A few things to discuss about Kes

[Crazy 4 Xmas Lights]

Certainly, we can have fun postulating how we might have done differently, but we have no ownership over those characters. And after 25 years, the show isn't changing.

No. But some of its worst aspects can be retconned out of existence. For example, just reveal that Voyager made a trade with the Zahl, a friendly and advanced species who were saved when the Year of Hell didn't happen. Their torpedo technology was compatible, allowing Voyager to replenish its weapons.

Or even simpler: reveal that Harry was promoted to lieutenant immediately after the ship got home, and that he rose rapidly through the ranks afterward. Put a bullet in the "poor dumb forever ensign" business once and for all.

I'll go further: STPicard basically proved that revisiting these "mistakes" more often than not has worse outcomes.

I'll go along with that. Most notably that they couldn't get past the whole "Picard and Beverly get together but it doesn't work" thing, which they already did in "All Good Things..."

Felt like reheated leftovers, really.

 

[The Hanuk Kai]

Or even simpler: reveal that Harry was promoted to lieutenant immediately after the ship got home, and that he rose rapidly through the ranks afterward. Put a bullet in the "poor dumb forever ensign" business once and for all.

Alright, let's put this to the test: does/will Bajor join the Federation? Does this satisfy any promise made in the pilot if it occurs off screen?

 

[Crazy 4 Xmas Lights]

Alright, let's put this to the test: does/will Bajor join the Federation? Does this satisfy any promise made in the pilot if it occurs off screen?

Oh, yeah, that happened too. In my proposed 8th season, I mean. That's another thing they needed to resolve.

 

[Guy Gardener]

I suppose Kira got her Starfleet Commission to train terroris... Freedom Fighters on Cardassia, but the fact that she was in a Star Fleet Uniform in the final sequences night Suggest that if Bajor hadn't completed it's transition, then at the very least Starfleet had assimilated the Militia.

 

[Crazy 4 Xmas Lights]

She reverted to Bajoran uniform at the end of the series, but it seems likely that when Bajor joined the Federation, the space-borne arm of the militia likely was assimilated.

That would have provided a very reasonable explanation for Ro's return, incidentally. After the Maquis purge, Ro escapes and returns to Bajor, then joins the militia there. When it's assimilated, Ro returns to Starfleet.

 

[Lynx]

Agree to disagree.

Because it's not damage. Characters are not damaged but used to move a story along. I can disagree with choices but this idea of damage is one I just don't see.

It is damage when good characters are wasted because it limits the content of good characters in a series.

There are many series who have been damaged by the loss of good characters, just look at the "re-born" CSI or CSI Vegas as the new version was called. All the excellent main characters except one was missing and the series was crap.

I find this ironic, given how many words you have written in this thread about why all these character fate were grave mistakes and how the writer were required to find the means to undo them. The characters are tools for the writers to tell stories. Certainly, we can have fun postulating how we might have done differently, but we have no ownership over those characters. And after 25 years, the show isn't changing.

I'll go further: STPicard basically proved that revisiting these "mistakes" more often than not has worse outcomes.

I wrote those many words you found annoying because it's excatly what I think.

It think that too many great characters have been wasted and destroyed in Star Trek for no good rewason at all. That is damaging to the series and that may also be a reason why Star Trek isn't as popular now than it was in the 90's.

And the fact that thy don't have the common sense to correct certain mistakes won't bring back former fans of the show either.

As a matter of fact, when a certain author who I once liked started to write some really good stories about Cardassia with Garak as one of the main characters, then I was convinced that i had found a goldmine and that i could look forward to a lot of similar interesting books.

When that author decided to ruin garaka asa character and then kill him off, I decided that I will never buy any book written by that author again.

That's a way to lose buyers, not good for business.

As for PIC, that's the last series which should try to force its morals on anyone. A great disappointment and one of the worst Star Trek series ever to be made. Only DSC was worse

Just the fact that upcoming Star Trek series and books will be based on the legacy of PIC and DSC have made me lose interest.

Voyager barely managed to reach seven seasons and end on its own terms. Whether its efforts to turn into TNG lite helped it or hurt it will never be known... but the series was worse for it.

