What is your favorite female character from Voyager?

[fireproof78]

They weren't doing their job and should have been replaced.

Probably but that's after the fact armchair quarterbacking. Who was available to do the job on time and under budget?

 

[Lynx]

Probably so but, with expception of one season 6 episode, I know far worse things. Mostly in modern Star Wars andf this is just what I know about.

Honestly, they did actually do a decent job during the time Kes was in the series. Some of it wasn't good but most of it was acceptable.

But if the character was dumped due to the explanation that "the writers coiuldn't write for the character", then they weren't doing their job.

However, I always found it wrird that they all of a sudden lost the ability to write for the character when they had done a decent job for three years-unless they were ordered to lose the ability to write for the character.

I must admit that I've seen other cases of bad writing and unnecessary dumping of characters in other series too.

Probably but that's after the fact armchair quarterbacking. Who was available to do the job on time and under budget?

Look at my statement above the quote of your post here.

 

[Oddish]

Agreed here. Seven was a character Jeri totally owned and pushed past the ridiculous sexiness of a Borg character.

But I never resented the character over Kes leaving. That's not a problem with Seven; that's a leadership decision.

Me either. I think VOY would have been better served keeping them both and losing either Harry Kim or Chakotay. Harry would be the easier boot, there would have been no shake-up in the hierarchy. But Chakotay was a badly conceived character.

Yes, Lynx, I know you disagree.

And yes, keeping all ten would have been the ideal solution.

They weren't doing their job and should have been replaced.

Indeed, yes. Maybe subbed in a few people from DS9. People who could form long term storylines, ration torpedoes, and put hollow pips on ensign's collars.

Probably but that's after the fact armchair quarterbacking. Who was available to do the job on time and under budget?

I'm not asking for people who are elite players... just people who know how the game is played.

 

[at Quark's]

Indeed, yes. Maybe subbed in a few people from DS9. People who could form long term storylines, ration torpedoes, and put hollow pips on ensign's collars.

Janeway: "Over the last two months, by more carefully rationing our torpedoes, our torpedo reserves have increased from negative seven to plus 3. Some of the metal spared by the rationing has also been used to finally created some rank pips for you. Congratulations, Lt. Jg. Kim!"

 

[fireproof78]

However, I always found it wrird that they all of a sudden lost the ability to write for the character when they had done a decent job for three years-unless they were ordered to lose the ability to write for the character.

Writer's block is a thing.

Not everything is evil, mean spirited, or malicious in intent. Sometimes people burn out but don't realize it until it's too late.

I'm really not a fan of the assumption stupidity, incompetence, or maliciousness as motivations for people we don't know.

 

[Oddish]

Janeway: "Over the last two months, by more carefully rationing our torpedoes, our torpedo reserves have increased from negative seven to plus 3. Some of the metal spared by the rationing has also been used to finally created some rank pips for you. Congratulations, Lt. Jg. Kim!"

Or more like...

EXT SHOT: Voyager, traveling through space at warp.

JANEWAY: "Captain's log. Our meeting with the Zahl has proven both pleasurable and productive. They are a peaceful and technologically advanced species with weapons technology similar to our own, and have agreed to trade us a pallet of torpedoes. Commander Tuvok is working on reconfiguring them to function in our launchers. In addition to having our weapons reserves restored, we have another event to celebrate."

Cut to:

INT SHOT: Briefing room.

Close up shot of Janeway's hands, sticking a hollow pipe on Kim's collar.

JANEWAY: "As captain of this ship, I promote you to the rank of lieutenant, with all privileges and responsibilities therein."

HARRY (grinning): "Thank you, captain!"

 

[Lynx]

Writer's block is a thing.

Not everything is evil, mean spirited, or malicious in intent. Sometimes people burn out but don't realize it until it's too late.

I'm really not a fan of the assumption stupidity, incompetence, or maliciousness as motivations for people we don't know.

It's all about percentage.

I don't find it believable at all when it's stated that the whole bunch of writers all of a sudden lost the ability to "come up with stories" for a character.

