The Official: What do Niners Feel About Enterprise

[Anwar]

That has to be your biggest fallacy yet!!

Guess I'm living a lie, since plenty of people in my home have admitted it's hard working for IT since the people you call are ready to tear into you (granted, I work for a credit card company and our customers are more prepared for our calls). And no, the people who express sympathy for them are not IT workers themselves.

Link me to where I said that and I'll respond, otherwise shut the fuck up and stop claiming I said things that I didn't.

http://www.trekbbs.com/showpost.php?p=3586697&postcount=166

If you can't write an episode about an unstoppable force of nature then don't include that force at all

So, if the writers on Voyager were fans trying to make the best shows they could, and you think that they were incapable of pulling off a mutiny story in an interesting way, do you think that the writers on Voyager were not good enough?

No, I just think the idea of a VOY mutiny isn't good.

Long time nerd: That executive must have been drinking because Voyager has done plenty of flashback episodes, including one actually called Flashback.

That was mandated due to it being Trek's anniversary at the time it was made. They were willing to put up the money in that case. For one-time actors, they'd also have to be recurring ones which would cost more because the haters would demand that Janeway's flashbacks be some series-long Bullsh*t instead of a few episodes.

Rereading the post I can see how you might be confused, but I actually was talking about Voyager there and not DS9, which is why I tried to differentiate DS9 directly afterwards by saying that DS9 could have used more deaths too.

Yeah, DS9 should've lost some random nobody extras while VOY should've lost half of the main cast .

No

Then it's double standard. One cast gets to live, and the other is condemned to death simply because they exist.

 

[Disillusioned]

Good writing aside, both are "gimmick" races with easily displayable gimmicks. The episode would work with ANY gimmick race and thus isn't good evidence of the Borg being good as the faceless foe.

That argument doesn't make any sense, at all. You're basically admitting that they either were written well or could have been, but at the same time refusing to admit same.

1) Because they are the Butt Monkeys of the Trek fandom, taking abuse for failures that aren't theirs.

2) Yes, people do have compassion for people in the IT Industry.

What does any of this have to do with episodes sucking?

Then quit saying stuff like "The writers weren't competent enough to write the Borg".

He might not have said it, but I totally would say that based on how weak the Borg were made in order to allow our one hero ship to win all by itself that the writers either weren't competent enough to write the Borg or they weren't allowed to write them competently.

He's an inversion actually, he said that all the Kings and Emperors he played in the RSC were great preparation for the role of Picard.

Oh, I see, you were given a good example and you're just going to claim that it's an inversion, like that doesn't still blow your blanket statement out of the water. I, on the other hand, would point out that plenty of actors who have had roles in Star Trek started their acting careers on the stage doing Shakespeare.

I wasn't referring to the writing staff of the shows, I was referring to how you kept saying that people like Aaron Sorkin were great writers for lousy concepts. Guys who do shows like West Wing or The Wire would rather be caught dead than do a sci-fi or fantasy type show, because they would see it as beneath them.

And why should anyone care what assholes like that think?

Executive Suit: Too much money to waste on flashback episodes and hiring one-time actors to play people who all die for the sake of character development. You need to see every single last defining moment in a persons' life?

And you've pretty much hit on exactly why executive meddling is a bad thing, while still being wrong at the same time. Not only have there been plenty of flashback episodes, but there have also been plenty of one-time actors throughout Star Trek's run.

"All I've ever advocated is killing off 2 or 3 characters over the course of the entire show."

And you were talking about DS9, not VOY. Seriously, do you see people blathering on about how everyone in NuBSG's cast should have died horrible meaningless deaths? No, because it's double standard. They hate one cast of characters (for stupid reasons) for living and worship the other one and hope none of them would ever die.

Why do you keep arguing against an argument that wasn't even made?


I honestly don't get anything you've said. I mean, I get not liking something, and I can respect that even if I don't agree with it. The thing is, I can't even tell if you like the shows or don't, because you malign them, and sci-fi as a whole, just as much as your unusual attempts to "defend" it. As much as you go on about "the haters," I can't help but think that from the things you've said about sci-fi being beneath everyone of importance and being unworthy of being taken seriously, that you're one of the biggest haters of them all.

 

[Anwar]

That argument doesn't make any sense, at all. You're basically admitting that they either were written well or could have been, but at the same time refusing to admit same.

Ben's using Q Who? as an example of how the Borg can be effective as a faceless foe, I'm pointing out that their "faceless foe" thing didn't matter because it was a Q episode. Q simply used the Borg as a plot device for the lesson he taught Picard and any alien race with a gimmick would have worked. This was not an example of the Borg being effective as a "faceless foe".

He might not have said it, but I totally would say that based on how weak the Borg were made in order to allow our one hero ship to win all by itself that the writers either weren't competent enough to write the Borg or they weren't allowed to write them competently.

It was inevitable, if the Borg are written as borderline invincible all the time then there's no way for the protagonists to win. And since the audience rejected every last alien race VOY created and only accepted the Borg, they had to be depowered for continued use. It's a vicious cycle, the haters hate every original race and their actions result in the weakening of the one race they accept.

