Voyager Guest Stars?

[Drone]

I guess people aren't putting him in the position of being a traditional guest star as opposed to a recurring crew character in the sense of Tal Celes, Chell, or Vorik. He appeared in the same number of episodes as the first two, although obviously as an integral personality in all of them. Whether that is really how others define his role, it obviously doesn't take away from the superlative quality of the performance.

 

[hux]

Also forgot Don Most in Workforce.

I now realise that Voyager had about a billion guest stars so this poll was always gonna be tricky. Maybe I can use this one to produce a more fine-tuned follow up at some point.

 

[tomalak301]

Voyager had some incredible guest stars so this was hard to choose. Loved Andy Dick and John Savage, so voted for those two. Also didn't mind John Rheys Davies or Kurtwood Smith

 

[C. Cole-Chakotay]

John DeLancie as Q in every episode he was in.

 

[Triskelion]

Don't forget Scott Thompson as Tomin, the Kadi ambassador in Someone to Watch Over Me.

I voted for John Savage, Michael McKean and Kurtwood Smith.

 

[Greg Cox]

Kurtwood Smith gave the most believable performance & gave his character weight.

He wasn't completely unlikable because he is, after all, Red Foreman.

Sarah Silverman & Ed Begley were memorable but I don't think Silverman seemed entirely 100% comfortable acting & giving herself to the role to really make it special.

I will go to my grave insisting that Paris had more chemistry with Rain Robinson than he ever did with B'Elanna.

 

[Drone]

Chemistry, in a situation where they're on the run and everything is jumbled, unexpected, dangerous, and exciting. Quite possibly. Oh yes, they do have 50's cultural kitsch in common. Would their's have been as committed a life long relationship as Paris and B'Elanna finally found after years of struggle, strife, and uncertainty, and ultimately unconditional acceptance. I don't know about that.

 

[Greg Cox]

Chemistry, in a situation where they're on the run and everything is jumbled, unexpected, dangerous, and exciting. Quite possibly. Oh yes, they do have 50's cultural kitsch in common. Would their's have been as committed a life long relationship as Paris and B'Elanna finally found after years of struggle, strife, and uncertainty, and ultimately unconditional acceptance. I don't know about that.

To each their own. I just know which couple was more fun to watch and root for. As an audience member, I found Paris & Rain much more appealing--and their parting more poignant--than pretty much the whole protracted Paris/Torres subplot . . . .

 

[hux]

Rain and Tom had much more chemistry and it was based on them both being themselves. With B'Elanna, it always felt like... "Tom needs to change and grow up and be different for this relationship to work."

As someone who's had those kinds of girlfriends, that bothered me. Firstly, because why should he and secondly, because it made B'Elanna less likeable.

They turned her into the nagging wife (much like they did with Keiko). The idea that men have all their fun stopped by a sensible, grown-up woman who demands responsibility and commitment, is not very enlightened writing.

 

[Tachyon]

Lori Petty - Gravity: Damn. What a beautiful character and the episode overall is one of my faves. I simply love it.

Michael McKean - The Thaw: Loving this episode, too. Michael McKean is fun, though I remember him better from the X-Files (Dreamland). Morris Fletcher was such a douche!

Andy Dick - Message in a Bottle: This episode is simply funny. The chemistry between the two doctors worked so well!

Jason Alexander - Think Tank: A fun epidose and Alexander did good job as Kurros. He needed desperately a comb, though.

 

[Drone]

Rain and Tom had much more chemistry and it was based on them both being themselves. With B'Elanna, it always felt like... "Tom needs to change and grow up and be different for this relationship to work."

As someone who's had those kinds of girlfriends, that bothered me. Firstly, because why should he and secondly, because it made B'Elanna less likeable.

They turned her into the nagging wife (much like they did with Keiko). The idea that men have all their fun stopped by a sensible, grown-up woman who demands responsibility and commitment, is not very enlightened writing.

What kind of sensibility in this matter would you find enlightened, maybe the Swingin' 60's? Perhaps you're just a man out of time.

 

[hux]

Rain and Tom had much more chemistry and it was based on them both being themselves. With B'Elanna, it always felt like... "Tom needs to change and grow up and be different for this relationship to work."

