, then take the advice, put him on "ignore" and be done with him. I'm sorry but It seems like folks are debating him and his mindset more than the actual show. I think thats what stj's point really was.

 

[Dusty Ayres]

But TNG DIDN'T fundamentally change human behavior. They just weren't so small-minded and provincial anymore. "Big Picture" and all that.

And last time I checked

they will still love, hate, feel sad, feel happy, form friendships, hold grudges and do and feel all the things that people do.

The TNG folks did love, feel sadness, happiness, form friendships, hold grudges and do all that other stuff. It wasn't as blatant as McCoy's racism, but to say they were perfect people and paragons are blatant lies.

Eek, I never thought I'd see the "only casual Trek fans like VOY" argument again until I read this thread.

I love all Star Treks. However, VOY is my favorite. The end. My husband likes VOY as much as TNG. We enjoy watching it together, and we have fun.

It didn't take enough chances at times and it had too many "what-if" stories, but I blame the network for that.

When I was younger, we enjoyed watching VOY as a family as much as we enjoyed watching TNG or DS9. Good enough for me.

I can't agree more. Frankly, it makes me wonder if these fans even get the concept of Star Trek and the philosophy behind it. It's very simple to agree to disagree but to flat out call someone a bad fan (or not a true fan) because they like a show THAT'S CANON AND PART OF THE SAME UNIVERSE is so ridiculous and juvenile. I originally got into TOS and TNG before Voyager. I love love love DS9. But my favourite show will always be Voyager. There's some awful episodes, sure. But I can name you about 20 bad episodes from each series. It's a matter of opinion, and while I'm aware of the shortcomings when it comes to Voyager (writing and inconsistencies) I am able to attribute it to a continuity error, move on and focus on what's great about it.

While I completely agree with what you're saying, IMHO such we shouldn't completely look to Trek to teach us such philosophies as acceptance and/ or tolerance of others and their opinions. Such teachings should being at home and instilled in us while we're being raised. Trek should be viewed as something that reminds of that and reinforces what I'd like to refer to as "home training".

I'm not "smashing" Trek. I like Trek. But TNG had serious structural and writing constraints that made it difficult to tell truly outstanding stories on a regular basis, nearly all of which can be traced directly back to Roddenberry's Perfect People rules. B5 let humans BE humans warts and all.

TNG doesn't have the structural or writing constraints you're claiming it has the way you describe it as, seriously. B5 isn't trying to be Trek any more than TNG was trying to be B5.

B5 is the gritty future unfortunately we maybe headed for or worse. Trek is the future (hopefully) most of society wishes for.
Trek is a future for the optimist
B5 is a future for the slightly pessimistic.
However even with that, B5 still ends on a BS happy note that you grow old, happy and watching the sunset.
If anything TNG had it more realistic, with Picard in "All Good Things..." gearing up for death as an old cranky senile man.
Besides, the crew of TNG were ambassadors for the Federation.
It's kinda bad protocol it send out douche bags to invite new societies & cultures into the Federation.

But TNG DIDN'T fundamentally change human behavior. They just weren't so small-minded and provincial anymore. "Big Picture" and all that.

Wrong. Roddenberry laid down the rules to the writers: no intra-cast conflict, "enlightened Federation", et al. All the writers for the show have talked about it. People like Piller and Berman have defend it on the basis that it "made them write all that much better" because they were not allowed to use standard emotional and story themes common to drama because the people of the Federation had supposedly "grown beyond" that.

Which frankly is a load of crap. People are people. Technological progress does not make the supervisor on your duty shift who always seems to give you the worst tasks on the work order any less an asshole, or annoying. He's just an asshole with a PADD instead of a clipboard.

to say they were perfect people and paragons are blatant lies.

The blatant lie is to say that something all the writers have publicly acknowledged is true is a lie just to defend a show of questionable quality.

I'm not "smashing" Trek. I like Trek. But TNG had serious structural and writing constraints that made it difficult to tell truly outstanding stories on a regular basis, nearly all of which can be traced directly back to Roddenberry's Perfect People rules. B5 let humans BE humans warts and all.