Oh, I see, you were given a good example and you're just going to claim that it's an inversion,

Because it is.

I, on the other hand, would point out that plenty of actors who have had roles in Star Trek started their acting careers on the stage doing Shakespeare.

...And?

And why should anyone care what assholes like that think?

When people keep blathering on about "get better writers this, and get better writers that", I'll give you an example of a "better writer" and show why it doesn't work.

And you've pretty much hit on exactly why executive meddling is a bad thing, while still being wrong at the same time. Not only have there been plenty of flashback episodes, but there have also been plenty of one-time actors throughout Star Trek's run.

Except what the haters would demand would be a money-devouring season's worth of flashbacks to examine and show every last one of the characters' motivations and defining moments including every last person they knew who died which would mean money-devouring recurring characters in all the flashbacks until they die. Just to justify certain characteristics of Janeway because they can't accept her just having these characteristics from the get-go.

Why do you keep arguing against an argument that wasn't even made?

"The show should be darker this, the characters should be meaner that, they should all die in the end blahblahblah"

I honestly don't get anything you've said. I mean, I get not liking something, and I can respect that even if I don't agree with it. The thing is, I can't even tell if you like the shows or don't, because you malign them, and sci-fi as a whole, just as much as your unusual attempts to "defend" it. As much as you go on about "the haters," I can't help but think that from the things you've said about sci-fi being beneath everyone of importance and being unworthy of being taken seriously, that you're one of the biggest haters of them all.

I pointed out the snobby attitudes that "big-shot" writers have and why they'd never do sci-fi, I liked VOY as it was, I defend it from the haters and their bizarre attempts to tear the show to ribbons at every opportunity, and I dislike the haters. That's all.

 

[Disillusioned]

Ben's using Q Who? as an example of how the Borg can be effective as a faceless foe, I'm pointing out that their "faceless foe" thing didn't matter because it was a Q episode. Q simply used the Borg as a plot device for the lesson he taught Picard and any alien race with a gimmick would have worked. This was not an example of the Borg being effective as a "faceless foe".

No, Ben's right because the Borg totally worked as a faceless foe. You may not have liked them or at least that aspect of them, and that's cool, but if anything in the episode being talked about, Q was simply a plot device to introduce us to the Borg

It was inevitable, if the Borg are written as borderline invincible all the time then there's no way for the protagonists to win.

It means that they shouldn't be dragged out a lot, and that the writers have to be more clever in resolving the storyline they develop for them. Can you imagine if Voyager had to look around and build up a coalition to take on the Borg for pretty much any reason? That could prove pretty interesting just by itself.

And since the audience rejected every last alien race VOY created and only accepted the Borg, they had to be depowered for continued use. It's a vicious cycle, the haters hate every original race and their actions result in the weakening of the one race they accept.

As the saying goes, "haters gonna hate." So what's your point?

Because it is.

Not really, no.

...And?

It shows that Star Trek is hardly beneath the Shakespearean actor. You know, the opposite of what you claimed.

When people keep blathering on about "get better writers this, and get better writers that", I'll give you an example of a "better writer" and show why it doesn't work.

No, it doesn't. For starters you have nothing to back up your claim that any of the people you mentioned actually feel the way you assert, and even if they did, they are but a few examples. What makes me laugh is that you're essentially arguing that VOY sucked so bad because sci-fi sucks so bad that no "respectable" person in the business will touch it. Not only is that an compelling argument, it kind of undermines any positive argument you might come up with.

Except what the haters would demand

Who cares? And really, you ought to avoid using that word, because it undermines any and all arguments you make.

would be a money-devouring season's worth of flashbacks to examine and show every last one of the characters' motivations and defining moments including every last person they knew who died which would mean money-devouring recurring characters in all the flashbacks until they die.

No one even made that argument so I don't know where you're getting it from.

Just to justify certain characteristics of Janeway because they can't accept her just having these characteristics from the get-go.

No, in storytelling it's just always better as a rule to show rather than tell. Remember Hoshi telling that story about Travis playing a practical joke on her when everyone thought he died? Something like that would be better to actually see. Just having a character talk about something awesome that happened is a cheat and lame. That doesn't automatically mean there has to be a flashback for everything either, it just means things need to be set up better. For instance the example I gave would have worked much better even as it was if we'd actually seen Travis playing practical jokes in previous episodes.

"The show should be darker this, the characters should be meaner that, they should all die in the end blahblahblah"

But you're still arguing against an argument that no one even made.

I pointed out the snobby attitudes that "big-shot" writers have and why they'd never do sci-fi, I liked VOY as it was,

Yet all you've done is basically rail against sci-fi and VOY. If anything your arguments would convince fewer people to watch, which is the opposite of what anyone would want if they are making or supporting a show.

I defend it from the haters and their bizarre attempts to tear the show to ribbons at every opportunity, and I dislike the haters. That's all.

You defend it by attacking it and by childishly calling anyone who criticizes a show you allegedly like by calling them "haters." Not much of a defense.

