In Defense of Janeway as a Captain

[zar]

So you'd dislike Farscape if you ever did see it, for that reason?

A typically extreme Anwarian deduction.

No. If I ever saw it, I would decide whether to like or dislike it based on what I see, not merely on the basic concept behind it.

And I never said I would have automatically disliked VOY, either, if they'd used that concept. What I said was it would have been harder to make that concept work, than what we had in the first place:

So far your ideas for "fixing" VOY's premise would have only made it more limiting, whether it was in the first place or not, and harder to swallow.

 

[Lilyful]

I've only seen up to half-way through season four, but so far she's pretty interesting.

 

[stj]

Nobody claimed it hadn't been. The problem is when a certain someone immediately assumes that everyone who criticizes VOY is of the same group mind that apparently so oppressed him in the past.

But so many of the posts are vacuous you can only interpret them as clumsy repetitions of the same old shit.
For example, Voyager as it was had two main cast characters who basically joined up for the fun of exploration, Kes and Neelix. And Kes was plainly something of a Mary Sue character. Right there the show tells you quite plainly that exploration is a main theme of the show, not "Badass rulz!" But you actually objected to the very idea of characters joining a ship on the way to Earth, without apparently noticing how much of it had actually been done. And still went on to maunder about the premise and bad writing.

People who respond can only try to guess what you mean. You have no right to complain about someone guessing wrong when you can't even say something coherent in the first place.

 

[zar]

But so many of the posts are vacuous you can only interpret them as clumsy repetitions of the same old shit.

What's funny is that I don't remember "so many" times. When people can't even correctly describe the thread, how can we believe they can identify bad writing?

For example, Voyager as it was had two main cast characters who basically joined up for the fun of exploration, Kes and Neelix. And Kes was plainly something of a Mary Sue character. Right there the show tells you quite plainly that exploration is a main theme of the show, not "Badass rulz!"

Nobody denied the show was about exploration. On the contrary, we defended that fact against Anwar's declarations that it was all about the crew not giving a shit about anything other than going in a straight line directly home.

But you actually objected to the very idea of characters joining a ship on the way to Earth, without apparently noticing how much of it had actually been done.

You're greatly simplifying what was said on that subject. This is what Anwar suggested (in place of the Maquis):

various DQ inhabitants that the Caretaker was holding (each with their own agenda)

It's one thing to write two specific main characters (who are in a relationship with each other) to have their own reasons for wanting to come along. But quite another to replace the whole Maquis crew with fifty extras representing a bunch of aliens with no connection to one another and each having different goals.

"How much it had been done"? Two characters isn't "much".

People who respond can only try to guess what you mean. You have no right to complain about someone guessing wrong when you can't even say something coherent in the first place.

There is only one person who appears to be having trouble understanding what people are saying, and it's not because of incoherence on our part, but because of his own addled form of logic.

Case in point:

If someone complains about one aspect of a story, you infer that everything associated with the story causes complaints.

It does

 

[BillJ]

This thread shows the reason that I rarely come into this forum. People aren't actually interested in discussing the pros and cons of the series, they're only interested in re-hashing arguments from a decade ago. Where they got their feelings hurt because (like every other Trek series) Voyager got called out when it dropped the ball.

 

[Anwar]

The level of hate towards VOY over the years has always been grossly disproportionate to any hate leveled at the other shows.

 

[zar]

So?

 

[Anwar]

So we have a right to defend ourselves and our show, or are you saying every criticism is perfectly justified and we're dumb for liking it?

 

[BillJ]

So we have a right to defend ourselves and our show, or are you saying every criticism is perfectly justified and we're dumb for liking it?

What's there to defend? We're sitting around discussing a decade plus old TV show. And who's calling you dumb for liking it? Obviously, if we're here discussing it we've watched it too. I have to like it on at least some level to own four seasons on DVD and numerous novels, comics.

I just believe that the show never achieved greatness because of some issues, primarily with the writing.

 

[Anwar]

I agree, but I also think it came at the wrong time and needed some changes to the premise.

 

[zar]

So we have a right to defend ourselves and our show, or are you saying every criticism is perfectly justified and we're dumb for liking it?