Not everything is evil, mean spirited, or malicious in intent, but some are.

And someone gives the orders and the staff replies "Yes, Boss!"

 

[fireproof78]

It's all about percentage.

I don't find it believable at all when it's stated that the whole bunch of writers all of a sudden lost the ability to "come up with stories" for a character.

Not everything is evil, mean spirited, or malicious in intent, but some are.

And someone gives the orders and the staff replies "Yes, Boss!"

How do we know what's evil, mean spirited or malicious? I have no way of telling. Some actors hate their characters but still keep going.

I don't see a reason to just call people liars. It's just strange to me.

 

[Lynx]

How do we know what's evil, mean spirited or malicious? I have no way of telling. Some actors hate their characters but still keep going.

I don't see a reason to just call people liars. It's just strange to me.

Unfortunatlely, it's the impression I get in this case.

If someone comes up with three different explanations for one questionable event of which none looks believable and none is actually confirmed in any way, then it's hard for me to simply accept them.

I need more confirmation from different sources and not only from those who caused the event.

As for actors who hate their characters, I must admit that I don't understand them.

How can a person possible work with something that the person hates? It must be devastating for the mind and soul.

If i was an actor and disliked the character I'm supposed to play, then I would quit and find another series, movies or whatsoever.

Or a different job.

And I would be honest enought to tell the fans: "Sorry, I just can't do this anymore!"

 

[Oddish]

It really depends on the nature of the character. If I was playing a really despicable villain, I might not like the character, but I would certainly play him. Because a good story needs a worthy antagonist.

 

[fireproof78]

someone comes up with three different explanations for one questionable event of which none looks believable and none is actually confirmed in any way, then it's hard for me to simply accept them.

It's really none of my business to accept or reject. If they're lying why difference is that to me? I wasn't there, and there are so many different factors to production and writing for me to go with malice.

Mileage will vary.

How can a person possible work with something that the person hates? It must be devastating for the mind and soul.

Play a villain or someone morally depraved. Or just an antagonist in a comedy.

There's lots of ways. The workman attitude is very strong in many people and dominated generations of thought. It's only devastating if that's your only reason for being.

 

[Oddish]

Also, sometimes you see a bit of yourself in a character, whether they're good or bad. For me, a good example is Jud in "Oklahoma". He's not a likable man... but he's probably been shaped by years of being universally disliked. It gets to you after awhile.

 

[fireproof78]

Also, sometimes you see a bit of yourself in a character, whether they're good or bad. For me, a good example is Jud in "Oklahoma". He's not a likable man... but he's probably been shaped by years of being universally disliked. It gets to you after awhile.

Indeed. In contrast, look at Larry Linville playing Frank Burns. By all reports, Linville was a sweet guy who was easy to get along with. After 5 years of playing an antagonist to Alda's Hawkeye he got tired of it. Too bad, because they are a lot of hints of a tragic background to his character and could have gone better.

 

[Oddish]

Lots of characters get painfully underused. Look at Harry and Neelix.

 

[Lynx]

It's really none of my business to accept or reject. If they're lying why difference is that to me? I wasn't there, and there are so many different factors to production and writing for me to go with malice.

Mileage will vary.

I don't like when people lie to me. That's it.

Play a villain or someone morally depraved. Or just an antagonist in a comedy.

There's lots of ways. The workman attitude is very strong in many people and dominated generations of thought. It's only devastating if that's your only reason for being.

Due to my twisted sense of humor, I would really love to play an out-flipped dictator or a bad guy in a movie or series.

Something like what Harris Yulin (Marritza in the DS9 episode Duet) did in a Western series called The Macahans when he played the villain Deek Peasley, a character who was so slimy, cunning and unsympathetic that he actually was funny.

Or that guy in a series i once watched who hold hostages in a police station of all places. When the main character, a police officer demanded that "I want all hostages released", the guy just looked at him and said: "And I want a pony!"

That was funny!

