Voyager: The Borg

[RyuRoots]

Well, a lot of them just left the Fandom/Hatedom entirely when they heard about ENT being announced since the idea disgusted them to the point they couldn't stand Trek anymore. The rest either stick to the TOS-only group, the DS9 group and NuBSG.

And yes, they do just complain that it should've been the darkest Trek ever with few-to-no spots of hope (or hope that appears just to die) in the the dark extreme. That outline I gave, they would've eaten up. That you still hate it just shows that I was right about how even darkening VOY wouldn't make anyone like it.

I'm sorry, but just NO. I have NEVER seen any of these arguments from anyone except you, and I very frequently stay in the DS9 forum and poke my head into the TOS forum occasionally.

And WHAT?! When did ANYONE HERE say they hated it? We just think it has flaws! It's possible to still like a show and look at its flaws and be bothered by them. Hell, most of my grievances come from that I think it could have been AMAZING if it were better about certain things.

 

[Withers]

Well, a lot of them just left the Fandom/Hatedom entirely when they heard about ENT being announced since the idea disgusted them to the point they couldn't stand Trek anymore. The rest either stick to the TOS-only group, the DS9 group and NuBSG.

Okay, I'm in the room, as it were. Can you please have this discussion with me as opposed to the people you've described who apparently left nearly 10 years ago? I didn't want it to be nuBSG or DS9. In my opinion the premise of the show was strong enough to stand on its own as a separate entity that didn't need to emulate anything further than taking the ideas that worked and leaving out the ones that didn't.

And yes, they do just complain that it should've been the darkest Trek ever with few-to-no spots of hope (or hope that appears just to die) in the the dark extreme. That outline I gave, they would've eaten up. That you still hate it just shows that I was right about how even darkening VOY wouldn't make anyone like it.

Again, I don't complain about that, and neither has anybody else who has posted here. Everyone has explained that that isn't what they wanted. The fact that you and I both hate what you came up with speaks to nothing save for the fact I'm glad you weren't a writer on the show. I've specified how it could have been done to my satisfaction and you've done nothing but tell me how I could never be satisfied (though I guess you were talking to people who left after Enterprise...)

So moving forward can we agree to talk to/about the people who are posting and not about a phantom element that no longer exists (or, at the very least, doesn't exist in this thread?)



-Withers-​

 

[butch101]

I liked the Borg a lot before they came as regular villain of the week on Voyager. They were a terrifying race before we had to know them. With Seven coming onboard, we knew their weaknessess. A little bit of technobabble and they could defeat an entire fleet of Borg ships.

But, the main problem I had was that there was no more challenge against the Borg. When Tuvok, Janeway and Torres has been assimilated at the end of whatever season (6 I think), we knew that they would be back again the way they were without any harm from the collective. Everyone could easily become a Borg and then coming back in a single episode. It's sad.

Butch

 

[Saito S]

VOY got seven seasons because UPN was relying on it as their flagship show, and it still got decent enough ratings to keep going (the hatedom grew in power while the show was on, until it was strong enough to finally get a show canceled in the form of ENT)

Oh please. Fans do NOT have that much power, dude. There was no massive "ENTERPRISE IS DEVIL SPAWN" letter-writing campaign or anything. Enterprise was a failure because it was poorly executed (far more so than Voyager, if you ask me), and was canceled because it drew abysmal ratings. Besides, "fans" DO have a right to simply not like a show without being labeled a "hatedom."

And yes, you got it perfectly. It didn't matter WHAT they did in terms of how the show was done, nothing would ever appease the hatedom. You can say all you want about "execution", but they'd have just hated the show regardless of how it was executed.

Bollocks. If the execution had been better, the reception would have been better. You can say all you want about this "hatedom"; it doesn't change the fact that such a thing doesn't exist, and, in fact, never did.

