In Defense of Janeway as a Captain

[zar]

Not really.

OK so let me clarify:

Changing the ship, the crew, or any of the specifics of where and how they were lost, would NOT be changing the premise?

 

[Anwar]

The premise is that the show has a crew of Starfleet, and crew of an adversarial group and that they all get lost years from the Federation. Early trailers didn't even mention the Delta Quadrant.

So yeah, changing the other crew to something other than Maquis wouldn't change that.

 

[zar]

So what you're saying is, all the fixes you are proposing would not involve changing the premise.

Which means you don't think the premise needs to be modified in order to fix VOY.

Which means you're retconning your original statement that VOY's premise was hopelessly limiting.

Which means the majority of the latter half of this thread is now meaningless.

 

[Anwar]

No, I would change the premise in that they aren't in the Delta Quadrant. That'd be my major change to the premise. Other things like changing the ship to a heavier class and stuff wouldn't change the very premise, I think.

I also would make "going home" a secondary plot and give the show a driving plot beyond that in the start to hopefully inspire the writers to try harder. Failing that I'd just have the show air in 2001 or so to give them time to hire new writers and develop better FX tech.

 

[BillJ]

This thread has turned into a circle-jerk.

 

[Guy Gardener]

"You keep using this word, but i do not think it means what you think it means."

What, making the group that is supposed to bring conflict, an actual group that is in conflict with the Feds instead of guys who really aren't? If anything, what I suggest fits the premise BETTER than who they chose.

BETTER?

Dude.

You just made the ends justify the means argument.

You also made the genetic superman argument

And the Borg Argument.

Would you go back in time to make your (hypothetical?) children faster stronger and better? Would you force them to undergo surgery right now to make them taller or less ginger? Although many parents use drugs to make their children's personalities less defective, but what about already fine specimens smarter and more superior (Seen limitless?)?

You remove a buildings foundations and that building will fall over.

Have you seen TNG Tapesty?

Pulling at the frayed thread of the tapestries of our lives?

Although.

If you'll give a Dalek legs, you're capable of anything.

 

[zar]

Anwar. You're now cherry-picking what constitutes a change to the premise and what doesn't.

These two posts of yours are contradictory:

The crew is made up of two groups who are nominally opposed, but really don't have enough in the way of differences for it to have any impact on the show.

...

That is the premise of Voyager.

The premise is that the show has a crew of Starfleet, and crew of an adversarial group and that they all get lost years from the Federation. Early trailers didn't even mention the Delta Quadrant.

So yeah, changing the other crew to something other than Maquis wouldn't change that.

Originally you said that "not having enough differences" was intrinsically part of the premise. Now suddenly you change your rules and say that it's allowed to be swapped out, that it doesn't fall within the realm of the premise.

I'll step out of this hopeless excuse for a debate with a quote from BillJ:

I show you evidence to the contrary and so you change the rules of the discussion. Hard to debate a moving target of standards.

 

[Anwar]

The crew is made up of two groups who are nominally opposed, but really don't have enough in the way of differences for it to have any impact on the show.

I was trying (farcically) to point out that while the Maquis were meant to be a group that generated conflict, they failed because they really weren't different ENOUGH from the Feds for it to work out. I want to switch the "nominally opposed" point for a "truly opposed", so it'd be what the showrunners were going for.

 

[zar]

Throughout this thread you have said, upwards of 100 times, "the premise is this", "the premise says that". Anyone can go and read what you said. You are now obviously, transparently, blatantly contradicting yourself. Backpedaling over this entire argument, transplanting it 10 miles to the right and trying to pretend that it was there all along. You have essentially shifted your argument so far that it's the same as what you were originally arguing against. So I'm done here, seeing as how you're apparently capable of continuously switching sides and arguing with yourself for eternity.

 

[Anwar]

In other words, fan getting abuse for liking VOY. Figures.

 

[Guy Gardener]

The language you are using is betraying the thoughts in your head.

Your current argument is that you love everything about voyager except everything about voyager which you would have changed if you had the opportunity replacing Voyager with a superior Voyager two point OH, that would be nothing like Voyager except exactly the same.

I think it is I who is defending Voyager and it you who is abusing Voyager because I love her worts and you'd rather sandpaper Voyager's face till she looks like nothing special.

 

[Anwar]

I don't like everything about the show, it had its flaws like all the Trek shows did. I DO think there were genuinely bad points in the show (Beltran, Wang being the main offenders).

 

[Guy Gardener]

Saw Beltran in the Street Hawk pilot a few weeks back.

Most wooden actor ever.

Seen Wang in nothing else.

Ever.

Well that fanfilm, I suppose, but Russ was probably just feeling sorry for him.

Is Garret Wang an actor if he doesn't work as an actor?

 

[Anwar]

The last major project Wang was in was something called "Why am I doing this?".

Fitting, really...