Sussman Responds to Cogley!

[KIRK1ADM]

Posted by emily_reich:

Posted by Dr. Bashir:
I feel that they need to know what our opinions and feelings on VOY and ENT are. Berman seemed to be genuienly dumbfounded on why NEM failed. If we aren't honest with them about what we think of VOY, NEM, and ENT then we aren't helping out the Trek franchise.

it is only your opinion that they need help (just cuz some people might agree doesn't mean it's "right")... and personally i enjoyed VOY, ENT, adn nemesis...

Actually its not only his opinion. There are many, many others with similar opinions.

As for your enjoying Voyager, Enterprise and the god forsaken Nemesis only accentuates that you are in the minority with those views, because all have been failures in terms of numbers of viewers and box office dollars.

 

[Samuel T. Cogley]

Oy! What a disaster this thread has become!

 

[emily_reich]

Posted by Mallory:
...adding anything of quality to the debate.

or to the episodes... (which is SUPPOSEDLY what people want)

or to what people in general tend to think of trek fans... (i wondered for a long time why no one respects the opinions of trek fans... then i came to a couple of these boards and realized why: they don't even respect the opinions of each OTHER)

sorry... just had to point that out...

 

[KIRK1ADM]

Posted by JohnM:

Posted by Raz:

Posted by TorontoTrekker:
I don't want to sound like I'm sucking up - Ghu forbid! - but I think if anyone's entitled to speculate about what wasn't seen on-screen, and come up with an explanation, it's the writer... and anyone who disagrees is the wrong one.

Your position is, simply put, untenable.

Quite the opposite.

The reasoning is simple: our reviews are based on what we see, not what Mr. Sussman writes. I DO actually appreciate that there was an attempt to clean things up, canonically. I'm annoyed that it didn't make it in.

But the fact remains the criticism is based on what we saw, not what was attempted to be shown, and thus, it still stands. If anyone's position is untenable, it is the one of Mr Sussman, in trying to assert what simply is NOT there. Although, once again, I do appreciate the intent.

In retrospect, I shouldn't have been so damn insulting in with my wording. For that, I apologize. I should show more respect, as Samuel T. Cogley has said, because it is a good thing that a writer IS taking the time out of his life to stop by and read some ass kissing and a fair chunk of unforgiving criticism.

Without being told so by Mr. Sussman, what motivates me in any way to believe the Borg cleaned up the wreckage? Nothing. In fact, nobody really brought up the possibility until Mr. Sussman asserted it here in this thread... afaik..

You should be sorry.

And for the left over Borg, the stuff in the Artic, ect... I always thought we would see this explained in future episodes. Its not like this is the very last episode of Enterprise.

Oh geeze, now you can't even accept an apology from someone?

 

[Knucles2]

Posted by Cyrus:

Posted by Raz:
Without being told so by Mr. Sussman, what motivates me in any way to believe the Borg cleaned up the wreckage? Nothing.

Nothing? We have seen Borg remove their technology when they leave on other episodes. This is consistent with what we have seen before.

They have ? Which Ep?

Also using your own logic (which I also mentioned in a post above), there was no on screen evidence that they didn't clean up the wreckage.

"If it's not seen on screen it didn't happen"...

 

[Dorian Thompson]

If you boys don't have a tape measure to settle this argument I can loan you one.

 

[static warp bubble]

Posted by Samuel T. Cogley:
Oy! What a disaster this thread has become!

needs more lighter fluid...

 

[emily_reich]

Posted by KIRK1ADM:

Posted by emily_reich:
it is only your opinion that they need help (just cuz some people might agree doesn't mean it's "right")... and personally i enjoyed VOY, ENT, adn nemesis...

Actually its not only his opinion. There are many, many others with similar opinions.

As for your enjoying Voyager, Enterprise and the god forsaken Nemesis only accentuates that you are in the minority with those views, because all have been failures in terms of numbers of viewers and box office dollars.

if you note, i DID write that others have those views... in fact, it's RIGHT in teh post ya responded to...

and ALL trek fans are in teh minority (according to ratings/box office/etc), so i don't care if you think i am on this issue or not... that's your opinion, and this is mine... end of debate...


and Sam: sorry bout the thread.... and i agree... i am leaving now until the actual discussion returns...

 

[Guest]

Posted by Knucles2:
They have ? Which Ep?

"Q Who?"

"If it's not seen on screen it didn't happen"...

That's a really dangerous road to start down.

 

[Raz]

Posted by Cyrus:

Posted by Raz:
Without being told so by Mr. Sussman, what motivates me in any way to believe the Borg cleaned up the wreckage? Nothing.

Nothing? We have seen Borg remove their technology when they leave on other episodes. This is consistent with what we have seen before.