 

[Anwar]

No, Ben's right because the Borg totally worked as a faceless foe. You may not have liked them or at least that aspect of them, and that's cool, but if anything in the episode being talked about, Q was simply a plot device to introduce us to the Borg

Other way around, it was about him and Picard (like all the good Q episodes), and he simply used them to teach Picard a lesson. Nothing in that episode relied on their "faceless foe" schtick, and any powerful species with some recognizable gimmick would have worked in their place. So no, it's not a proper example of them still working as an antagonist while still retaining their "faceless foe" thing. The Borg are just boring as a regular foe.

It means that they shouldn't be dragged out a lot, and that the writers have to be more clever in resolving the storyline they develop for them.

It also means that their "faceless foe" thing gets boring real quick, and most stories would have to end with VOY running away with its tail tucked between its legs. In other words, make the crew into a bunch of incompetent cowards.

Can you imagine if Voyager had to look around and build up a coalition to take on the Borg for pretty much any reason? That could prove pretty interesting just by itself.

Too much time, too much money.

As the saying goes, "haters gonna hate." So what's your point?

That it was the audience's own fault, and if they had just accepted any of VOY's original races things would have been a lot better.

Not really, no.

Yes, actually.

It shows that Star Trek is hardly beneath the Shakespearean actor. You know, the opposite of what you claimed.

I said that Patrick Stewart was an inversion, a Shakesperian actor who enjoyed doing it.

What makes me laugh is that you're essentially arguing that VOY sucked so bad because sci-fi sucks so bad that no "respectable" person in the business will touch it.

I'm arguing over Ben's examples of using Aaron Sorkin and whoever wrote "The Wire" when he says they are just inherently better writers, that neither would write for sci-fi because being an "inherently better writer" also gives a contempt for less-than-realism-based programming. Of course this doesn't change that there's plenty of realism-based shows that are complete crap, worse than any of Treks worst. It's an attitude, not a fact.

No one even made that argument so I don't know where you're getting it from.

Ben said he would've wanted to see all the important events in Janeway's life that made her who she is, and I'm explaining how cost-inefficient and time-wasting it would be.

No, in storytelling it's just always better as a rule to show rather than tell. Remember Hoshi telling that story about Travis playing a practical joke on her when everyone thought he died? Something like that would be better to actually see. Just having a character talk about something awesome that happened is a cheat and lame. That doesn't automatically mean there has to be a flashback for everything either, it just means things need to be set up better. For instance the example I gave would have worked much better even as it was if we'd actually seen Travis playing practical jokes in previous episodes.

When I read this, I thought about how there were some people complaining about a scene between Janeway and Chakotay where he says that whenever she twitches her commbadge it means she's plotting something. They then complained their heads off over how she never did that thing before and their usual blablabla.

Never mind if she DID do that from the first episode onward, then they'd just complain that it was a stupid character tic.

But you're still arguing against an argument that no one even made.

It's the general concensus among the fandom: according to them VOY was a failure, every last character was an affront to Trek, all their original creations had no redeeming or interesting qualities, and you're dumb for liking it.

Yet all you've done is basically rail against sci-fi and VOY. If anything your arguments would convince fewer people to watch, which is the opposite of what anyone would want if they are making or supporting a show.

No, I pointed out the sci-fi ghetto http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SciFiGhetto and the snobby attitudes so-called "better writers" have.

It's a moot point seeing how VOY's audience was ready to hate it from the start. This attitude was passed onto ENT as well. Other sci-fi shows get a free pass for whatever reason.

You defend it by attacking it and by childishly calling anyone who criticizes a show you allegedly like by calling them "haters." Not much of a defense.

I'm calling them out on their double standards and silly complaints.

 

[Disillusioned]

Other way around, it was about him and Picard (like all the good Q episodes), and he simply used them to teach Picard a lesson. Nothing in that episode relied on their "faceless foe" schtick, and any powerful species with some recognizable gimmick would have worked in their place. So no, it's not a proper example of them still working as an antagonist while still retaining their "faceless foe" thing. The Borg are just boring as a regular foe.

No, the Borg worked pretty well as a faceless foe. And I hate to be the one to keep having to point out that the only reason Q was even in that episode was to introduce us to the Borg.

It also means that their "faceless foe" thing gets boring real quick,

For you maybe. And like I've said, that's cool if you don't like something.

and most stories would have to end with VOY running away with its tail tucked between its legs. In other words, make the crew into a bunch of incompetent cowards.

No, not really, because acknowledging the Borg as a powerful enemy would hardly make the VOY crew incompetent or cowards.

Too much time, too much money.

No, not really.

That it was the audience's own fault, and if they had just accepted any of VOY's original races things would have been a lot better.

No, not really. And blaming the show's fans for its faults makes no sense at all.

Yes, actually.

No, not really.

I said that Patrick Stewart was an inversion, a Shakesperian actor who enjoyed doing it.

And I've pointed out that isn't the case because he isn't the only example.