But playing a character I simply find boring or downright disgusting for many reasons or a character in a series which I find uninteresting and boring (like Stargate Universe), no I wouldn't do that.

And I would never play music in a band whose musical style I find lousy. In that case I rather have just an ordinary job.

 

[fireproof78]

don't like when people lie to me. That's it.

I just don't take this case personally since it's not directed personally at me.

playing a character I simply find boring or downright disgusting for many reasons or a character in a series which I find uninteresting and boring (like Stargate Universe), no I wouldn't do that.

And you have that luxury. Writers and actors don't always. Nimoy makes a point of that.

Regardless, people do jobs they hate all the time. Writing is no different.

 

[Lynx]

I just don't take this case personally since it's not directed personally at me.

Which is the right thing to do since the comment wasn't about you.
I have never considered you as a liar.

And you have that luxury. Writers and actors don't always. Nimoy makes a point of that.

Regardless, people do jobs they hate all the time. Writing is no different.
[/QUOTE]
Yes, I have that luxury but even writers and actors can actually quit if they don't like what orders they get when it comes to the writing or how the character they play is developed.

And yes, people do jobe they hate. But writing is something which has to be done with interest and inspiration, otherwise it will be sub-standard and downright bad.

I've been doing a lot of writing and my best worh have been done when I've really had had my heart into it.

I've actually done a few things which I was ordered to do in or just had to do which I didn't have the slightest interest or inspiration. They were so bad that I still refuse to read them, i didn't even put my name under the text, instead I used an alias.

But they were exceptions, certain on-off articles which I did only because I promised someone that I would do it when no one else could or would or for a nice sum of money. I would never do it all the time.

 

[Oddish]

Some artists have the luxury of choosing what projects to do. Others have to take whatever work's available. And as AI's get more capable, it's going to get worse.

 

[Michael]

Even Mark and Janeway's dog was mentioned more than Kes was.

What a completely delusional response to someone giving you the facts about a claim, even including a list of sources. No-one should be able to take you seriously seeing how you just ignored the plain facts (which are easy to verify) and chose to believe in some concocted fantasy. Seriously, why is it so difficult for you to just say “Oh, you know what, I was wrong about that and they actually do mention Kes a number of times after she left the show.” This doesn’t mean you suddenly have to like that they wrote her out of the show or that you can’t wish they would have mentioned her more often. But please let’s argue about what’s factual and not about what’s imagined.

No, I'm not confusing Kes and Jennifer.
And bringing back an actress to destroy a character she was playing before getting fired is hardly any "help". In that case, why didn't they bring her back for the whole 7th season if they wanted to "help" instead of coming up with an insulting piece of crap which may have made her lost many of the fans she actually had?

Bringing her back for an episode was help in the way that it gave her a well-paid gig on a prestige television show. It was help in that it demonstrated to viewers and fans that there was no animosity between her and the show.

As for “why didn't they bring her back for the whole 7th season” — I still think you completely misunderstand the whole situation. Quoting from “Star Trek Voyager: A Celebration”:

[…] That capacity for darkness is something that all the actors recognized in Lien. “I always sensed deep water in her,” Phillips says. McNeill thinks very carefully before saying, “There was always a bit of a weight that she seemed to carry that you couldn’t quite put your finger on. There was a seriousness that she carried all the time, personally and in her performance.”

As time progressed, that emotional weight became an issue and the cast and crew started to realize that Lien was struggling with personal – and many assumed addiction – issues that had a serious effect on her. Those issues started to affect her reliability and as a result, the producers reduced the amount of screen time devoted to her. “We knew that there was something going on,” Taylor says, “but she wouldn’t talk or let us offer to help. She just shut down.”

The situation became so serious that, reluctantly, the producers decided to drop Lien’s character during the fourth season. At the time, everyone felt it was inappropriate to discuss the real reasons in public but her problems later in life have been well documented. […]

So her issues (“personal – and many assumed addiction”) affected her reliability. They first reduced her screen time, but when things got even worse, they reluctantly let her go. What about that makes you think they could have just brought her back full-time for an entire season? Why would they do that if she had become unreliable? They clearly liked her well enough to want to work with her again, just not as a full-time commitment. And why would that have been the only acceptable kind of “help”?