Well, that's not true. If the Kazon were uber-warlords of the Delta Quadrant,

No one wanted that.

the Vidiian Phage was some massive plague that annihilated most Delta Quadrant life,

No one wanted that. That would be stupid. What's left to explore if everyone is dead?

the Borg/8472 war wasn't the series plot from the first episode of the series to the finale 7 years later

I assume you meant "was". And, RIGHT from the first ep? Nah. It wouldn't make sense for them to encounter the Borg that quickly, for one thing. Extending the Borg/8472 story into an arc, instead of just a couple eps, is an interesting idea, though, one that has certainly been discussed from both sides elsewhere in this forum. I think it could have been cool, but it's hardly something I would advocate as a REQUIREMENT for me to think better of the show.

the Hirogen was a single character capable of defeating 150 Starfleet personnel,

No one wanted that! My god, what a crazy idea. And - I might point out - an idea I have never heard anywhere, from anyone, except you, Anwar.

the Krenim were popping in and out of every season constantly screwing with history,

No one wanted that (especially with how much crowing - not in regards to just Voyager, but Trek in general - there has been about "ENOUGH TIME TRAVEL PLOTS!"). However, bringing back the Krenim at least once in some fashion after "Year of Hell" could have been really interesting.

the show was some serialized mess where you couldn't miss 10 seconds of one episode or the entire show would be ruined,

10 seconds?? Wow. I've never seen a show like that. I mean, even with Babylon 5 (a show that was way, WAY more serialized than DS9 ever was), I missed entire episodes every now and then, and still followed the show all the way through just fine.
Serialized mess? Why do you assume it would be a mess? DS9 had a fair chunk of serialization, and was a great show. Babylon 5 was heavily serialized, and was also a really cool show (that never got great ratings, but had TONS of critical acclaim). Lost is pretty popular, though I'm personally not a huge fan. If Voyager had tried to go serial, what makes you so sure it would be a mess? You must not think very highly of the Voyager writers.

the crew discarding all morality and becoming all "Mad Max" in space while going around destroying planets for fun THEN the show might've met some approval from someone...

No one wanted that. Having them "destroying planets for fun" or doing anything even remotely similar to that would have put the show's ratings and critical/fan reception through the floor faster than you can say "How is this Star Trek?"

Oh, and by the way: the "Hatedom", as you describe it, continues to be a myth.

 

[Anwar]

It doesn't matter what kind of execution was done, there was no appeasing the detractors of VOY, ever.

You say you wanted the Kazon smarter and as better villains, I just gave them to you and just reject them still.

I talked with other guys on rpg.net about how they couldn't take the Vidiians seriously because the Phage wasn't contagious. I've just made it so, and now YOU can't take it seriously. No-win. Though I'm sure scenes of VOY visiting derelict ships and planets whose entire populations were wiped out by the Phage so they can steal everything and become grave robbers who have no respect or empathy for innocent people that died from a plague while Janeway talks about how great it was that the Phage cleared out so many aliens for them to steal from would be a hit with the VOY-haters.

Ah, good, one of you at least is showing their true colors by having VOY have a war as their central plot (furthering the notion that they wanted DS9 part two).

Cyke101 told me he'd rather have had the Hirogen as one character capable of defeating the entire VOY crew because it would've made the Hirogen better.

Ah yes, I can see it now. VOY has finally made an ally whom they trade with and has fixed up damage to the ship, then the Krenim show up and wipe them from history which undos all of VOY's progress and makes the universe an even crappier place where VOY can't catch a single break for anything. Thank God we have the Krenim to put us "See, there is hope!" types in our place! Meanwhile Annorax is some untouchable God of Time whom laughs at the VOY crews face and remains unbeatable just to make it clear that the VOY crew are a bunch of ineffectual morons who can't effect any positive change on anything.

VOY haters wanted more serialization, I've given them a show that's so serialized that if you miss one tiny bit it'll ruin your experience forever. Serialized enough for you?

If anything, having them go around as psychopathic world destroyers would've put the ratings through the roof with critical positive reception saying "Finally, they've ditched that stupid peace and utopia stuff for something more true to life! Thank God this show has come along to set Trek straight!"

 

[Withers]

It doesn't matter what kind of execution was done, there was no appeasing the detractors of VOY, ever.