In retrospect, I wish that Voyager had ended after season 3.
It was good in season 1, great in season 2 but started to have problems in season 3.

Star Trek tends to follow the "natural death good, unnatural death bad" trope, which is common in pop culture. The only exception to this rule is found with the Baku in "Insurrection", but even that, Picard's crew took steps to ensure that the gift of immortality was theirs alone.

And there Picard interfered in another culture's habits. Isn't that illegal when it comes to the Prime Directive?

The tradition of people turning down the opportunity of immortality for a natural lifespan is quite common in pop culture: examples include Disney's "Hercules", the Chronicles of Prydain, and "Tuck Everlasting".

What I want is not immortality as such but keeping good characters alive for more good episodes or stories.

And the series was worse for it.

Yes!

I wouldn't call Martok a puppet, but certainly the Empire was less interesting with him in charge. Assuming he held on to power at all; as opposed to getting ousted by a more politically savvy high council member.

Well, "puppet" may be an exaggerated comment from me. But Martok was no leader, he was a good military and a sympathetic character as such but no leader for an empire.

Not to m ention that they wasted the best Klingon chararcter ever, a character who could have been prominent in future series and books and made the stories about the Klingons more intersting.

They weren't bad, just boring. The equivalent of a scoop of bland vanilla ice cream.

You may have a point here but there are far worse examples of bad pairings.

I did a proposed DS9 Season 8 that did some of these things. Most notable was Section 31 and the Dominion's equivalent joining forces, allowing Sloan to return as well. You can't have too much of an actor who managed to steal scenes from acting legends Tim Robbins and Morgan Freeman.

I'm happy that you brought up Sloan here. Definitely a character who would have been useful in future series and books.

Imagine if they had come up with a Section 31 series in 2005 with Sloan as one of the main characters. It could have been great!

Another character who I forgot to mention earlier who also was ruined in a stupid act was actually Wesley Crusher!

I mean, he could have been a future main character for a Star Trek series made between 2005 and 2010, a future captain of an exploring spaceship.

Instead they bring him back in the last season, makes him look like a spoiled brat and then disappar into space in some mumbo-jumbo plot with that slimy Traveler. What a waste!

I never said killing them for good was desirable. Just that if they had to go due to IRL considerations, those were examples of how to do it right.

But it was better to keep them alive!

I expect you probably would have.

Yes!

Sometimes you have to. But for the most part, I feel as you do.

For which I'm grateful.

Sometimes the worst thing you can do to a character is spare them. If Harry had been allowed a dignified exit from Voyager, he would liktly not be the figure of contempt he is today.

Every journey ends, and it's fine to have your readers walking alongside a character when it happens.

But it's even finer to keep the character and continue to come up with good stories for them in possible series, movies and books.

 

[fireproof78]

There are many series who have been damaged by the loss of good characters, just look at the "re-born" CSI or CSI Vegas as the new version was called. All the excellent main characters except one was missing and the series was crap.

I don't agree. I don't see damage. It's art not construction.

It is damage when good characters are wasted because it limits the content of good characters in a series.

Any character can be good. One shouldn't focus one just the characters liked.

But it was better to keep them alive!

Not always. Death can serve a story very well, and had throughout human storytelling. Classic fiction involved the death of many characters, including Robin Hood, The Three Musketeers, Beowulf, much of Shakespeare, Heracles.

With Kes you have a unique opportunity to age gracefully and show the progression of wisdom as you age and eventually pass while leaving behind a legacy of a community of people touched by a life.

Regardless of personal feelings on death it can be used and had been used for emotional moments in Star Trek. My absolute favorite scenes are also ones that reference death or the death of a character.

 

[The Hanuk Kai]

I wrote those many words you found annoying because it's excatly what I think.

I think you need to look back at the post to which I was responding, where you hypocritically chastise another poster for inserting their own interest as what they thought should be the desirable "fix."

 

[Crazy 4 Xmas Lights]

What I want is not immortality as such but keeping good characters alive for more good episodes or stories.

Maybe that's where we differ. I like to use characters efficiently, to ensure that their journey entertains the reader. Sometimes, that involves their death.