TNG doesn't have the structural or writing constraints you're claiming it has the way you describe it as, seriously. B5 isn't trying to be Trek any more than TNG was trying to be B5.

Nice straw man.

B5 is the gritty future unfortunately we maybe headed for or worse. Trek is the future (hopefully) most of society wishes for.
Trek is a future for the optimist
B5 is a future for the slightly pessimistic.
However even with that, B5 still ends on a BS happy note that you grow old, happy and watching the sunset.
If anything TNG had it more realistic, with Picard in "All Good Things..." gearing up for death as an old cranky senile man.
Besides, the crew of TNG were ambassadors for the Federation.
It's kinda bad protocol it send out douche bags to invite new societies & cultures into the Federation.

More straw men and other absurdities.

All the writers acknowledged The Rules. I find it sad you cannot face the reality that The Rules put modern Trek in a creative straight jacket that it didn't need to be put in.

Wrong. Roddenberry laid down the rules to the writers: no intra-cast conflict

Which Roddenberry himself defied when he introduced Dr Pulaski.

,

"enlightened Federation", et al. All the writers for the show have talked about it. People like Piller and Berman have defend it on the basis that it "made them write all that much better" because they were not allowed to use standard emotional and story themes common to drama because the people of the Federation had supposedly "grown beyond" that.

And they still managed to make the characters human and have conflict with one another. It didn't happen all that often but it still happened, and they still used TOS' formula of using guest characters for conflict purposes (which is how it was done most of the time on TOS anyways).

Which frankly is a load of crap. People are people. Technological progress does not make the supervisor on your duty shift who always seems to give you the worst tasks on the work order any less an asshole, or annoying. He's just an asshole with a PADD instead of a clipboard.

It DOES mean that a LOT of the stuff humans fight over today won't be much of an issue anymore in the future when we have the galaxy: National borders, starvation, resource shortages? Those won't be much of an issue except in rare cases. And if you're a professional officer you won't let one guy giving you a lousy assignment get to you all that much. It's not like you'll be stuck in that one job forever, hell I've BEEN there and I got out of it easily enough.

The blatant lie is to say that something all the writers have publicly acknowledged is true is a lie just to defend a show of questionable quality.

They acknowledged it and overcame it, STILL managing to make the characters human. Which is better than just lazily making them 100% like 20th Century people to begin with. Shows that don't even bother to consider how 200 years of living with aliens and being in space beyond the confines of Earth are much more questionable in quality.

Let's just face facts here: Roddenberry should NOT have been allowed to write Star Trek at all, other than to come up with the concept and characters for TNG. He was way too old to be writing TV in the first place, and he'd grown inflexible on what characterization was-and when you get that way, what you're writing will suck big time. George Clayton Johnston (writer of 'The Man Trap', TOS) didn't like the way Roddenberry wrote the TNG characters, and he was just as old as Gene was when asked his opinion about this subject on TNG in an issue of Starlog around 1990 or thereabouts. The writing and showrunning should have been left to David Gerrold, D.C. Fontana, Maurice Hurley, Tracy Torme, Ron Moore, Rick Berman, and Michael Piller, with Gene in an advisory role only, or just gently pushed aside as he was during the movie era. His death and not being there helped DS9 considerably, as it was able to be like TOS, but grow beyond it considerably in characterization.

As for Berman & Braga? The only crimes these two committed were not being able to say no to Paramount and UPN when they needed to, and slavishly following what Roddenberry said about everything Star Trek; they should have let Gene's Rules die with him, and have more backbone in dealing with Paramount and UPN when they both wanted to quit or whenever they wanted to wait a while before doing another TV show. Both men are still better producers/writers/directors than Fred Frieberger, who wrecked the third season of TOS, and whatever failed episodes they made are still better than the schoolboy howlers that comprised the third season of TOS (Spock's Brain, The Children Shall Lead, Plato's Stepchildren, and The Way To Eden.)

