This is absolutely ludicrous on so many levels. Paramount did not spend 14 seasons making TNG and DS9, at over a million dollars per episode, out of the goodness of their hearts. Paramount is in business to make a profit. If TNG and DS9 had been losing money, they would have been cancelled. Pure and simple.
Voyager's main problems
- Thread starter DS9 Gal AZ
- Start date
You're not anticipating what an asshole Paramount is...
They will can a show is it's not making ENOUGH profit.
That DS9 was not making as much money as TNG shook the fucking heavens even though it was still making a profit.
That Voyagers was not making as much money as DS9 was unconscionable even though it was still making a profit..
That Enterprise was not making as much money as Voyager is probably why it was cancelled even though it was still making a profit..
They will can a show is it's not making ENOUGH profit.
That DS9 was not making as much money as TNG shook the fucking heavens even though it was still making a profit.
That Voyagers was not making as much money as DS9 was unconscionable even though it was still making a profit..
That Enterprise was not making as much money as Voyager is probably why it was cancelled even though it was still making a profit..
Ian Keldon
Fleet Captain
That doesn't square with what Moore, Piller, and Behr said in interviews (I even quoted Moore's interview). He either ignored DS9 OR kept trying to "pull it back, make it 'safer' " (Moore's own words)
To the extent he kept his nose out of DS9 (or the writers could write around said nose) was the extent to which the show was allowed to thrive and become the damn fine show that it was.
Or do you REALLY think the Dominion War should have lasted 3 episodes?
He was, and that job was being the "studio guy". He counted the beans and represented what the studio wanted to the show-runners.
What's wrong with Voy? Janeway, Janeway, Janeway.....Oh, and Harry seems like a puss.
Behr, Moore and Wolfe are all whiners who don't know how easy they had it. Whenever any of those guys tried to do network shows instead of syndicated shows, the results were less than encouraging.
I'd take issue with the cast too.
Having seen the outtakes with Genevieve Bujold I am forced to admit that she was dire, but although Kate Mulgrew was not as bad, I still found her at best, annoying, often much worse - a view confirmed by her recent appearances in Warehouse 13.
Many of the characters were so badly created and written, it is hard to divorce them from the actors portrayal but I would say Ethan Phillips was a good actor doing his best with Neelix (with some success), where as Tim Russ was just poor and Tuvok remained utterly unlikeable.
With such unsurmountable problems it seems almost redundant to pick on lack of development, universal acceptance of the Maquis (and surely there were more of them in the pilot), unrestricted power to the holodeck, infinite torpedo / shuttle supplies, disappearing battle damage, disappearing Equinox crew etc. etc. etc.
The more I think about it, the worse it was...
A
Amaris
Guest
Technobabble is a nonsense word that explains a nonsense concept. It is filler for that reason. With technobabble, you don't have to concentrate on the story, you can explain it away without really saying anything. That is the purpose technobabble serves, hence it's being reference as "technobabble". It's self serving. It's like someone asking you to explain the color green, and you reply "it's green because it's green". That's the purpose of technobabble, to appear to explain something without actually doing so.
Note what I said, that technobabble is bad used as a filler and plot device. Create a problem with technobabble, place the story at it's center, and then solve it with technobabble. That is an example of storytelling tedium.
So if you are paying attention, what I'm saying is that it's not about "big" words, it's about "empty" words.
Then you're saying technobabble is objectionable because it's nonsense. I would believe you except there's just as much visual nonsense. If nonsense is the problem, then most of the "science" is a problem. Except that it's not. If an alien morphs into an object with less mass, you have no problem with it? Nonsense. I think your illwill has misled into thinking you've actually said something.
This seems to repeat the nonsense objection to "technobabble," except that somehow story gets dragged in.
Plot devices may not work but they are never filler. Insisting on such nonsense while supposedly objecting to nonsense words?How extraordinarily embarrassing for you.
By arbitrarily redefining words, you are now trying to switch to another meaning of "technobabble," namely, nonsense words that resolve the plot. This is objectionable but it's not filler, and never will be. This kind of argument is called equivocation and it is a logical fallacy. The only purpose is to drag in any dialogue you can seize on and pretend it's part of the resolution. In practice, that means any big words you don't like.And now we're back to your original choice for meaning of "technobabble!"
I was paying attention and understood the illogic of your argument very well. You however were not paying attention. So I will repeat myself. You cannot name very many episodes that were resolved by technobabble.
The only way you be able to come up with any significant number of examples will be by deliberately equivocating between different meanings of "technobabble." If you should attempt the challenge, we would soon see that the practical marker for "technobable" is not specifically scientific nonsense (in fact, I think scientifically sound dialogue would be objectionable to you people.) And it would have nothing to do with plot resolution, unless you deliberately misequate setting up a dilemma or denouement or other things with plot resolution.
(And for people who identify "technobabble," with stilted exposition, some of the worst offense don't involve invented jargon at all! All this once again leaves us with the practical meaning of "technobabble" as "big words." Those of you who want another definition, fine, pick one. But just use one.)
The term "technobabble" is a fine, fine example of an empty word. It takes real gall to patronize someone for what you yourself are doing.
And to top it off, by your logic Star Trek is crap. Because "warp" is technobabble, and it's the center of the show because it's how Enterprise gets around. Maybe SF isn't for you?
