Seen the beginning a couple times.
Never got to the end.
Or maybe this is what I was thinking of?
I am so old.
Never got to the end.
Or maybe this is what I was thinking of?
I am so old.
Why Janeway is the Worst Star Trek Captain!
- Thread starter Zameaze
- Start date
Don't go to the end, the movie is awful and not in a good way.
Do you really think my penis would let me watch that movie?
It seems like it successfully stopped you on a couple of occasions. It must be very powerful.
I was young (12?) and these movies start late and they add an hour of advertising just to make sure that you do fall asleep and have to watch it again.
because I don't have to deal with advertising any more, like ordinary people, I don't think that I am strictly human any more.
because I don't have to deal with advertising any more, like ordinary people, I don't think that I am strictly human any more.
Mutant just means that you're different form your parents.
I prefer the term PostHuman.
I prefer the term PostHuman.
Don't they deliver the junk-male or was that the fee-male?
Well, my mother was a mail order bride so maybe I'm not such a mutant after all.
Not really. You can even see it in reality.
So are you saying that most pepole most of the time don't behave in a consistant way? Persons behaving in a manner which is inconsistant manner with their normal behaviour would be an exceptioon rather than the norm.
So in the same situtation or broadly similiar situation that a person has come across before they are likely to behave in a consistant manner. I.e. do the same thing they did before if it worked last time. If it didn't work last time they would try something different.
But most people tend to hold the same principals, they wouldn't tend to fluctuate that much. I.e if you believe the law should be upheld, next week you can't say lets ingore the law, then the following day/week etc.. to be the law must be up held, then back to when I do it it's not against the law.
I think people reinvent themselves all the time and without consistency, and they do so to adapt to the constantly changing situations of "real life." That has more to do with the ability to survive than anything else. Her "inconsistencies" are what make Janeway so compelling, they make her "real."
And I'm not the only one that thinks this way: Here is a quote from professional writer Jacequeline Lichtenberg (she wrote Star Trek Lives.
http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2010/10/star-trek-voyager-and-captain-janeway.html
What you are considering a liability to the character is actually an asset. Voyager's ability to survive a 70 year trip home hangs on their commander's ability to change.
And there you have it, from an respected professional writer with years of experience. It's the inconsistencies that make "classic" characters, given the artistic level of the person creating that character - in this case Kate Mulgrew, who is a fabulous actress.
Who wanders all the moors will taste all the berries. -- Estonian Proverb
I'll get them all, my pretty, and Toto, too.
Wow Janeway did something in 7 years that Kirk and/or Picard could have done in an hour to a few days. [sarcasm]That is so impressive[/sarcasm]
Seriously all that establishes is that Janeway didn't stop and ask directions, hell even with all the big jumps Voyager made they never made it out of the Delta Quadrant.
What, was Voyager just flying around in a giant circle for 7 years?
You really don't know that much about Voyager do you. Their jumps subtracted more than 30 years of that 70 year total that they were looking for in the beginning. And by the way, they always knew the way home, they just didn't know what they would find along their way. Why should anyone ask for directions when they knew the right direction. Apparently Voyager flew a relatively direct rout to the federation and were very close to the Delta / Beta division line by the time of "Endgame."
Flexibility and inflexibility are both assets when you use them right and Janeway did.
All the Captains have been inconsistent at times. All Captains usually uphold the Prime Directive-- yet all Captains have at one time or another broken it (Kirk, I'm looking in your direction). Sisko (Pale Moon Light) etc, etc, etc.
In the Pale Moonlight was not Prime Directive. First Sisko had permission from his superiors, and second, the Federation and Romulus had been to War. How they treated each other was decided by treaty. The Treaty of Cheron where the Earth Romulan War stopped, and the Treaty signed after the Tomed Incident in 2311.
What Ben did was scummy and broke some laws, but I doubt the Prme Directive was one of those laws.
What Ben did was scummy and broke some laws, but I doubt the Prme Directive was one of those laws.
And yet Janeway still took 7 years longer than any other captain to cross distances Kirk laughed at.
Yes, you're right. What transpired in Pale Moonlight was not a violation of the prime directive. My post was more about how ALL captains bend their principles from time to time. Sisko, despite his occasional veer from the righteous path, usually sticks to the core principles of Star Fleet and the Federation.
Furthermore, ALL captains have broken the Prime Directive (except Archer for obvious reasons). Hence, all captains bear this aspect of "inconstancy" that is typically attributed to Janeway. That's my point.
PS: I am trying to remember if Sisko broke the directive at any point. Maybe he didn't. Anyone?
Well in Captive Pursuit, he turned a blind eye to O'brien letting Tosk escape all while paying lip service to non-interference.
Would masquerading as Gabriel Bell during the Bell Riots count?
Working with Garak to plant false evidence about a Dominion invasion of Romulus would count. So well telling Worf to "do whatever it takes" to solve the problem about Gowron going insane.
Heck... allowing a whole culture to worship him as a religious icon would count as interfering in Internal Affairs of a world.