 

[Bry_Sinclair]

When Seven of Nine came onboard I lost interest. After then all the other characters aside from Janeway, Seven and the Doctor were forgotten about, and the day was almost always saved by Borg technology, usually after Borg tech or Seven caused the situation to being with.

Just my humble thoughts on the subject.

-Bry

 

[zar]

The fact that we can put two and two together and see that stj is talking about us isn't an indicator of our "guilt".

Keep in mind, those are your words not mine.
I never implied or directly said any such thing.

I think what you said did imply that, but if you say that wasn't your point I'll take your word for it.

However, I think folks are starting to get overly emotional in here and for once I agree with kimc, that closing this thread is a good idea. All that's being said is Anwar this and Anwar that. If he & his POV bothers everyone so much, then take the advice, put him on "ignore" and be done with him. I'm sorry but It seems like folks are debating him and his mindset more than the actual show. I think thats what stj's point really was.

I don't think that's what stj's point was. And if I get tired of Anwar's POV I'll simply lose interest and leave this thread long before I feel the need to ignore him. In fact I've been told he can be reasonable when discussing other topics.

Posting here is a leisure activity. The fact that you think people are getting overly emotional is just another example of the G.I.F.T. I mentioned earlier.

 

[kimc]

However, I think folks are starting to get overly emotional in here and for once I agree with kimc, that closing this thread is a good idea. All that's being said is Anwar this and Anwar that. If he & his POV bothers everyone so much, then take the advice, put him on "ignore" and be done with him. I'm sorry but It seems like folks are debating him and his mindset more than the actual show. I think thats what stj's point really was.

I don't think that's what stj's point was. And if I get tired of Anwar's POV I'll simply lose interest and leave this thread long before I feel the need to ignore him. In fact I've been told he can be reasonable when discussing other topics.

Posting here is a leisure activity. The fact that you think people are getting overly emotional is just another example of the G.I.F.T. I mentioned earlier.

So exodus, you tried to inject a modicum of common sense into this thread and got bashed for it. Now you see how the other half lives.

Seriously guys. I've seen posters getting warned by admin staff for comments like "If you believe xyz, i would question your intelligence." so believe it or not when I tell you to throttle back it's with good intentions. As you saw above I'll warn when I need to but otherwise I have better things to do with my time. I'm not the only staff member reading this thread. I understand what it's like to be passionate about a topic but it's not against board rules to be passionate and it's not against board rules to be rude. So you guys can go ahead and be as passionate and/or rude as you like. If you cross the line you'll get a warning. If it's a clusterf*ck the thread will be closed. It may or may not be me doing the deed. An alternative would be to just put the poster who is bothering you for whatever reason on "Ignore". Enough said.

 

[zar]

kimc, how was I "bashing" exodus? I simply disagreed with his analysis. Having a different opinion is not "bashing". Good grief, it's as if you expect everyone to be of one accord and the minute someone has a contrary opinion suddenly we're in danger of having a "clusterf*ck" and it's time to shut down the thread and evacuate . My point was that an audience's ignorance of a person through his anonymity causes them to imagine that person differently than he really is. No one is "overly emotional" except perhaps Char. I bashed no one.

 

[Servo]

Now you see how the other half lives.

Are the snide comments really necessary?

An alternative would be to just put the poster who is bothering you for whatever reason on "Ignore". Enough said.

What is it you don't get about debate? I came in here because I've been watching Voyager re-runs daily on Channel One, and I fancied having a discussion or two about the show. This thread caught my eye and I started debating the points of the show I though were lacking, in a civil way. Why the hell would I want to put anyone on ignore when I'm trying to have a conversation with them? You seem to be under the impression that any debate that strays from the status quo is automatically bad.

I countered a point you made early on in the thread, and you basically swept it to one side without even debating the issue, because it didn't fit with your viewpoint, and then proceeded to wave the mod card around while talking about clusterfuck threads. Ever hear of "over-modding"?

 

[Anwar]

I don't believe anyone suggested such a plot even remotely.

