Is Voyager really Star Trek?
- Thread starter mahler5
- Start date
Kegek said:
Well, we have no idea how the Monoliths work. They appear to follow Clarke's principle: 'Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.' Conceded that this can be argued as an element of science fantasy, but this is certainly not the case with the human technology in this film.
The latter objection - that there is no monolith on the Moon - is something else. This is the fiction part of science fiction, even in the realistic genre. You make stuff up. It may be consistent with the physical laws as we understand them, but it's still made-up.
Exactly. There's no Harry "Rabbit" Angstrom but that does not mean John Updike's Rabbit novels are fantasy.
I've run into this same debate from the other side, when faced with those who would claim that Kurt Vonnegut did not write SF--hell, he himself said this. Sorry, but if you are writing about a journey through the solar system which ends with an alien robot marooned on Titan, about a view of what humanity evolves into one million years hence after a disease wipes out all but a handful of vacationers on the Galapagos Islands, about another apocalypse in which chemists rearrange water molecules so they will freeze at room temperature, well, then you write SF. Don't want to be associated with a genre for "pimply faced teenagers"? Then leave its tropes alone and don't let the door hit you on the ass on your way out. Indeed, keep walking until you're trotting and then break into a run and go take a flying fuck at a rolling donut, take a flying fuck at the moooooooon!
Oh, and rest in peace.
If one is going to run around decanonizing things on the basis of artistic 'worthiness', then the Star Trek continuity is going to be more convoluted than it already is.
Is "Living Witness" less worthy than "The Way to Eden"? "Tinker, Tenor, Doctor Spy" less worthy than "Let He Who Is Without Sin"? "Warlord" less worthy than "Cost of Living"? "Someone to Watch Over Me" less worthy than "A Night in Sickbay"?
One thing I can say for those who construct alternate canons - like those based on whether or not Roddenberry was creatively involved with the project - they make no claims as to the pristine quality of everything in their chosen canon.
A simpler solution would just be to ignore it, considering how often it ignored its own internal continuity and for that matter how little bearing the events on the show have on the events on the other shows... but Star Trek has done that anyway.
It's television called Star Trek, therefore it's Star Trek - the good and the bad. Voyager had plenty of both. (So did TOS, TNG, DS9 and Enterprise.)
I don't agree with de-canonizing anything except Star Trek V and TATV.
I don't agree with de-canonizing anything except Star Trek V and TATV.
mahler5 said:
No,it is made to look and sound like star trek, but it is hollow and has no soul. I think of it as pretend trek.
Any thoughts?
I DO have a thought... and its that YOUR opinion of Voyager is purely subjective.
I think Star Trek: Deep Space Nine was a complete piece of sh*t... but that's MY opinion.
The difference between us is that you dislike Voyager, and come here to post/complain/denigrate.
I hate DS9, but don't post there, or even visit the site.
If someone has a strong negative emotional reaction towards a TV show, I think it's fair to call it hate. There are many TVs I outright loathe and despise (for example: Just about all of Sky's original programming - Brainiac: Science Abuse, Are You Smarter Than a Ten Year Old?, and many other commendable programs). Naturally, the easiest solution is to not watch those shows and watch something you do like, as well as diversifying your entertainment with watching films, and reading books, and listening to music.
But it does not negate the fact some of us really hate given shows.
Similar threads