I'm arguing over Ben's examples of using Aaron Sorkin and whoever wrote "The Wire" when he says they are just inherently better writers, that neither would write for sci-fi because being an "inherently better writer" also gives a contempt for less-than-realism-based programming. Of course this doesn't change that there's plenty of realism-based shows that are complete crap, worse than any of Treks worst. It's an attitude, not a fact.

And yet you have no proof that Aaron Sorkin or anyone else from "The Wire" or "The West Wing" hold any such attitude.

Ben said he would've wanted to see all the important events in Janeway's life that made her who she is, and I'm explaining how cost-inefficient and time-wasting it would be.

Even if he might have mentioned that, you're still wrong about it being cost-inefficient and time-wasting. Just looking at how many pointless filler episodes have been done kind of invalidates that argument, but when you consider episodes like the one about Janeway's ancestor, that makes your argument look even more silly.

When I read this, I thought about how there were some people complaining about a scene between Janeway and Chakotay where he says that whenever she twitches her commbadge it means she's plotting something. They then complained their heads off over how she never did that thing before and their usual blablabla.

Never mind if she DID do that from the first episode onward, then they'd just complain that it was a stupid character tic.

What does that even have to do with anything?

It's the general concensus among the fandom: according to them VOY was a failure, every last character was an affront to Trek, all their original creations had no redeeming or interesting qualities, and you're dumb for liking it.

There is no consensus among the fandom about anything. Whether someone likes something is going to be a matter of personal taste. If they can argue using something like critical analysis, great, but that doesn't have anything to do with a consensus among the fandom.

No, I pointed out the sci-fi ghetto http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SciFiGhetto and the snobby attitudes so-called "better writers" have.

You've bashed sci-fi as a genre in an attempt to make an argument that Star Trek can't get better writers. An argument that Star Trek can never have good writers is hardly a positive one that will get anyone to watch it.

It's a moot point seeing how VOY's audience was ready to hate it from the start. This attitude was passed onto ENT as well. Other sci-fi shows get a free pass for whatever reason.

If that was the case then no one would have liked VOY or ENT, but both shows have fans. And whining about other sci-fi shows will get you no where, because I'm just as critical about other shows as I am about Star Trek when it comes to bad writing or the direction a show takes.

I'm calling them out on their double standards and silly complaints.

No, you're childishly calling invisible antagonists names based on people not liking the same things you do.

 

[Anwar]

No, the Borg worked pretty well as a faceless foe.

Like I said, any race with a gimmick would have made that episode work. Like if it was the Vidiians with their organ-harvesting. The whole point was that we were arguing over whether the Borg are effective if you use the "faceless foe" more than once or twice. This episode is not a true example of them as a faceless foe because they weren't the real foe, nor did anything in the episode hinge on them being faceless.

No, not really, because acknowledging the Borg as a powerful enemy would hardly make the VOY crew incompetent or cowards.

It does make the audience think that. 3 series of Starfleet crews overcoming the odds and then you get one where they lose every battle. And their leader is a woman. Yeah, great statement there guys .

No, not really.

What, you're going to claim Patrick Stewart DIDN'T like working on Trek now?

No, not really. And blaming the show's fans for its faults makes no sense at all.

It was their double standards and unpleasability that got rid of all the other aliens aside from the Borg, and then they had the gall to say that the Borg were being treated as a regular foe. Well duh you morons! If you hadn't rejected everyone else the writers would have other antagonists to use!

And yet you have no proof that Aaron Sorkin or anyone else from "The Wire" or "The West Wing" hold any such attitude.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SciFiGhetto

Even if he might have mentioned that, you're still wrong about it being cost-inefficient and time-wasting. Just looking at how many pointless filler episodes have been done kind of invalidates that argument, but when you consider episodes like the one about Janeway's ancestor, that makes your argument look even more silly.

Because fillers are self-contained and wrapped up in one episode. What he wants would have been some recurring flashback series that happens over the whole show (confusing viewers) eating up time and money on the non--flashback stuff. As for ancestor stories, they're cost-effective because they aren't set in the future.

All this just because certain characteristic HAVE to have some huge explanation behind them instead of just accepting them without some huge explanation.

What does that even have to do with anything?

The writers were screwed either way, if they showed her twitching her commbadge in that one episode it's "they just pulled this out of nowhere!". If they showed her always doing that it's "This is a stupid tic they gave her, these writers suck!".

There is no consensus among the fandom about anything.

Ask around about VOY's original creations, you'll get the picture soon enough.

You've bashed sci-fi as a genre in an attempt to make an argument that Star Trek can't get better writers. An argument that Star Trek can never have good writers is hardly a positive one that will get anyone to watch it.

I used that as an example of why Aaron Sorkin or whoever did The Wire wouldn't work on the show. Trek has had good writers like Michael Piller in the past, I admit. It was never about Trek not having good writers, it was about getting Ben to stop using guys like Sorkin as examples.

And whining about other sci-fi shows will get you no where, because I'm just as critical about other shows as I am about Star Trek when it comes to bad writing or the direction a show takes.