Focus, damnit. Three peopel have told you that were it better executed it would have been better. Let's focus on that and not these people who aren't represented here that you continually refer to.

I talked with other guys on rpg.net about how they couldn't take the Vidiians seriously because the Phage wasn't contagious. I've just made it so, and now YOU can't take it seriously. No-win.

You took one guys complaint, corrected it, and then presented it to people who didn't make the complaint as a resolution to beefs they had with the villains. That's like me saying there's something wrong with my car, taking it to a mechanic, who then brings me someone elses car and says its fixed. And no, no one would be happy if Captain Janeway were Captain Ransom. At least no one who is participating in this thread. Stop putting insanity into our mouths.[/b]

Ah, good, one of you at least is showing their true colors by having VOY have a war as their central plot (furthering the notion that they wanted DS9 part two).

Saito said the idea of giving the Borg an arc (potentially 6 episodes) wasn't the worst ever suggested and that it wasn't a necessity to make the show better than it was. How in God's name do you equate that to the extreme you took it to with that quote? You can't quote hyperbole. If you're going to quote, quote.

Cyke101 told me he'd rather have had the Hirogen as one character capable of defeating the entire VOY crew because it would've made the Hirogen better.

Well, at least there's a name. An interesting take on the Hirogen might have been to make them like Predators. They were, in effect, just that only watered down. So, I don't necessarily disagree, that the idea of having one "hunt" Voyager might have been interesting.

Nonesense?

I'm not quoting that block of... whatever that was... but needless to say you can describe a show that sucks a hundred times over and I'll agree that it sucks. It does not mean that I'll think anything sucks and it does not mean that I accept the idea that what we got was all we could possibly have gotten.

VOY haters wanted more serialization, I've given them a show that's so serialized that if you miss one tiny bit it'll ruin your experience forever. Serialized enough for you?

Again, some serialization would have been nice, but in Voyager's case I would have settled for just consistency.

If anything, having them go around as psychopathic world destroyers would've put the ratings through the roof with critical positive reception saying "Finally, they've ditched that stupid peace and utopia stuff for something more true to life! Thank God this show has come along to set Trek straight!"

No one here would have liked that at all. How many different ways can I say it? You're arguing against an element that is non-existent or at best not present. If you're going to make absurd claims you have to make them against what people are saying to you, not what the voices in your head are saying... otherwise it starts to seem as though you might be crazy, ya know?


-Withers-​

 

[Navaros]

Actually Anwar, some parts of your sarcastic write-up of Voyager, like having a 7 year long plot, isn't half-bad. The gist of your write-up would have made for a far better show than the one that was made (provided it was a little less over the top).

The reason for that is because for drama to work, it requires compelling conflicts. Your write-up would have provided some of them, although it goes a bit over the top by saying stuff like the crew should go around destroying planets for fun.

I.e. Should the crew abandon all morality, no. Should the crew often have to make tough moral choices and sometimes make dubious moral choices due to sustained damage & lack of resources, yes.

 

[Anwar]

Bull, 7-year plots are screw-ups waiting to happen.

And no, you don't need forced contrived "drama" for a show to work. It wasn't believable in DS9 and I thought it didn't work in TOS either. It's just because the audience can't stand that people can cooperate and work together and need them to hate each other all the time in the name of idiotic "drama".

And no, competent people don't have to make hard moral choices, not unless they were amoral people to begin with. "In the Pale Moonlight" was stupidity and simply made Sisko a hypocrite.

Onto the real argument:

- Yes, three people have continually said that the execution could have been better and all they have to show for it are inanities like "explain how they make more torpedoes, explain how they make more shuttles, etc". You really think that would affect anyone's opinion? They'd just hate whatever explanation they came up with, like with the holodeck explanation.

- Yes, I'm pretty sure you WOULD have liked Janeway to be an incompetent like Ransom who had to go around cannibalizing sentient beings because it's better "drama". God, what a horrible word...

