Remember that time Troi was naked in the tree and she and Riker's emotional empathy souls were entwined because they were Imzadi? Oh god.
New To Voyager
- Thread starter Garren
- Start date
HEY! THAT'S MINE!
I thought we had a deal?
I'll mull over the naked tree climbing and you can... Has Michael written anything worth remembering?
He's not a bad guy, just irrefutably bland.
I thought we had a deal?
I'll mull over the naked tree climbing and you can... Has Michael written anything worth remembering?
He's not a bad guy, just irrefutably bland.
They forgot to balance out his annoying boisterousness with qualities that were hinted at in the first few episodes would have made it interesting in comparison.
Also they never followed up on the thing in Encounter at Farpoint where Riker could empathically hear Troi because they are imzadi which seemed like it was part of what imzadi meant.
My Michael Jan Friedman experience is limited to Star Wars lit. Which was very unmemorable but do I have fiery suns loathing for him like I do for PD? No. So really, PD wins.
Last edited:
He always had great covers, which was a trap.
Hmmm. It's a good interview and I think a lot of what he says is accurate, but very much couched in his own perspective and preferences.
He believes that Trek is character driven drama first and foremost. That's very contentious and personally I'd disagree strongly.
He wants to do a gritty, realistic 'life on the edge oddysey drama' much as his BSG did. I don't think that was the idea (or at least not everybody's idea). They just used the separation from the Federation to give them more freedom and more room for real pioneering exploration than had been possible in TNG. Other than that it was, as he accurately observes, just normal Trek not something new and different. If you demand realism in that regard then you've got valid criticisms but frankly there's reams of such failings in Star Trek; it's hardly confined to Voyager.
Similarly he decries the lack of realism in the Maquis being assimilated by the Starfleet crew so rapidly and that they all go along with Janeway's principles that leave them stranded (repeatedly) so readily. Of course he's correct. That kind of realism wasn't the aim though. The Maquis plot served its role with the Ceska arc and all that but in the longer term they really just wanted to do a normal episodic Trek with an adventure of the week. Moore even goes on to lionize the nitpicking statistical obesessions of some sections of the fanbase -which he should be ashamed of. That kind of nerd rage is pitiful. He's on pretty shaky ground himself with these criticisms of realism. Having All Along the Watchtower in BSG was highly effective in its hallucinatory power in the scene but also completely disrupted the illusion of the fiction and was a serious let down for me. Let's not even go there with the spiritualist handwaving that was used to justify that series' greater mysteries...
He wants continuity and an ongoing narrative. Even he makes clear that the production team completely rejected that approach (and quite rightly in my book. Not that that sort of thing can't be good -I think Moore's BSG was superb -but it is the wrong way to go with Trek).
He wants the whole to 'say something' (presumably much like the faux spirituality of DS9 or even the denouement of BSG which make you feel like you're stuck in some Californian alternative therapy convention). Maybe a show that provides the opportunity to showcase multiple POV's and beliefs and say different things is equally valid?
Similar threads