Please, as far as the Trekdom is concerned DS9 is on some untouchable pedestal of perfection that no one is allowed to criticize and NuBSG is seen as "everything Trek should be once they get rid of that stupid utopia and peace BS".

No, you're childishly calling invisible antagonists names based on people not liking the same things you do.

Based on people utterly despising the same things I like and having contempt for me because I like those things, you mean.

 

[DevilEyes]

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SciFiGhetto

I don't see anything about Aaron Sorkin or the writers of The Wire there.

Oh, I see, you were given a good example and you're just going to claim that it's an inversion, like that doesn't still blow your blanket statement out of the water. I, on the other hand, would point out that plenty of actors who have had roles in Star Trek started their acting careers on the stage doing Shakespeare.

It shows that Star Trek is hardly beneath the Shakespearean actor. You know, the opposite of what you claimed.

I said that Patrick Stewart was an inversion, a Shakesperian actor who enjoyed doing it.

And I've pointed out that isn't the case because he isn't the only example.

What, you're going to claim Patrick Stewart DIDN'T like working on Trek now?

Wow, this takes straw man argument to a whole new level.

 

[Disillusioned]

Like I said, any race with a gimmick would have made that episode work.

By your logic, every alien race on Star Trek is just a gimmick race.

Like if it was the Vidiians with their organ-harvesting. The whole point was that we were arguing over whether the Borg are effective if you use the "faceless foe" more than once or twice.

In which case it totally worked more than once or twice. The "gimmick" of the Borg was that they were this powerful, unstoppable force that could not be reasoned with and could not even be empathized with because there was literally nothing in common between the Borg and their victims. Each drone is but one of many, kill one and another will take its place. None of the drones is free to think on their own, they simply carry out any instruction without question. That's what makes them scary.

This episode is not a true example of them as a faceless foe because they weren't the real foe, nor did anything in the episode hinge on them being faceless.

Actually I'd say it did on both counts. "Q Who?" gave us our introduction to them as a faceless foe. The only things Q even did were to get the Enterprise to a place it would eventually encounter the Borg and to provide a little narration about them when the Borg finally did show up and boarded the ship. Initially they went with the idea that the Borg were indifferent to the people and were only interested in technology, but the idea of the Borg was later improved by adding the idea that any person could be assimilated, losing their free will and individuality, which is a scary thought to most people.

It does make the audience think that. 3 series of Starfleet crews overcoming the odds and then you get one where they lose every battle.

Which three series? TOS never dealt with them. TNG had the resources of the entire Federation, and even then it was a difficult fight that was nearly lost, and that was against only a single Borg ship. DS9 only dealt with them in the first episode, and that was only to show Sisko losing his ship and his wife, along with the thousands of other people who died trying to fight just one Borg ship. They had an entire fleet against one ship but still got their asses handed to them. Voyager was one ship by itself, and it wasn't exactly the most powerful ship Starfleet had, either.

And their leader is a woman. Yeah, great statement there guys .

If anything was damaged as far as having a female captain, it was by having her be a stereotypical matron who literally referred to her crew as her family instead of acting like a professional officer and a leader.

What, you're going to claim Patrick Stewart DIDN'T like working on Trek now?

Actually no, you were the one who made that claim.

It was their double standards and unpleasability that got rid of all the other aliens aside from the Borg, and then they had the gall to say that the Borg were being treated as a regular foe. Well duh you morons! If you hadn't rejected everyone else the writers would have other antagonists to use!

Actually no, it was bad writing that lead to all of that criticism, not the fans' inability to be pleased.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SciFiGhetto

And yet there's nothing there that proves any of the assertions you've made about any of the writers you mentioned.

Because fillers are self-contained and wrapped up in one episode.

Which still blows the arguments you made out of the water.

What he wants would have been some recurring flashback series that happens over the whole show (confusing viewers) eating up time and money on the non--flashback stuff.

I have yet to see anyone make that argument other than you. Kind of like that insistence about killing off all the main characters.

As for ancestor stories, they're cost-effective because they aren't set in the future.

Which has nothing to do with anything. If anything, ancestor stories make no sense because they have nothing to do with the characters or the show itself.

All this just because certain characteristic HAVE to have some huge explanation behind them instead of just accepting them without some huge explanation.

Again, I have yet to see anyone make that argument. I've only seen the argument that it would have been nice to see more background than what there was because it probably would have been more interesting to see than the typical "alien of the week" filler episode that did nothing to develop any of the characters.

The writers were screwed either way, if they showed her twitching her commbadge in that one episode it's "they just pulled this out of nowhere!". If they showed her always doing that it's "This is a stupid tic they gave her, these writers suck!".

If the writers were screwed either way then I guess they should have saved themselves the grief and not even bothered writing the show. Honestly, this type of argument will get you no where.

Ask around about VOY's original creations, you'll get the picture soon enough.

Not really. I've heard plenty of criticism about VOY and the things it did, and I happen to agree with a lot of it having seen the show myself. That doesn't mean there's some kind of massive consensus or conspiracy out to get the show, it just means people don't like it and they've actually bothered to say why they don't like it.