- Haters keep whining about VOY needing to be some arced-out mess so I gave them their series long garbage plot with the 8472 and Borg. Satisfied? I suppose I should include lots of planets getting blown up for the hell of it since it'd be "more true to life"...

- Being "Predators" was the reason the audience hated them to begin with.

- Bull, Navaros here is living proof someone would like something that nihilistic and anti-Trek (though Navaros isn't a Trek fan).

 

[Withers]

Well... you might not have answered anything, you might be abandoning what are obviously indefensible points, and what you've replaced them with might not make much more sense... but at least they're new points so I'll give you props for that. If nothing else you're keeping this circus going and for that you have my appreciation.

Bull, 7-year plots are screw-ups waiting to happen.

Well, that's not exactly what was suggested. Sisko being the Emissary and Picard's wrestlings with Q are two examples of a "7 year thread" that wasn't beaten into every episode. It played out over seven years and worked to much acclaim (whether you personally liked either story or not.) Voyager never had any such thing. The closest it came was Seska and she was more a thread for Chakotay than the Captain.

And no, you don't need forced contrived "drama" for a show to work. It wasn't believable in DS9 and I thought it didn't work in TOS either. It's just because the audience can't stand that people can cooperate and work together and need them to hate each other all the time in the name of idiotic "drama".

Sesame Street is a great show but it's hardly what I'd call dramatic.

The word has a specific meaning and, if nothing else, it implies conflict. Working together is certainly a theme of Star Trek. That is not to be debated. However, it isn't only working together, it's working to over come differences and that is where viewers can relate and why the show appeals to so many different people.

And no, competent people don't have to make hard moral choices, not unless they were amoral people to begin with.

"Competent" people do have to make hard moral choices. Making them flippantly doesn't make the decision any less difficult it just means it wasn't as big a question for the person who made the decision (i.e. George W. Bush). When you see the world in black and white there's no such thing as a hard choice. Watching characters that are forced into shades of gray is dramatic because it doesn't pit them against some massive fleet- it pits them against themselves. That makes for interesting television whether you agree with their ultimate decision (like Sisko's to dupe the Romulans or Archer's to steal a warp coil) or not.

-Withers-​

 

[Anwar]

Sisko being the Emissary and Picard's "Trial" with Q aren't 7 year arcs. 7 year arcs are stories wherein every single episode from the premiere to the finale are all one giant interconnected story that never lets up, never gives a breather, and if you miss 10 minutes you're hopelessly screwed. Haters keep saying that Voyager needed to be more "up-to-date" and I gave it to them.

Yes, Trek is about overcoming differences. What they wanted for VOY was Anti-Trek where things just got worse and worse, no chance of them ever getting better, and the crew all hating each other moreso than when they started out, in the name of "drama". A nice kick in the balls to everyone who worked on the show beforehand.

I admit I DO see things in a black-and-white way. More I think about it, the more I think that when people say that things should be more "grey" it's the cowards way out because "Moral grey" can be used to justify anything because of a person's cowardice in dealing with situations. There really is good and bad in the world, you just have to have a strong enough stance to see it. As such, I didn't like "Pale Moonlight" after I thought about it and have little negativity over Archer's actions.

 

[Withers]

Sisko being the Emissary and Picard's "Trial" with Q aren't 7 year arcs. 7 year arcs are stories wherein every single episode from the premiere to the finale are all one giant interconnected story that never lets up, never gives a breather, and if you miss 10 minutes you're hopelessly screwed. Haters keep saying that Voyager needed to be more "up-to-date" and I gave it to them.

If we have to redefine words like "premise" and "drama" so you can understand them for the sake of this discussion, fine, we can do that. But no one has suggested such heavy serialization and have, in point of fact, refuted the idea that such a thing would work.

Yes, Trek is about overcoming differences. What they wanted for VOY was Anti-Trek where things just got worse and worse, no chance of them ever getting better, and the crew all hating each other moreso than when they started out, in the name of "drama". A nice kick in the balls to everyone who worked on the show beforehand.