As someone who's had those kinds of girlfriends, that bothered me. Firstly, because why should he and secondly, because it made B'Elanna less likeable.

They turned her into the nagging wife (much like they did with Keiko). The idea that men have all their fun stopped by a sensible, grown-up woman who demands responsibility and commitment, is not very enlightened writing.

What kind of sensibility in this matter would you find enlightened, maybe the Swingin' 60's? Perhaps you're just a man out of time.

Perhaps your post is moronic. Women in the role of "sensible, responsible one" who spoils the "exciting, carefree man's" fun by showing him that he needs to embrace responsibility and commitment is profoundly mysogynistic.

 

[Drone]

Even taking into account your usual convoluted method of thought, this one seems to be a bit of a whopper. How in the world is that statement misogynistic? Just because such behavior may cramp your style and irritate you?

 

[hux]

Even taking into account your usual convoluted method of thought, this one seems to be a bit of a whopper. How in the world is that statement misogynistic? Just because such behavior may cramp your style and irritate you?

Did captain verbosity just accuse me of a "convoluted method of thought." Are we in the mirror universe?

How is the narrative that men are fun and women are fun stoppers mysogynistic? Well I tell you what; why not ask the next four year old that passes you by.

 

[Drone]

As it happens, I don't know any four year olds and I'm not inclined to look for one , so I'm afraid you'll have to suffice. Again, by inserting smug non sequiteurs in lieu of actually answering the question put to you, you place me in the truly unfortunate position of having to repeat myself. Why do you think the statement is misogynistic, profoundly yet? Are the possibilities of having fun and also being responsible and committed in a serious relationship mutually exclusive?

 

[hux]

As it happens, I don't know any four year olds and I'm not inclined to look for one , so I'm afraid you'll have to suffice. Again, by inserting smug non sequiteurs in lieu of actually answering the question put to you, you place me in the truly unfortunate position of having to repeat myself. Why do you think the statement is misogynistic, profoundly yet? Are the possibilities of having fun and also being responsible and committed in a serious relationship mutually exclusive?

Ah, you're gonna keep digging. Hello down there. Perhaps before posting, you should hyper-aesthetically exercise macography, upon that situs, which one would eventually tenant, if one propells oneself into the toposphere.

Men are fun, interesting, exciting and carefree. Women force them to stop being these things so that they can trap them into commitment, responsibility and serious relationships.

This is mysogynistic.

Now... would you like me to explain why the KKK is racist?

 

[Drone]

As it happens, I don't know any four year olds and I'm not inclined to look for one , so I'm afraid you'll have to suffice. Again, by inserting smug non sequiteurs in lieu of actually answering the question put to you, you place me in the truly unfortunate position of having to repeat myself. Why do you think the statement is misogynistic, profoundly yet? Are the possibilities of having fun and also being responsible and committed in a serious relationship mutually exclusive?

Ah, you're gonna keep digging. Hello down there. Perhaps before posting, you should hyper-aesthetically exercise macography, upon that situs, which one would eventually tenant, if one propells oneself into the toposphere.

Men are fun, interesting, exciting and carefree. Women force them to stop being these things so that they can trap them into commitment, responsibility and serious relationships.

This is mysogynistic.

Now... would you like me to explain why the KKK is racist?

All right, I'll be satisfied that this is your version of a straight answer. Either that string of tired stereotypes is your version of the ideal scenario or your hard earned experience of reality. If the latter, you must have a rather small circle of acquaintances. Regardless, you're either a profound misogynist or a very sensitive and ardent supporter of breaking all of the false and cruel shibboleths propounded against women over the ages. I guess I'll ponder which is likely the correct one in the small hours sometime. Either way you still managed, in your inimitable style, of never stating what an example of enlightened writing on this matter would look like, something that you opined on to start this little farago of clarity.

Kudos to you by the way for adding some new entries to my vocabulary, though I sort of suspect that your syntax was off a bit.

Moving on.......