The point is that they lied about the reason for Jennifer's "leaving" and they lied about it twice. And recently they have came up with a third version, using Jennifer's recent problems as an excuse for what they did back then.

Well, they were in no way whatsoever obligated to tell you anything about why they decided to not have her on the show anymore. They didn’t owe you, or anyone for that matter, an explanation for what I’m sure wasn’t an easy decision to make. That they first told people alternative reasons for why they had to let her go was apparently only done to protect Jennifer Lien’s privacy and reputation. I don’t understand why you apparently want it to be some deep conspiracy.

 

[Lynx]

What a completely delusional response to someone giving you the facts about a claim, even including a list of sources. No-one should be able to take you seriously seeing how you just ignored the plain facts (which are easy to verify) and chose to believe in some concocted fantasy. Seriously, why is it so difficult for you to just say “Oh, you know what, I was wrong about that and they actually do mention Kes a number of times after she left the show.” This doesn’t mean you suddenly have to like that they wrote her out of the show or that you can’t wish they would have mentioned her more often. But please let’s argue about what’s factual and not about what’s imagined.

Facts? Your "facts"?
The "facts" from those in charge?

Bringing her back for an episode was help in the way that it gave her a well-paid gig on a prestige television show. It was help in that it demonstrated to viewers and fans that there was no animosity between her and the show.

It gave her a small sum and p**ed off her fans. You call that "help"?

If they really had wanted to "help", then they could have given her some episodes in season 7 and som decent stories, like a final showdown with Suspiria in whcih kes could have persuaded Suspiria not to destroy the ship.

That would have been better than the crap they gave usa d would have give Jennifer Lien back some of the credit she deserved after three years of have been totally forgotten, not to mention a bigger sum of money than she got for participating in the worst TV episode ever.

As for “why didn't they bring her back for the whole 7th season” — I still think you completely misunderstand the whole situation. Quoting from “Star Trek Voyager: A Celebration”:

So her issues (“personal – and many assumed addiction”) affected her reliability. They first reduced her screen time, but when things got even worse, they reluctantly let her go. What about that makes you think they could have just brought her back full-time for an entire season? Why would they do that if she had become unreliable? They clearly liked her well enough to want to work with her again, just not as a full-time commitment. And why would that have been the only acceptable kind of “help”?

Now why should I believe their propaganda. They lied twice about why they fired her, why should I believe then now?

You know the old saying: "Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me"? What should be said about "Fool me three times"?

As I wrote before, if they really would have wanted to help her, than they could have done it in a better way.

Honestly, it was never about any "help", it was a way for them to look benevolent and also using this as a way to spit on the fans who wrote letters to have her back as a main character.

Well, they were in no way whatsoever obligated to tell you anything about why they decided to not have her on the show anymore. They didn’t owe you, or anyone for that matter, an explanation for what I’m sure wasn’t an easy decision to make. That they first told people alternative reasons for why they had to let her go was apparently only done to protect Jennifer Lien’s privacy and reputation. I don’t understand why you apparently want it to be some deep conspiracy.

Oh yes, they are since they actually insulted me and all fans of the character who wanted her back, the fans who participated in a letter campaign to have her back as a regular character of the series.

They had two options:
1. Bring back Kes for a couple of episodes in season 6 and 7.
2. Ignore the fans and don't bring her back which actually could have been a good solution if there were such problems with "mental issues" that they have claimed in recent years.

They did choose option 3 which was to ruin and destroy her character and spit in the faces of the fans who wanted her back.

Just like: "You want your little favorite back? Well, eat this you scum!
And never dare to question our splendid decisions because this is our show!
We decide what to do and the only thing you should do as a fan of our show is to obey, bow and say 'Yes!' to our splendid decisions because we are in charge!"

It was never about Jennifer Lien or any attempt to "help". It was all about them, their wallets and their egos.