Uh oh... we're reverting to "they" that aren't present here, again. I thought we'd agreed to limit this to what was actually said within the thread or at least what can be qualified some general consensus. I've never heard that argument before, ever, except like so many things you suggest were wanted from Voyager from you. Someone saying they glossed over the Marquis/Federation dispute ridiculously quickly does not mean they wanted the exact polar opposite- that they wanted constant hate and tension between the crew. It only means they wanted to see them work through their differences not just have it be assumed (by the end of the pilot.)

I admit I DO see things in a black-and-white way.

I think that goes without saying at this point.

More I think about it, the more I think that when people say that things should be more "grey" it's the cowards way out because "Moral grey" can be used to justify anything because of a person's cowardice in dealing with situations. There really is good and bad in the world, you just have to have a strong enough stance to see it.

I'm really having a hard time shoehorning this into any part of the discussion that makes it relevant but I think you took some time on this one so I'm going to give it my best shot;

Starfleet Officers aren't supposed to be shades of gray. In the Star Trek Universe there's nothing more pure than a Starfleet Officer. They don't break the rules, they uphold high morals, and they are always a shining example of what is good and true in the universe. That's how it would be if the Federation were always and peace and no one was ever in peril. But, again, it wouldn't be very dramatic. With every Captain that has ever been featured they've put them in situations that test this assumption. "It's easy to be a saint in Paradise." Putting them to the test ultimately forces them into decisions they would just as soon not have to make. "Either we steal this warp coil and strand a crew 3 years from home... or we let Earth die." "Either I bring the Romulans into the war or the Federation is defeated." "Either I completely change history or I allow some of the senior staff to remain dead." Each Captain has been put in a situation where lives were at stake. We know they're inherently good but when that goodness is tested what happens? They're shown to be, ultimately, human. That there was equivocation in the decision making process doesn't mean they were weak. It means they were strong enough to contemplate the consequences of being wrong.

-Withers-​

 

[Saito S]

Do you even read what you write before you hit send? (I only ask this because you clearly don't read and fully digest my posts before responding to them.)

Bull, 7-year plots are screw-ups waiting to happen.

If the writing isn't up to the task, then sure. But automatically? Always? No.

And no, you don't need forced contrived "drama" for a show to work. It wasn't believable in DS9 and I thought it didn't work in TOS either.

Indeed, you don't need "forced contrived" for a show to work. Good thing DS9 had drama that was neither forced nor contrived. So did Voyager, at its best. Just not enough of it.

It's just because the audience can't stand that people can cooperate and work together and need them to hate each other all the time in the name of idiotic "drama".

I would say "Now you're just making stuff up", but you've already done plenty of that.
OF COURSE the audience could "stand" that people can cooperate and work together. That happens on every Trek show. And who "hated each other all the time"? Not the TOS crew. Not the TNG crew. Not the DS9 crew. Not the VOY crew. Not the ENT crew. Not the Aventine crew, or the Columbia crew, or the new DS9 and TNG crews (from the novels, that last string of examples). So uh... what are you even talking about here? Withers covers the difference between "working together despite initial differences" and "HATE EACH OTHER ALL THE TIME OMG" quite well. Again, I have to ask (please answer this question, for ONCE!): do you understand the concept of "middle ground"? Do you get that between "the crew always just gets along 100% about EVERYTHING" and "the crew HATE each other and never agree on anything" there are VAST TRACTS OF LAND, and what we are saying Voyager should have done falls within those tracts? Do you GET that??

And no, competent people don't have to make hard moral choices, not unless they were amoral people to begin with.

Bullshit. That is insulting to anyone who ever HAS had to make a tough moral choice (in real life, I mean). Clearly, you need more life experience on these matters. This is the most wrong thing you have EVER said.

"In the Pale Moonlight" was stupidity and simply made Sisko a hypocrite.

You are entitled to your opinion about this Trek episode. Many of us think it was brilliant, but if you thought it was stupid, hey, that's your prerogative. Just because some aspect of DS9 is widely regarded as being very well written, that doesn't make you a "hater" for thinking it was not well written.

You see what I'm getting at!?