But I do know how you feel. There are characters I have seen fall in several fandoms that I didn't want to die.

And there Picard interfered in another culture's habits. Isn't that illegal when it comes to the Prime Directive?

The Prime Directive was really hazy where the Baku were concerned.

In retrospect, I wish that Voyager had ended after season 3.
It was good in season 1, great in season 2 but started to have problems in season 3.

It definitely went downhill. Retiring Seska and Suder, making an active decision for Harry to stagnate, eliminating Kes, and turning it from a difficult journey with limited resources to a Princess cruise in space... all questionable decisions.

Not to m ention that they wasted the best Klingon chararcter ever, a character who could have been prominent in future series and books and made the stories about the Klingons more intersting.

Agreed. And I feel the same way about Weyoun.

You may have a point here but there are far worse examples of bad pairings.

Yes. But that doesn't mean I intend to ship Bashir/Ezri, because hey, at least it's mediocre.

Another character who I forgot to mention earlier who also was ruined in a stupid act was actually Wesley Crusher!

I mean, he could have been a future main character for a Star Trek series made between 2005 and 2010, a future captain of an exploring spaceship.

Instead they bring him back in the last season, makes him look like a spoiled brat and then disappar into space in some mumbo-jumbo plot with that slimy Traveler. What a waste!

Maybe. Though I will admit, I liked him in Prodigy.

But it's even finer to keep the character and continue to come up with good stories for them in possible series, movies and books.

If they had done that with Harry, I wouldn't be saying that they should have killed him off. But instead, they have carefully hidden his fate post-Voyager, just to perpetuate their mean-spirited and unfunny "forever ensign" joke.

Not always. Death can serve a story very well, and had throughout human storytelling. Classic fiction involved the death of many characters, including Robin Hood, The Three Musketeers, Beowulf, much of Shakespeare, Heracles.

Very true. And a dying character serves the narrative better than one with no purpose, and little chance at happiness. An example is Mullibok from "Progress". I saw no path to a happy ending for him... better to kill him off cleanly.

With Kes you have a unique opportunity to age gracefully and show the progression of wisdom as you age and eventually pass while leaving behind a legacy of a community of people touched by a life.

And that's what the Before and After timeline was: a life well lived. Yes, there were issues... but Kes's journey wasn't one of them.

 

[Lynx]

I don't agree. I don't see damage. It's art not construction.

I can't see destruction just for the sake of destruction as "art".

Any character can be good. One shouldn't focus one just the characters liked.

I do find characters like Khan, Dukat and Gul Mardred good since they contribute to a good story even if I don't find them likeable.

Not always. Death can serve a story very well, and had throughout human storytelling. Classic fiction involved the death of many characters, including Robin Hood, The Three Musketeers, Beowulf, much of Shakespeare, Heracles.

yes it can in certain circumstances. But not the way it has been done too many times in Star trek when they kill off and destroy good characters at random, just for the sake of destroying.

I see no purpose in bringing back kes just to destroy her, I see no purpose in amking a great character like Gowron making a fool of himself and trhen being killed off for no reason at all and I don't see any reason to point out garak as something he never was just for a reason to destroy him as a character and then kill him off in a stupid scenario in a stupid book.

I can come up with more of that but for now I settle with those three since they are three of my five favorite characters in Star Trek.

With Kes you have a unique opportunity to age gracefully and show the progression of wisdom as you age and eventually pass while leaving behind a legacy of a community of people touched by a life.

A scenario which I don't find interesting or entertaining at all.
If I would like such scenarios, then I could spend my days looking at those third-rate soap operas in which characters are slowly dying in six or seven episodes with old ladies crying in front of their TV:s.

Regardless of personal feelings on death it can be used and had been used for emotional moments in Star Trek. My absolute favorite scenes are also ones that reference death or the death of a character.

I think you need to look back at the post to which I was responding, where you hypocritically chastise another poster for inserting their own interest as what they thought should be the desirable "fix."

To quote one of my rock favorites when the concert arrangers thought that the concert was over and sent up some girls who gave flowers to the band members:

"I don't know exactly what that meant. Any of it!"