I used that as an example of why Aaron Sorkin or whoever did The Wire wouldn't work on the show.

By making a claim which you have yet to back up in any way.

Trek has had good writers like Michael Piller in the past, I admit.

Yeah, and look at how he's been treated. It's really appalling that he and the other good writers would get treated the way they have because the people in charge are convinced the people watching the show are morons and they can just pull any old shit out of their asses and the fans will just eat it up without question.

It was never about Trek not having good writers, it was about getting Ben to stop using guys like Sorkin as examples.

In other words you made something up you can't prove in an attempt to make an argument. So you made a strawman argument.

Please, as far as the Trekdom is concerned DS9 is on some untouchable pedestal of perfection that no one is allowed to criticize and NuBSG is seen as "everything Trek should be once they get rid of that stupid utopia and peace BS".

Right, which is why DS9 has gotten so much criticism itself for not taking place on a starship, going against so much of what "GR wanted," allegedly being a rip-off of B5 and so much else which is either justified or complete bullshit. And both B5 and BSG are hardly above criticism themselves.

Based on people utterly despising the same things I like and having contempt for me because I like those things, you mean.

No, you're just being childish. A mature person wouldn't care if other people hate the things they like or vice versa. There is nothing personal about someone not having the same tastes as you, and if someone does insist on getting personal and using insults because someone doesn't have their tastes then that person is being childish themselves. Hell, I really don't like the new movie, but I really can't care much less that so many people like it for the exact same reasons that I don't like it. And while I might debate people on those points, I would never call them names simply because they don't agree with me.

 

[Thestral]

No, the Borg worked pretty well as a faceless foe.

Like I said, any race with a gimmick would have made that episode work. Like if it was the Vidiians with their organ-harvesting. The whole point was that we were arguing over whether the Borg are effective if you use the "faceless foe" more than once or twice. This episode is not a true example of them as a faceless foe because they weren't the real foe, nor did anything in the episode hinge on them being faceless.

They "weren't the true foe"? Nonsense. The episode was clearly structured and written so that the sometime-villain, Q, could introduce this Federation crew to the TRUE danger out there, to "help prepare them" for what's to come. In an abusive way, perhaps, but the Borg are clearly presented as a threat which the Enterprise can't defeat without Q's help, and a threat which will be coming for them.

No, not really, because acknowledging the Borg as a powerful enemy would hardly make the VOY crew incompetent or cowards.

It does make the audience think that. 3 series of Starfleet crews overcoming the odds and then you get one where they lose every battle. And their leader is a woman. Yeah, great statement there guys .

Stop presuming what the audience would think. You're not clairvoyant, so stop acting like you are. If you tell the story right, then a compelling, heroic story can be told about a ship and crew with a female leader constantly on the run from an army of alien (part) robots trying to wipe them out... hmm...

No, not really. And blaming the show's fans for its faults makes no sense at all.

It was their double standards and unpleasability that got rid of all the other aliens aside from the Borg, and then they had the gall to say that the Borg were being treated as a regular foe. Well duh you morons! If you hadn't rejected everyone else the writers would have other antagonists to use!

"Your honor, it's her own fault that I broke her jaw! If she wouldn't be a stuck-up bitch I wouldn't have to hit her!"

There is no consensus among the fandom about anything.

Ask around about VOY's original creations, you'll get the picture soon enough.

You know, it would be nice if somebody did a poll asking what those vile, repulsive haters thought about Voyager, wouldn't it? Maybe a Hater should make a thread with a poll in it... and options for Haters to let their opinions of Voyager be known. I guess I'll have to just take your word for it that Voyager is unanimously hated since there isn't a thread with a poll like that, won't I?

And whining about other sci-fi shows will get you no where, because I'm just as critical about other shows as I am about Star Trek when it comes to bad writing or the direction a show takes.

Please, as far as the Trekdom is concerned DS9 is on some untouchable pedestal of perfection that no one is allowed to criticize and NuBSG is seen as "everything Trek should be once they get rid of that stupid utopia and peace BS".

 

[TheQman]

I guess now, looking over everything, it has it's place in Star Trek canon.

I liked most of the Xindi story arc and most of S4. Even S1 was ok. I didn't really care for S1 very much.

Anyway, I think it is ok. 5/10.

 

[flemm]

This thread has become a stagnant pool of suck. However, the list of tags at the bottom is great. Kudos to whoever is doing that! I'm going to have to keep checking back to see if the tags are updated at the very least.

 

[TheGodBen]

http://www.trekbbs.com/showpost.php?p=3586697&postcount=166

I didn't say they were incapable, I said if they were incapable, which I know they weren't because of episodes like Scorpion Part 1. Voyager's writers were capable of writing the Borg well, but they chose to keep on bringing back the Queen, presumably as a ratings plot. I and many others think that was the wrong direction for them to go in, and if they couldn't think up of good Borg episodes which didn't involve the Queen they shouldn't have done Borg episodes at all.

No, I just think the idea of a VOY mutiny isn't good.