- Yes, three people have continually said that the execution could have been better and all they have to show for it are inanities like "explain how they make more torpedoes, explain how they make more shuttles, etc". You really think that would affect anyone's opinion? They'd just hate whatever explanation they came up with, like with the holodeck explanation.

1) That is FAR, FAR from all we've said. 70,000 light years is NOTHING compared to how far from the truth that is.
2) Even though stuff about shuttles and torpedoes is FAR from all we said, YES, those things WOULD have affected the opinion of quite a few people! Everyone who's ever complained about Voyager having an infinite supply of torpedoes and shuttles, in fact! Funny how that works! I'm not saying that those were the ONLY things I see wrong with the show (or even the most important things), but those things HAVE been complained about.
3) The holodeck explanation was "rejected" because it was stupid. ALL Trek has technobabble and scientific implausibility. Where Voyager went wrong was stuff like this, where they contradicted not only common sense, but internal Trek logic. The holodecks are NOT powered by some radically different power source that is completely independent of the rest of the ship. The fact that shutting down the holodecks WOULD have saved needed power for more essential things had been previously established in the Trek verse, and the Voyager writers just decided to casually disregard that for no reason. THAT is the kind of thing we have a problem with.

- Yes, I'm pretty sure you WOULD have liked Janeway to be an incompetent like Ransom who had to go around cannibalizing sentient beings because it's better "drama". God, what a horrible word...

Who are you addressing here? Regardless, the majority of fandom would not have "preferred" Janeway to be just like Ransom (and he wasn't "incompetent." His skills as a Starfleet officer weren't in question. His morality was. Different issue.). I know I wouldn't have been happy with that.

And... "drama" is a horrible word?? I hope you never try to get into television production... or try to write a book.

- Haters keep whining

WHO!? Whowhowhowhowhowhowho!??

about VOY needing to be some arced-out mess so I gave them their series long garbage plot with the 8472 and Borg. Satisfied? I suppose I should include lots of planets getting blown up for the hell of it since it'd be "more true to life"...

You mentioned a series long plot about 8472, and I said "Well, that could be cool, if done well, sure. But it's hardly the only thing they could have done to make the show better."

My response does not in any way feed into your delusions about Voyager haters.

And more planets getting blown up? Who said anything about that? Is it implied by the trend of previous Trek? No, since not even DS9 - the only Trek with a full scale war - had planets blowing up. This is something that has happened only very rarely in all of Trek. And it's certainly not "realistic" (has NASA been detecting planets exploding and I just missed this development?). The only one who brought up the idea of planets exploding was you. In fact, the ONLY source of a lot of the "DARK VOYAGER" ideas (which you claim the "hatedom" wanted, all of which go WAAAAY past the level of "darkness" DS9 ever had) is YOU. Hm.

So tell us, Anwar, why is it that you think Voyager should have been so dark? I mean, you keep coming up with all these ideas about planets exploding and Janeway being a heartless amoral monster and whatnot...

- Being "Predators" was the reason the audience hated them to begin with.

'Cept the audience didn't hate the Hirogen.

- Bull, Navaros here is living proof someone would like something that nihilistic and anti-Trek (though Navaros isn't a Trek fan).

I'm not going to comment on Navaros, or claim to know his mind, or claim to know if he is a Trek fan or not (if he has stated such one way or the other, I'm not aware of it). Though, if he ISN'T a Trek fan, that blows your argument away, since this is about TREK FANS. If he IS, I'll leave it to him to clarify, but he's only one guy. Hardly proof of a seething, malevolent "hatedom."

 

[Anwar]

Automatically, always, yes. I don't even think Babylon 5 pulled it off with a 5 year arc.

And yes, I DO understand what middle ground is. I just think middle ground isn't very good and a letdown.

Detractors keep saying "they should have loosened their morals", "been more pragmatic and less moral", "been more willing to not be moral" and all that. If someone is SO quick to discard morality, the second there's an IOTA of difficulty in their life, then it's clear they weren't all that moral to begin with.