 

[hux]

All right, I'll be satisfied that this is your version of a straight answer. Either that string of tired stereotypes is your version of the ideal scenario or your hard earned experience of reality. If the latter, you must have a rather small circle of acquaintances. Regardless, you're either a profound misogynist or a very sensitive and ardent supporter of breaking all of the false and cruel shibboleths propounded against women over the ages. I guess I'll ponder which is likely the correct one in the small hours sometime. Either way you still managed, in your inimitable style, of never stating what an example of enlightened writing on this matter would look like, something that you opined on to start this little farago of clarity.

Kudos to you by the way for adding some new entries to my vocabulary, though I sort of suspect that your syntax was off a bit.

Moving on.......

Aww bless, did you just accuse me of being a mysogynist? Your technique for repeating what someone accuses you of but with a silly voice as a means of rebuttal is obviously your preferred method.

Let me try one more time for that gentle mind.

Portraying men as fun, interesting guys and women as dull, fun-stealing people who spend their days wanting to be in serious, committed, responsible relationships... is a mysogynistic stereotype. Perhaps read up on the subject if it doesn't make sense to you (inexplicably so).

B'Elanna was vivacious, confident, sexy and witty... then they put her in a relationship with Tom and slowly but surely, had her criticise him for goofing off, not being responsible, not focusing on grown-up endeavours. She developed the personality of a nagging fishwife who no longer cared for wit, excitement or individuality. Eventually, it seems like her only interests we're relationship related.

This is bad writing... Blatantly coming from male writers... who bought into that stereotype.

An example of enlightened writing would be... not to do this (was that not painfully obvious?).

 

[Melakon]

Must have been a lot of unhappy marriages in that writers' room.

 

[Drone]

All right, I'll be satisfied that this is your version of a straight answer. Either that string of tired stereotypes is your version of the ideal scenario or your hard earned experience of reality. If the latter, you must have a rather small circle of acquaintances. Regardless, you're either a profound misogynist or a very sensitive and ardent supporter of breaking all of the false and cruel shibboleths propounded against women over the ages. I guess I'll ponder which is likely the correct one in the small hours sometime. Either way you still managed, in your inimitable style, of never stating what an example of enlightened writing on this matter would look like, something that you opined on to start this little farago of clarity.

Kudos to you by the way for adding some new entries to my vocabulary, though I sort of suspect that your syntax was off a bit.

Moving on.......

Aww bless, did you just accuse me of being a mysogynist? Your technique for repeating what someone accuses you of but with a silly voice as a means of rebuttal is obviously your preferred method.

Let me try one more time for that gentle mind.

Portraying men as fun, interesting guys and women as dull, fun-stealing people who spend their days wanting to be in serious, committed, responsible relationships... is a mysogynistic stereotype. Perhaps read up on the subject if it doesn't make sense to you (inexplicably so).

B'Elanna was vivacious, confident, sexy and witty... then they put her in a relationship with Tom and slowly but surely, had her criticise him for goofing off, not being responsible, not focusing on grown-up endeavours. She developed the personality of a nagging fishwife who no longer cared for wit, excitement or individuality. Eventually, it seems like her only interests we're relationship related.

This is bad writing... Blatantly coming from male writers... who bought into that stereotype.

An example of enlightened writing would be... not to do this (was that not painfully obvious?).

I did insert the word either as a qualifier in that characterization of you (not actually in a silly voice), so I didn't definitively tar you with that admittedly opprobrious brush. Regardless, your response above finally makes clear to me what your intent was in the original comment you made about the situation. To wit, whether your own personal experience led you to actually hold that opinion of women's behavior as it occurs in relationships, or that you find such a representation of the same, to be a shopworn and offensive stereotype, very much an insult to women and injurious to how it reinforces such a perception as being an unquestioned reality. While you didn't offer an explicit example of how the writers in this instance, or any mass media offering for that matter, could positively diverge from this trope, I can assume that a continuation of the relationship between Tom and Rain, if that had been made to be possible, allowing it to develop organically as we saw it do so in Future's End and simply allowing it to play out without encumbering the characters' actual personalities by inserting that egregious framework, would represent a reasonably enlightened approach to you.

Thank you for your perseverance in making the attempt to clarify, for me anyway, your meaning, however obvious it appeared to be, and not just decide to simply give me the finger and leave it at that.