It's really that can be done with the Borg. Either they ignore you or they attack you, there're no other choices.

I'm not saying that it would be fantastic and Epic...but could be. That depends on the writer.

I doubt a big flashback episode to thousands of years ago, having nothing to do with the VOY crew, could be "fantastic" or "epic".

Yes, on a very very small scale.

And the best their budget could handle, and in a two-parter that wrapped up the story.

Anyways, if they did spend a season dedicated to finding a way of de-assimilating people then the complaint would just be that VOY had too much of an impact on the Borg when logically others would have tried the same and failed centuries earlier.

Still, that doesn't mean they are not a collective even if that were true.

It means they aren't a Hive Mind like the Borg.

The word "Hive MIND" was only used in First Contact."

They may not have said it, but it was blatantly clear in "Q Who?" they were a Hive Mind where there were no individuals.

They weren't always a Hive. A Collective isn't the same as a Hive Mind. They are exactly the opposite. A Hive works under the direction of a Queen. Yet a Collective Borg are intelligent even if short of sentient.

They were always a Hive with the big Voice being their "Queen", or rather the Voice was a "Queen" borne of all their voices together ordering them around. No individuals, and thus, boring.

Not according to Legion who says "we are geth, we have no individual designations" at which point EDI names him "Legion".

Not having a name doesn't mean you aren't a sentient being with independent thought.

Picard and Seven could talk but theirthoughts were of the whole not just the individual. Seven says numerous times that she misses the voices of the Collective, Picard says he remembers the Queen and he two heard the voices, So they are self aware to some extent. It's the same with Sovereign and the Geth...you hear one person speaking but it is the voice of many whether they replicate the numerous voices or not.

Thus, when they are in the Collective they are a Hive Mind and no hint of prior individuality or personality shows. Thus, boring.

It's a thin difference.
The Cerebrates are controled by the overwhelming power of the telephatic link to the Overmind. Remeber what happened to Seven when she crash landed with the rest of her local Collective. She behaved as she normally would in the collective but just like the Kerrigan without the influence of the Overmind she had more control. I think it's the same concept.

It's how it should have been from the start. All Borg should have been able to speak on their own despite being linked into a bigger mind, been able to perform independent actions when separated from their greater group. Every Borg ship should have had at least one sentient Borg that could have his/her orders countermanded by the Collective Voice.

Well just as society never gets tired of disaster movies whos forces are no more interesting than utter mayhem the same is true with the Borg. You don't focus on the personality of Tornado no more than you would of a Borg...you just fight to survive it...and those desasters are always going to happen.

Tornadoes don't actively hunt people, turn people into mini-tornadoes, or just go away after a while. Nature is an in discriminant force, the Borg are not. The Borg can be destroyed as an attacker, nature can't. Calling the Borg a force of nature is incorrect to begin with.

Bad writing is ineffectual story telling dealing with the Plot and Characters. A chase scene is just a plot device and it's all in how you use it.

Chase scenes work when there's a chance of success for the people being chased. If there's no point in running because you already know it's hopeless to run, then it's just bad running to run anyways.

How many times has the Enterprise been the only ship in the Sector...I can't count them on two hands.

Dramatically, I can see why. Logically it makes no sense. But the Borg aren't the protagonists so this rule doesn't apply to them.

He was shielded from the Collective.
The Descent group were the result of the program Geordi uploaded through Hugh.

That Hugh could be disconnected shows that the same is possible for all Borg, and thus all Borg could theoretically be negotiated with. The Descent group was the result of his own individuality "infecting" them, not anything Geordi did.

Like the Transporter thing hadn't been done to them Before?
You see..inept.

It's a tiny probe ship, not a massive Cruiser. It would've been destroyed by VOY's raw firepower anyways, the way the ENT-E easily destroyed that Borg sphere in FC.

TNG did their chase scenes plenty of times.
Star Trek has gotten away from it.

And they ran from the Borg three times, all three times they failed and the Borg got them. They can run from folks who AREN'T the Borg.