Difference is, the VOY detractors don't think one bit of VOY was bad, they think the whole series was worthless without any redeeming qualities whatsoever.

If they gave explanations for where they got the torpedoes and shuttles, then the complaints would just be that they ARE getting more torpedoes and shuttles and that they shouldn't. No pleasing some people. It's EXACTLY the same as the holodeck plot point, no matter what explanation was given.

"Drama", the forced contrived stuff where people who have bigger problems than what some guy did to some other guy you've never met years ago or whatever else the "source of conflict" is, waste time on disliking each other than the bigger problems threatening their lives, is indeed a bad thing.

VOY haters keep saying "the show wasn't dark enough", "not heavy enough in tone", etc. I gave them the darker, unpleasant heavier tones show they were asking for. And naturally, it turns out they don't have the stomach for it which proves they are hypocrites who shouldn't have whined in the first place for a darker toned show.

They do hate the Hirogen, along with the Krenim and Vidiians and Kazon. They don't care for the 8472 much either.

 

[Withers]

I think, of your vocal opponents, I've been very patient in these threads. But oh my ****ing god, you have got to stop "shotgunning" your insanity into our mouths!

Detractors keep saying "they should have loosened their morals", "been more pragmatic and less moral", "been more willing to not be moral" and all that.

No one said that.

VOY haters keep saying "the show wasn't dark enough", "not heavy enough in tone", etc.

No one said that.

Difference is, the VOY detractors don't think one bit of VOY was bad, they think the whole series was worthless without any redeeming qualities whatsoever.

No one ****ing said that!

Good Christ it's like you're having a completely different conversation somewhere else and posting what would be your replies to this phantom someone, here. You're speaking on our behalf and telling us we said things we didn't say. How the hell is this supposed to go anywhere with that being the case?


-Withers-​

 

[Anwar]

I got the "less moral" stuff from a discussion I had with You Guyz, I had the "Show should've been darker" and "Heavier in tone" stuff from GodBen and Myasishchev. Navaros was the one to pretty much say the whole show was worthless.

There, names for everything.

 

[Withers]

Well, at least you have some names this time...

I'll just over look the fact that Saito, Ryu, and myself just produced blocks and blocks of unanswered text and that you just decided to answer some charges posted by other people in different threads in the middle of them.

That'll sure keep things clear.


-Withers-​

 

[Anwar]

Alright, it's midnight here so I'm going to turn in. I'll try my best to read through all this and give answers to everything I can tomorrow. Night.

 

[Navaros]

If he IS, I'll leave it to him to clarify

I consider myself a Trek fan, although I admit I am a fan only of TOS and DS9. I'm not a fan of TNG, nor Voyager, nor Enterprise.

But IMO that is neither here nor there. One need not be a fan of something in order to understand its contents or discuss it.

Detractors keep saying "they should have loosened their morals", "been more pragmatic and less moral", "been more willing to not be moral" and all that. If someone is SO quick to discard morality, the second there's an IOTA of difficulty in their life, then it's clear they weren't all that moral to begin with.

The idea isn't for them to be quick to discard morality. Rather, is it that, in life, sometimes difficult situations arise where one is forced to make a decision wherein all the choices are bad/immoral ones; there is no good option available to choose.

 

[Anwar]

I consider myself a Trek fan.

Well, you're wrong.

The idea isn't for them to be quick to discard morality. Rather, is it that, in life, sometimes difficult situations arise where one is forced to make a decision wherein all the choices are bad/immoral ones; there is no good option available to choose.

Not if you're competent and strong enough, which the haters clearly didn't want the VOY crew to be. And yes, they DID want them to quickly discard morality and it IS possibly to still make the good choice in a bad situation. They just wanted VOY to always make the bad ones the whole show because they couldn't stand that they didn't fall to pieces and spend the show hating each other. That's not better drama, it's just anti-Trek. Trek is managing to find the good way no matter how bad you think things are.

 

[Saito S]

Automatically, always, yes. I don't even think Babylon 5 pulled it off with a 5 year arc.