I'm saying the relative "hate" VOY gets doesn't make any difference in the context of this discussion. It only serves as an explanation -- not a justification -- for your emotional, almost sectarian reaction toward anyone who has a different opinion about it than you (which your delusion that my one-word post was calling you "dumb" is yet another prime example of).

 

[stj]

What's funny is that I don't remember "so many" times. When people can't even correctly describe the thread, how can we believe they can identify bad writing?

You have a bad memory. If you left out the repeated psychoanalysis on Anwar, you'd barely be in this thread. (By the way, are you practicing psychiatry without a license?) Since you haven't correctly described the thread, I'm afraid I don't think you can be relied upon to identify bad writing.

Nobody denied the show was about exploration. On the contrary, we defended that fact against Anwar's declarations that it was all about the crew not giving a shit about anything other than going in a straight line directly home.

Anwar has some criticisms of the premise and that's one of them. I'll quit guessing what you think since you haven't bothered to say but anyone who says that the premise is okay (said premise being the stuff about survivalism, Maquis conflict, Starfleet way doesn't really work, yadda yadda,) but the problem is in the "execution," also needs to explain how being about exploration is good execution of said (supposed) premises. You don't explore when fighting for survival or fighting your supposed shipmated or committing crimes to get home faster. (Somebody please explain how that's supposed to work anyhow.) You say you like the premise (I think, since the posts are mainly personal attacks,) you say it's a problem of execution, but when someone gives a specific example of poor execution, you defend it! If you want to be taken seriously, say something serious.

You're greatly simplifying what was said on that subject. This is what Anwar suggested (in place of the Maquis):
It's one thing to write two specific main characters (who are in a relationship with each other) to have their own reasons for wanting to come along. But quite another to replace the whole Maquis crew with fifty extras representing a bunch of aliens with no connection to one another and each having different goals.

"How much it had been done"? Two characters isn't "much".

There were nine main characters, which means two characters is over twenty percent. Yes, it's much.

 

[zar]

anyone who says that the premise is okay (said premise being the stuff about survivalism, Maquis conflict, Starfleet way doesn't really work, yadda yadda,) but the problem is in the "execution," also needs to explain how being about exploration is good execution of said (supposed) premises. You don't explore when fighting for survival or fighting your supposed shipmated or committing crimes to get home faster.

No one claimed the premise was some barbaric fight for survival and committing crimes. Yes, there was supposed to be conflict with the Maquis, but anything beyond that is -- guess what -- execution. The very concept of survival or conflict isn't intrinsically at odds with the concept of exploration.

You're greatly simplifying what was said on that subject. This is what Anwar suggested (in place of the Maquis):
It's one thing to write two specific main characters (who are in a relationship with each other) to have their own reasons for wanting to come along. But quite another to replace the whole Maquis crew with fifty extras representing a bunch of aliens with no connection to one another and each having different goals.

"How much it had been done"? Two characters isn't "much".

There were nine main characters, which means two characters is over twenty percent. Yes, it's much.

Congratulations, you completely ignored everything I said, except for the last sentence which was an afterthought. The ratio of two to nine is utterly irrelevant.

 

[BillJ]

There were nine main characters, which means two characters is over twenty percent. Yes, it's much.

But there was 150+ crew members on Voyager. So two out of 150, is what 1.5%?

 

[Guy Gardener]

Anwar, you must hate Voyager and it seems like you don't accept Voyager, otherwise you wouldn't want to fundamentally change the show from the first movement up. The changes you suggest to the pilot, which you've been bannering in numerous threads would turn Voyager into something else entirely not-Voyager.

 

[Anwar]

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.

 

[zar]

If anything, what I suggest fits the premise BETTER than who they chose.

What you suggest is a change to the premise, so it fitting their premise better is, by definition, impossible.

 

[Anwar]

The premise is that the crew is to made up of groups that are in conflict with one another. Using Romulans or DQ residents fits that just as much as the Maquis.

 

[zar]

... The premise is, essentially, what we see in the pilot. Changing the ship, the crew, or any of the specifics of where and how they were lost, would be changing the premise.

 

[Anwar]

Not really.

And like I said, I had issues with the premise and felt some things needed to be changed. So I can accept that, as is, the premise could stand with some changes that ultimately would benefit the show.