I recall them removing reusable parts, including bodies for organ harvesting. I don't recall them picking up 100 year old wreckage just because.

Besides. What was Reed shooting in his phase pistol tests? Looked like a chunk of hull plating, but it couldn't be. And what about the bodies floating in space, the wreckage of the transport, and the images and data collected? Did the Borg collect that?

Also using your own logic (which I also mentioned in a post above), there was no on screen evidence that they didn't clean up the wreckage.

In the absence of canon I use common sense. Common sense tells me the Borg got up and left. Actually, common sense tells me they would stay behind and assimilate the planet. They were easily capable. But I suppose if they had to get a message to their mommy and daddy, I imagine they'd do that pretty quickly. Collecting wreckage is an irrelevant waste of time and resources unless your destruction of evidence is total. Meaning, go after their data collected, etc.

See? Common sense

 

[KIRK1ADM]

Posted by emily_reich:

Posted by KIRK1ADM:

Posted by emily_reich:
it is only your opinion that they need help (just cuz some people might agree doesn't mean it's "right")... and personally i enjoyed VOY, ENT, adn nemesis...

Actually its not only his opinion. There are many, many others with similar opinions.

As for your enjoying Voyager, Enterprise and the god forsaken Nemesis only accentuates that you are in the minority with those views, because all have been failures in terms of numbers of viewers and box office dollars.

if you note, i DID write that others have those views... in fact, it's RIGHT in teh post ya responded to...

and ALL trek fans are in teh minority (according to ratings/box office/etc), so i don't care if you think i am on this issue or not... that's your opinion, and this is mine... end of debate...


and Sam: sorry bout the thread.... and i agree... i am leaving now until the actual discussion returns...

I disagree. Star Trek, back in its hayday, before the infamous presence of Berman infected the series was overall rather successful. In fact one of the leaders in the Star Trek series Star Trek 4, did quite well, among some of the other movies.

 

[shinzonclone]

Loved the episode, Mr. Sussman, and maybe you should do a sequel like maybe one of the scientists stayed behind or was frozen or something. Anyways please do more shows about Earth and whats happening over there while Archer is off in space. Maybe have an episode with Admiral Forest as the focus... that will also introduce new characters and burueacrats too !!

 

[Guest]

Posted by Event-Horizon:

Posted by CountLestat:

Posted by MikeSussman:

And does Starfleet have no other ships in the fleet?

Enterprise is the only ship in Starfleet capable of intercepting a vessel at warp 3.9 or higher; the rest of the fleet is zipping along at a leisurely warp two.

Warp 2?????

Could someone tell but have I dreamt the episode 'Fortunate Son' where it was mentioned that a cargo ship with a warp 2 engine could upgrade to a Warp 3 Engine???? Did I dream this???? now see I'm thinking if a freighter can get warp 3 engines, why can't a star fleet vessel?

Any ideas?

They said that "in the future" they would upgrade to higher warp speeds. They were planning Warp 3 ships. They were brand new or in prototype stage at the time.

Sounds plausible to me, I must have missed the 'in the future part', I blame this forum and its users, for being cynical!! As these things end up rubbing off on me... Damn!

 

[Guest]

Posted by Muninn:

Posted by Knucles2:
"If it's not seen on screen it didn't happen"...

That's a really dangerous road to start down.

I don't think that's true, provided the quote is changed to "If it's not seen on the screen we can't assume it happened."

The only canon is what is seen on the show - what the writer intended is good to know, especially in light of a potential gaff. The clean up of the Borg debris could have happened but we weren't told that and we weren't shown that. It works as speculation but it doesn't become a canonical explanation until it appears, in some form, in an episode. The issue is left open - what if the writers decide, later on, that this gaff works in their favor? That the remaining Borg tech could be used for future Borg episodes? Then the speculative discussion here, prompted by the original intent of the writer, is established not to be canon.

We can speculate anything we want to but it really isn't safe to assume anything as canon unless it's on the screen.

 

[Spy of P'Jem]

Posted by MikeSussman:
A very entertaining review, Sam. A couple of clarifications I'd like to make:

Thanks for chiming in, Mr. Sussman, though I'm somewhat befuddled as to why you would choose such an anally ridiculous review for that purpose.

The episode stands on its own. After much thought, I have to agree with David Goodman, in that it serves continuity more than corrupts it. I have a certain issue with Archer stating "They've adapted!", on the Borgified freighter (way too First Contact-ish), other than that I really believe that the other foibles noted are only in some people's imaginations gone a bit too wild, or too fan-fict-ed.