Would you please elaborate or quote?

Maybe that's where we differ. I like to use characters efficiently, to ensure that their journey entertains the reader. Sometimes, that involves their death.

But I do know how you feel. There are characters I have seen fall in several fandoms that I didn't want to die.

Well, I have killed off characters in certain stories too because that was part of a scenario.

But kill off good characters? No!

I even spared a character in a story which would have deserved to be killed off because I might want to use that one in another story.

The Prime Directive was really hazy where the Baku were concerned.

The Prime Directive itself seems to be a bit hazy because often Our Heroes find ways to go around it when necessary. I've used it myself in some stories.

[/QUOTE] It definitely went downhill. Retiring Seska and Suder, making an active decision for Harry to stagnate, eliminating Kes, and turning it from a difficult journey with limited resources to a Princess cruise in space... all questionable decisions.[/QUOTE]
In this I totally agree!

Agreed. And I feel the same way about Weyoun.

[/QUOTE]Yes. But that doesn't mean I intend to ship Bashir/Ezri, because hey, at least it's mediocre.[/QUOTE] I can agree on that. To be honest, there are few relationships in Star Trek I would ship because many times they are made made up just because it has to be a relationship, no matter what.

Two relationships I actually find good are Miles/Keiko and Sisko/Yates.

Maybe. Though I will admit, I liked him in Prodigy.

I haven't seen that much of Prodigy so I can't comment on that one. But if they could undo the damage made to the character in Journey's End it would be good.

If they had done that with Harry, I wouldn't be saying that they should have killed him off. But instead, they have carefully hidden his fate post-Voyager, just to perpetuate their mean-spirited and unfunny "forever ensign" joke.

And i can't understand why they haven't done anything to do some justice to the chararcter. I mean, what's the problem with making him a Lieutenant in some upcoming book and give him something important to do. Are the tentacles of certain producer that long that not even authors of books dare to question them?

Very true. And a dying character serves the narrative better than one with no purpose, and little chance at happiness. An example is Mullibok from "Progress". I saw no path to a happy ending for him... better to kill him off cleanly.

I really felt sorry for Mullibok. Still do everytime I watch that episode.

But kill him off? I'm not exactly sure of that.

Maybe they could create a place on some other moon which looked exactly as the place where he lived.

Or maybe......well, if I had been Mullibok, I would rather have a scenario in which I had found a way to blast the whole moon to peaces, sort of "well, you're gonna destroy my paradise but you ain't gonna have anything for it".

And that's what the Before and After timeline was: a life well lived. Yes, there were issues... but Kes's journey wasn't one of them.

I still find it dull compared to what it could have been if Kes could have had a human lifespan.

 

[fireproof78]

would like such scenarios, then I could spend my days looking at those third-rate soap operas in which characters are slowly dying in six or seven episodes with old ladies crying in front of their TV:s.

Which is not what I described at all so this example is meaningless.

can't see destruction just for the sake of destruction as "art".

Yeah. I give up. Destruction simply doesn't exist to me the way it's being described.

 

[Crazy 4 Xmas Lights]

I can't see destruction just for the sake of destruction as "art".

True. But I see the necessity of eliminating a character here and there. A tapestry is all the more compelling for its dark spots. And I remember one movie that just got eyerolling because they had all these characters in a massive firefight and none of them died.

And it's still the most efficient way to terminate a love triangle.

I do find characters like Khan, Dukat and Gul Mardred good since they contribute to a good story even if I don't find them likeable.

Dukat... uchhh. Not sure which is worse, the creepiness or the megalomania.

 

[fireproof78]

True. But I see the necessity of eliminating a character here and there. A tapestry is all the more compelling for its dark spots. And I remember one movie that just got eyerolling because they had all these characters in a massive firefight and none of them died.

And it's still the most efficient way to terminate a love triangle.



Dukat... uchhh. Not sure which is worse, the creepiness or the megalomania.

Might want to check your formatting

 

[Mage]

Oh, yeah, that happened too. In my proposed 8th season, I mean. That's another thing they needed to resolve.

It happened in the novel-verse as well. That was of course completely non-canon, but still.