To the OP, I've tried to think of something to add but I think you really summed up the various flaws in the series rather well. I've started re-watching Voyager after getting the DVD sets as a gift a few months ago and I've noticed things here and that which didn't really register so much when I was younger and watching the series on-air. You make an excellent point regarding the ship itself. They get bet up all the time, yet Voyager's hull remains pristine and perfect.
This is totally irreverent, but as I read that comment I had the most powerful comic mental image of Neelix in a spacesuit with mag-boots and a safety line out on the hull with a special "paint roller" that allows the ship to be painted in space , with the caption something like "He can come back in after he gets that second coat of paint finished!"
(yes I know.. all the physics of it but again - this is just a funny thought and does not have to be logical)
I also agree with the many comments about the lack of character development.
What I really find myself thinking is that Voyager had a very talented cast, but their skills as actors/actresses were underused. They were given weak writing in many cases, and I guess the best way to explain the idea I have is just that they were held back from what each episode could have, and should have been!
Episodes such as "Year of Hell", "Night", "Deadlock", and "Basics, Parts 1 & 2" really had potential, it just wasn't fully reached.
That seems however to be a trait common to many aspects of the entertainment / tv / movie industry however. In the great quest for viewer dollars, they're so caught up with trying to lower production costs that the finished product sometimes feels stunted and underdeveloped.
All of this of course is nothing more than my own thoughts and as such, means nothing really..
This is totally irreverent, but as I read that comment I had the most powerful comic mental image of Neelix in a spacesuit with mag-boots and a safety line out on the hull with a special "paint roller" that allows the ship to be painted in space , with the caption something like "He can come back in after he gets that second coat of paint finished!"
(yes I know.. all the physics of it but again - this is just a funny thought and does not have to be logical)
I also agree with the many comments about the lack of character development.
What I really find myself thinking is that Voyager had a very talented cast, but their skills as actors/actresses were underused. They were given weak writing in many cases, and I guess the best way to explain the idea I have is just that they were held back from what each episode could have, and should have been!
Episodes such as "Year of Hell", "Night", "Deadlock", and "Basics, Parts 1 & 2" really had potential, it just wasn't fully reached.
That seems however to be a trait common to many aspects of the entertainment / tv / movie industry however. In the great quest for viewer dollars, they're so caught up with trying to lower production costs that the finished product sometimes feels stunted and underdeveloped.
All of this of course is nothing more than my own thoughts and as such, means nothing really..
^ Thanks very much, and for what it's worth, I think your comments are quite insightful as well - especially the parts about how an attempt to lower production costs messes with the finished product, and the actors not being allowed to realize their full potential.
Mulgrew and Russ made Wang look like Brando...
I thought it was the actors who were playing aliens who were told not to make the actors playing humans seem less dead on the inside, by being too lively and exciting.
Russ? He was probably the best Vulcan actor since Nimoy!
A
Amaris
Guest
You are mistaken, as I have no ill will toward the show. As for the "nonsense", no. I realize that the visual setting is more of a fantasy setting, and the writing generally supports that, but it has nothing to do with fantasy or fiction because the writing is most certainly lazy when it delves into using empty words to fill the storyline, and that has to do with production.
Story never left. I've made reference to the storyline before in my objections.
Plot devices may not work but they are never filler. Insisting on such nonsense while supposedly objecting to nonsense words?How extraordinarily embarrassing for you.
Nope. You are mistaken. I have not changed the meaning at all. I have been describing you the mistake of using technobabble as a plot point and as filler. Again, you make the mistake that this is about "big words", and it's not. It's about empty, meaningless words used in place of story progressive dialogue. This has been the theme of my argument from the beginning.
And now we're back to your original choice for meaning of "technobabble!"
I was paying attention and understood the illogic of your argument very well. You however were not paying attention. So I will repeat myself. You cannot name very many episodes that were resolved by technobabble.
The only way you be able to come up with any significant number of examples will be by deliberately equivocating between different meanings of "technobabble." If you should attempt the challenge, we would soon see that the practical marker for "technobable" is not specifically scientific nonsense (in fact, I think scientifically sound dialogue would be objectionable to you people.) And it would have nothing to do with plot resolution, unless you deliberately misequate setting up a dilemma or denouement or other things with plot resolution.
(And for people who identify "technobabble," with stilted exposition, some of the worst offense don't involve invented jargon at all! All this once again leaves us with the practical meaning of "technobabble" as "big words." Those of you who want another definition, fine, pick one. But just use one.)
The term "technobabble" is a fine, fine example of an empty word. It takes real gall to patronize someone for what you yourself are doing.
And to top it off, by your logic Star Trek is crap. Because "warp" is technobabble, and it's the center of the show because it's how Enterprise gets around. Maybe SF isn't for you?
You are most definitely in error here, as well. It seems I can't even get you to read what I'm posting, as you seem to have made summary conclusions without examining what I've said. You show no indication that you understand what I've been talking about, and have, instead, concocted your own idea of my motivations without consulting me in the process. Your posts have been more about "telling" me what I'm saying, than actually reading what I've said. Please go back and read my posts before responding again, otherwise it serves nothing.
Better.
Sometimes you'd catch Nimoy breaking character for no reason. They wrote it off as to him being half human. Russ was full Vulcan and never broke character unless the script required it. However, not everybody can appreciate the acting discipline to play a role without emotion or appreciate the sarcastic wit Tuvok had. Not to mention it's Mulgrew & Russ's acting versatility that hasn't gotten them type cast the way it did Brando.