 

[Cyrus]

Posted by Raz:
In the absence of canon I use common sense. Common sense tells me the Borg got up and left. Actually, common sense tells me they would stay behind and assimilate the planet. They were easily capable. But I suppose if they had to get a message to their mommy and daddy, I imagine they'd do that pretty quickly. Collecting wreckage is an irrelevant waste of time and resources unless your destruction of evidence is total. Meaning, go after their data collected, etc.

See? Common sense

Since when have Borg used common sense? If they had common sense, they wouldn't bother assimilating Picard in BOBW.

Also common sense means different things to different people. The bottom line is that you are making assumptions, and at the same time dismissing the assumptions made by the writer of the episode. And when you make assumptions, then those are not continuity violations.

 

[Samuel T. Cogley]

Posted by defenestrated_one:
I don't think that's true, provided the quote is changed to "If it's not seen on the screen we can't assume it happened."

The only canon is what is seen on the show - what the writer intended is good to know, especially in light of a potential gaff. The clean up of the Borg debris could have happened but we weren't told that and we weren't shown that. It works as speculation but it doesn't become a canonical explanation until it appears, in some form, in an episode. The issue is left open - what if the writers decide, later on, that this gaff works in their favor? That the remaining Borg tech could be used for future Borg episodes? Then the speculative discussion here, prompted by the original intent of the writer, is established not to be canon.

We can speculate anything we want to but it really isn't safe to assume anything as canon unless it's on the screen.

I would actually give Mike Sussman's explanation even more weight than that.

I'd analogize it to statutory interpretation in the law. When attempting to interpret what a particular statute means in any given circumstance, especially when it falls silent on a certain point, courts look to the legislative intent and legislative history behind the statute.

Until we see otherwise, Mike's explanations are incredibly relevant.

Mike's not making an apology, or begging forgiveness from the fans. He's simply letting us know what was running through his mind, what was in earlier drafts of the script, what never got filmed, and what was filmed but cut.

These are all realities of the business. It sucks that all of this stuff can't make it into the episode, but that's just the way it goes.

Mike doesn't seem to be expecting us to buy his explanations as canon. He's just letting us know what would've (or could've) been if budgetary or time constraints weren't an issue.

 

[Yminale]

The biggest problem with Mr. Sussman's explanations is that first it was never shown and second the Borg's abilities have never been consistent. In TNG the borg do take the neural processors from dead comrades and they do disnintegrate BUT ever since FC and VOY it never been shown. Second salvaging from the wreck makes sense but not all of it. When have the Borg cared for subtrefuge. Only the most useful parts would have been taken. Second why didn't the Borg assimilate a city. It would easier to contact the collective with more drones and resources. And if contact is their first priority why did they set a trap for Enterprise. The Borg are very straight forward, they would attack if they could but run away if they couldn't. Finally beeming away from the ship seems like a bad idea why not the survivors beem aboard Enterprise. Since they were resistant to Phase Pistols they literally could assimilate at will. Actually only one borg would need to survive.

Finally What about poor Picard in "Q Who" Why didn't he have any information on the Borg.

 

[Yminale]

Posted by Cyrus:
Since when have Borg used common sense? If they had common sense, they wouldn't bother assimilating Picard in BOBW.

Though it was disastarous to do so in HINDSIGHT. It made perfect sense at the time. Picard was humanity's best commander and using him as the voice of the Borg made them even more chilling.

Also common sense means different things to different people. The bottom line is that you are making assumptions, and at the same time dismissing the assumptions made by the writer of the episode. And when you make assumptions, then those are not continuity violations.

The writer's intention though well meaning doesn't excuse the poor quality shown on the screen. I mean Shatner's vision of ST5 was breathetaking, but the movie was not very good. The plot holes really detract from the episode. Finally Mr. Sussman does not have a credible explanation for why Picard was clueless when he first met the Borg.

 

[KIRK1ADM]

Posted by Yminale:

Posted by Cyrus:
Since when have Borg used common sense? If they had common sense, they wouldn't bother assimilating Picard in BOBW.

Though it was disastarous to do so in HINDSIGHT. It made perfect sense at the time. Picard was humanity's best commander and using him as the voice of the Borg made them even more chilling.

Also common sense means different things to different people. The bottom line is that you are making assumptions, and at the same time dismissing the assumptions made by the writer of the episode. And when you make assumptions, then those are not continuity violations.

The writer's intention though well meaning doesn't excuse the poor quality shown on the screen. I mean Shatner's vision of ST5 was breathetaking, but the movie was not very good. The plot holes really detract from the episode. Finally Mr. Sussman does not have a credible explanation for why Picard was clueless when he first met the Borg.

I agree with you on the quality and writers explanation. Not to mention that Sussman is one of the producers as well if I'm not mistaken?