Fair enough, but I and many others think there was much potential in a mutiny story. We're not wrong, we're just different than you.

That was mandated due to it being Trek's anniversary at the time it was made. They were willing to put up the money in that case. For one-time actors, they'd also have to be recurring ones which would cost more because the haters would demand that Janeway's flashbacks be some series-long Bullsh*t instead of a few episodes.

That's just... that's just...

Anwar, why do we play this game? Flemm was right all those pages back, this passion we share, this butting of heads... we both know where those feelings really come from. We both know that deep down inside, there are feelings that we dare not mention. But they are feelings so strong, so powerful, that we cannot hide them forever.

Anwar, I... love you.

And I know you love me too.

I want you, Anwar. I need you! I crave you inside me! I know you're shocked that I finally had the courage to say the words you have longed for me to say, and I'm shocked too. I thought if I was going to turn gay it would be for someone like Praetor, a sycophantic lackey with great hair, but Praetor and I don't have the passion that we do.

I know the world will judge us, not for being two men but because I'm a Niner and you like Voyager, but I'm tired of living this lie. I can't live without you in my arms any longer. So please, tell me the truth, tell me you love me too.

And then we can be together.





I guess this is my way of saying that I give up. I'm too busy in real life right now to keep this argument going, so I'm done for now, you've "won". Congratulations.

I will now demonstrate how one successfully leaves a thread.

 

[Anwar]

By your logic, every alien race on Star Trek is just a gimmick race.

Yeah, I'd agree to that.

In which case it totally worked more than once or twice. The "gimmick" of the Borg was that they were this powerful, unstoppable force that could not be reasoned with and could not even be empathized with because there was literally nothing in common between the Borg and their victims. Each drone is but one of many, kill one and another will take its place. None of the drones is free to think on their own, they simply carry out any instruction without question. That's what makes them scary.

Actually I'd say it did on both counts. "Q Who?" gave us our introduction to them as a faceless foe. The only things Q even did were to get the Enterprise to a place it would eventually encounter the Borg and to provide a little narration about them when the Borg finally did show up and boarded the ship. Initially they went with the idea that the Borg were indifferent to the people and were only interested in technology, but the idea of the Borg was later improved by adding the idea that any person could be assimilated, losing their free will and individuality, which is a scary thought to most people.

It also makes them very boring as a true antagonist. They show up, blast away at people and assimilate them if successful. If they aren't successful at trashing the protagonists then the haters blather on about how the writers ruined them by not having them be portrayed as borderline invincible. Rise, lather repeat. With races like the Dominion or the Romulans you can look forward to more than just the same old "fight and lose people" thing because they have actual characters to interact with and develop.

Which three series? TOS never dealt with them. TNG had the resources of the entire Federation, and even then it was a difficult fight that was nearly lost, and that was against only a single Borg ship. DS9 only dealt with them in the first episode, and that was only to show Sisko losing his ship and his wife, along with the thousands of other people who died trying to fight just one Borg ship. They had an entire fleet against one ship but still got their asses handed to them. Voyager was one ship by itself, and it wasn't exactly the most powerful ship Starfleet had, either.

I meant three series of protagonists fighting their enemies and fighting against the odds, yet managing to come out on top. Then we get a series where the protagonists lose every single friggin fight and run like cowards from everything.

Actually no, you were the one who made that claim.

Ben did, actually. I was the first one to say that he actually wasn't one of those prima donnas.

Actually no, it was bad writing that lead to all of that criticism, not the fans' inability to be pleased.

I watched "Faces", "Phage" and the other episodes. There was nothing wrong with the writing, it was just as good as any Trek or good sci-fi show. It was purely the negative audience reaction that led to their being off the show.

I have yet to see anyone make that argument other than you. Kind of like that insistence about killing off all the main characters.

Please, you seriously think that the same haters who wanted the entire show to be some convoluted serialized from premiere-to-series-finale mess would settle for one episode of flashbacks? They'd want them to be in every freaking episode to explain every last facet of the character's personalities from birth.

If the writers were screwed either way then I guess they should have saved themselves the grief and not even bothered writing the show.

I agree, they unfortunately didn't realize the kind of sharks who were waiting to rip them apart would be waiting for them when they started doing the show.

I've heard plenty of criticism about VOY and the things it did, and I happen to agree with a lot of it having seen the show myself.

In other words, you also agree with the critique that every single last idea and original alien that VOY created was a total failure without any redeeming qualities.

Yeah, and look at how he's been treated. It's really appalling that he and the other good writers would get treated the way they have because the people in charge are convinced the people watching the show are morons and they can just pull any old shit out of their asses and the fans will just eat it up without question.

They didn't realize how unpleasable the fandom/hatedom had become by that point.

Right, which is why DS9 has gotten so much criticism itself for not taking place on a starship, going against so much of what "GR wanted," allegedly being a rip-off of B5 and so much else which is either justified or complete bullshit.

Please, ask around and all you'll get is endless praise of how DS9 was visionary, how each character is the stuff legends are made of, how it fits in perfectly with the present, etc etc etc BS.