Yeah, right. You place FAR too much importance on premise and concept, dude. Execution MATTERS. Not saying premise and concept don't matter (or format, in this case, talking about an arc based show as opposed to an episodic show), because those things do matter. But execution matters a LOT more than you care to acknowledge (not just in Voyager or Trek, or even just in sci-fi, or even just in television... in the creation of fiction. Books, TV, movies, video game plots... whatever).

If they gave explanations for where they got the torpedoes and shuttles, then the complaints would just be that they ARE getting more torpedoes and shuttles and that they shouldn't.

This comes back to your notion that Voyager's premise dictated that they MUST NOT EVER show them getting outside support. As I indicated in the other thread, unless you give a reason OTHER than that premise garbage for why further explanations for how they got more torps or shuttles would make fans MORE mad, I'm not even going to acknowledge this. (Yes, by writing this paragraph, I already did sort of acknowledge it, but I meant from here on. )

No pleasing some people. It's EXACTLY the same as the holodeck plot point, no matter what explanation was given.

A better overall show would have pleased LOTS of people, including me. And the holodeck explanation was rejected because it was incredibly stupid.

"Drama", the forced contrived stuff where people who have bigger problems than what some guy did to some other guy you've never met years ago or whatever else the "source of conflict" is, waste time on disliking each other than the bigger problems threatening their lives, is indeed a bad thing.

So... wait. What? Drama is bad? Conflict is bad? All of it? Always? I'm confused. Do you hate... well, fiction? Stories of any kind? You must, with that statement.

And yes, I DO understand what middle ground is. I just think middle ground isn't very good and a letdown.

Huh. Really.

That explains a lot.

Whether you LIKE middle ground or not is irrelevant. We are dealing in middle ground here! If you want to DEBATE with us, you HAVE to acknowledge that. Or this whole thing is pointless. (Though it has been HIGHLY entertaining, so no matter what, not totally pointless. ) Case in point:

VOY haters keep saying "the show wasn't dark enough", "not heavy enough in tone", etc. I gave them the darker, unpleasant heavier tones show they were asking for. And naturally, it turns out they don't have the stomach for it which proves they are hypocrites who shouldn't have whined in the first place for a darker toned show.

No, you did not give "them" (us? As Withers has repeatedly brought up, it's about time you talked TO us, and not these mysterious haters who hated the whole show and everything about it and hate hate hate) anything even remotely close to what they... what WE... argh, this is confusing. Yeah, screw the supposed haters who don't even exist. WE'RE here, you're talking to US. Yeesh.

Anyway, no you did not give US anything even close to what we were saying we would have liked to see from Voyager. Here is the key problem with this whole concept, bolded for your convenience, so pay attention, because I'm only goind to spell this out once:

Whether you like middle ground or not is irrelevant. When we say "we wanted the show to be darker than it was, with more conflict than there was", we DO NOT mean SUPER DARK DEATH AND DESTRUCTION JANEWAY IS AN INHUMAN MONSTER AND THEY BLOW UP PLANETS FOR FUN RRAAAAAAAGH. We mean more conflict than there was, by a measured degree, i.e. ending up somewhere IN that middle ground that you don't like. Again, the fact that you find middle ground to be "a letdown" (how does that even WORK, by the way? You must hate real life) doesn't matter. WE are advocating something in the middle ground. If you wish to debate our criticisms of Voyager, you MUST acknowledge that that is what we mean, even if you personally think it would have made for a worse show.

When we say these things, and then you come back and say you "gave us what we wanted" when you, in fact, presented a version that very much is SUPER DARK DEATH AND DESTRUCTION JANEWAY IS AN INHUMAN MONSTER AND THEY BLOW UP PLANETS FOR FUN RRAAAAAAAGH, and you try to act like that's what we said we wanted, then try to claim hypocrisy by pointing out that we rejected it, that is not debate. That is falsehood, or idiocy, or disengenuous, empty "argument" put forth solely for the sake of trying to "win." Whatever your reasons for arguing this way, if you wish to debate us further, it needs to STOP, or there is no debate. End of story.