And both B5 and BSG are hardly above criticism themselves.

B5 is seen as what every sci-fi show should aspire to be, and NuBSG is praised as "it's not really science fiction, it's too good!"

 

[Anwar]

This thread has become a stagnant pool of suck. However, the list of tags at the bottom is great. Kudos to whoever is doing that! I'm going to have to keep checking back to see if the tags are updated at the very least.

I decided to get in on it and did a few myself.

 

[Disillusioned]

Yeah, I'd agree to that.

Then your complaint about the Borg being a "gimmick" race is moot because every alien race in Star Trek is a "gimmick" race.

It also makes them very boring as a true antagonist.

So for you the unstoppable onslaught, "WE ALL GONNA DIE!" is boring? Huh. Well, different strokes and all that, but if I get attached to characters I tend to care if there's a chance they might end up killed or assimilated, but that's me and my tastes.

If they aren't successful at trashing the protagonists then the haters blather on about how the writers ruined them by not having them be portrayed as borderline invincible.

You can whine about alleged "haters" all you want, but it's simply bad writing to weaken a force that has previously been established as being very hard to beat in order to make them beatable by one small ship. VOY writers made that even worse by coming up with these ultra-mega-tactical Borg ships which Voyager was then still able to at the very least hold her own against long enough to get someone on it. That's just lame.

I meant three series of protagonists fighting their enemies and fighting against the odds, yet managing to come out on top. Then we get a series where the protagonists lose every single friggin fight and run like cowards from everything.

Which is why VOY shouldn't have used the Borg very much so they wouldn't be losing every fight or running like cowards all the time.

Ben did, actually. I was the first one to say that he actually wasn't one of those prima donnas.

No, I was here; it was the other way around.

I watched "Faces", "Phage" and the other episodes. There was nothing wrong with the writing, it was just as good as any Trek or good sci-fi show. It was purely the negative audience reaction that led to their being off the show.

No, it was bad writing that made that audience negative. If the show had been good, it would have won people over, just like ENT did towards the end.

Please, you seriously think that the same haters who wanted the entire show to be some convoluted serialized from premiere-to-series-finale mess would settle for one episode of flashbacks? They'd want them to be in every freaking episode to explain every last facet of the character's personalities from birth.

You're very binary and simplistic in your thinking. Wanting to see some background on characters hardly means the entire show would be dedicated to that.

I agree, they unfortunately didn't realize the kind of sharks who were waiting to rip them apart would be waiting for them when they started doing the show.

So you're arguing against the existence of VOY. Doesn't that make you a hater?

In other words, you also agree with the critique that every single last idea and original alien that VOY created was a total failure without any redeeming qualities.

No, I'm not that binary or simplistic in my thinking.

They didn't realize how unpleasable the fandom/hatedom had become by that point.

Not only is that not true, but it has nothing at all to so with how the producers and studio suits drove good writers away.

Please, ask around and all you'll get is endless praise of how DS9 was visionary, how each character is the stuff legends are made of, how it fits in perfectly with the present, etc etc etc BS.

This may come as some shock to you, but I have been around even though I'm new to this particular board, and DS9 has plenty of critics.

B5 is seen as what every sci-fi show should aspire to be,

B5 isn't without fault (I tend to feel it neglects characters), but it is a good example of how a series can benefit from being planned out in advance.

and NuBSG is praised as "it's not really science fiction, it's too good!"

I read those reviews too, but those are just people insecure with themselves and not wanting people to think that they're nerds because they watch sci-fi. I don't have any respect for people who are that dishonest.

 

[Kegg]

Guys, guys, please.

Continuing this without GodBen is like Cheers without Shelley Long. Sure, Kirstie Alley may be funny but without that sexual tension, decrepating wit and superb chemistry it just doesn't feel the same anymore.

Ahem.

You know, I've seen a lot of nerd criticism of nuBSG. In some circles I've seen it generally agreed that the series was nothing more than bullcrap religious babble, excessive angst and trashy sexuality - there, praising the show would be far more controversial than defending it.

 

[fishingforships]

I liked it, it did fill in a few lose ends left over from TNG but after the Xindi attack Archer lost all of his sense of humor, making it bit more dull. what saved it in a word? MAKO!
A crack team of space Marine's on a starship kicking ass and taking names, that made it bearable to watch though the whole Xindi/Expanse part of the series, and the fact that CGI's had come far enough for them to do the space battle's justice, as opposed to some of the early series's where they were stuck using models. I dig space battles man

 

[Count Zero]

I've only seen the first season so far, and love it.

You'll probably end up loving all of ENT then as the first two seasons are the ones people have the most trouble with.

I think it's more the second season that people have a problem with. The first was pretty good. The second has some great episodes but also a string of mediocre or even weak episodes that made ENT lose a lot of its audience, I think.

 

[DevilEyes]

^ What is this? Someone actually talking about Enterprise on the "How Niners feel about Enterprise" thread?! A travesty! Learn your lesson and quickly start arguing about Niners and Voyager instead!