Discussion in 'Star Trek: Voyager' started by Ragitsu, Nov 17, 2021.
Maybe not completely.
Picard was called on going too far in First Contact when he was himself, even though it wasn't by one of his crew (but by Lily). His crew didn't dare to do so. He was confronted by Q about not being ready for what was out there, and had to end up asking Q for help. Sisko was implied to go have gone too far in his personal Vendetta by Starfleet who took him off the case. He also was penalized by the prophets for ' trying to control the game'. Their images didn't shift for the negative.
Similarly, I don't think in Janeway's case it needed to have been a full blown mutiny. Simply an outside alien who criticized something Janeway did or was about to do ('you'd better not meddle with <X>!')and was shown to be right in the end.
I've noticed that, between the trio of captains who committed drastic actions, Sisko is the one most consistently lauded as a "badass" for his measures.
P.S. While some will argue that they're the same individual, I think Movie Picard is significantly different from TV Picard.
He is almost unrecognizably different. However, right now I'm arguing from inside-universe perspective, where, for all intents and purposes he is the same character.
Arturis in "HOPE AND FEAR" gave us that alien critique.
He was right in that allying with the Borg essentially stopped them from getting eliminated by Species 8472. By doing that, all the races that were targeted by the Borg were going to get assimilated, which is exactly what happened to Arturis' people. And who knows how many others. (We know of at least one race being fully assimilated, in "DARK FRONTIER".)
He was proven to be right as far back as "SCORPION, PART II" because the Borg invaded their space, thinking they could get a new species assimilated. That backfired, and 8472 invaded us.
Despite this action giving us Seven of Nine, which is one of the best characters in the franchise, it was the wrong thing to do. Chakotay was right... an alliance with a group guilty of killing and assimilating billions of people, possible a trillion or more, is wrong.
I definitely call her allying with the Borg one of THE worst things any of our captains have done.
Regarding the comparison with Picard and Sisko, I don't think they can be compared on the same level.
When Q flung the Enterprise to the Borg, he did it to teach a lesson two levels. First, to show Picard he was not ready. Second, to basically do them the favor of getting ready. One of the reasons why Picard was never seen negatively here is because of what Q said... it's difficult to admit you need help. He got past his arrogance and did the one thing an arrogant person does not do... ask for help. That is seen not only as a positive, but as growth. Plus, Q started the whole incident, and Picard knew he would be the only one to end it.
The Sisko comparison with the Maquis planet... he took an action to stop a terrorist group from killing millions along the DMZ. While the ethics of it can be debated (I firmly believe he made the right call), he did it to stop a group from murdering more. Despite the method, it served a greater good. That can be seen as a positive.
What Janeway did... she helped a group to survive so they can keep on murdering AND assimilating more. And on a MUCH larger scale than the Maquis could ever hope to be capable of doing. THAT is a negative.
If you want a comparison of Janeway there with another captain that might work on a similar level, I'll give you one.
Kirk's decision at the end of "A PRIVATE LITTLE WAR". By providing weapons to the Hill People, he basically helped to guarantee fighting between them and the Villagers for who knows how long. Perhaps decades. There was enough evidence to prove the Klingons' involvement, but that wasn't enough for Kirk. I understand he was trying to stop the Hill People from getting killed by teaching them about the flintlocks, but all that did was condemn both sides to bitter wars.
Perhaps the reason why is because while some of his actions were drastic (Maquis planet, Vreenak), Sisko understood it needed to be done and wasn't afraid to be seen as the bad guy to get the job done.
(And honestly, ALL 5 of the earlier captains did drastic things. Kirk may be the closest in comparison to Sisko because he had a similar mindset in getting his hands dirty and the job done.)
Helping to conceal the murder of a government official - an act of war, so, legally in addition to morally wrong - is flat-out inexcusable.
I can think of a couple peoples offhand who would probably have been wiped out by Kirk's modus operandi of basically forcing human/Federation norms on them and then blissfully warping off... that's why I agree with the theory proposed by another member, that Enterprise had a couple of Cerritos equivalents following it around and cleaning up Jimbo's messes.
12 constitution class starships.
1000s of smaller ships doing whatever and building star bases. Lots and lots of Star bases.
I doubt Starfleet would send another Connie to clean up after Kirk. They'd use something old and less powerful. A 23rd century variant of the Cerritos, chugging along in the Enterprise's wake, dropping off teams to help Vaal's followers take care of themselves or giving the "Spock's Brain" women lessons in Caveman Life 101.
Maybe two of said ships, Kirk made a lot of messes, and not all are likely to be quickly or easily dealt with.
I would not say the majority of the fandom dislikes Janeway. TrekBBS is a microcosm of Trek fandom. We as a general rule nitpick the hell out of everything Trek does because we love it. The show runners don't always do what we want however because they need to be more mainstream for the shows to make money. That's why studios produce this stuff. To make money. Trek isn't some documentary or public access show. Mulgrew herself says she hopes she inspired, and has been told by fans she has inspired, other women to positions of science and leadership. Here are two interviews I've watched that are not from science fiction fandoms or a Trek convention and note the mostly positive comments in the YouTube posts:
That's not to say someone can't find other YouTube channels with mostly negative comments about Janeway but I wanted to point out some nonfiction related interviews I've found.
20 years old doesn't seem so old, but from the first draft, it probably took 10 to 20 years to design and build the Enterprise.
The first ship of its kind I believe takes longer to make than the rest of the same class that are exactly the same.
Regarding 8472 and the Borg, evidence in "Hope and Fear" and "In the Flesh" shows that Janeway may have chosen the wrong side. However, all she knew as of "Scorpion" was these angry, malevolent, and insanely powerful aliens were saying that the galaxy needed to be purged. The same aliens whose space spit was devouring one of her people from the inside. It was an understandable mistake. By the time the series was over, first contact had been made again with 8472, with better results. And, while the Borg were still a threat, they had taken a severe hit with the destruction of their transwarp hub.
And regarding "Janeway hate", I sometimes wonder how much of it is really hate. I have regularly critiqued decisions she made (one in particular, you certainly know which one by now), but I still overall think she's awesome. But, on one occasion I put up a half-humorous post on ways Chakotay would have been a better captain, and I was immediately accused of hating women.
Those of you who have monitored my posts know that I do not hate women. Indeed, I have firmly supported women's rights, and have made enemies in the process. But just because I said a few words about things Chakotay might have handled better, someone slammed their fist down on the WOMAN HATER alarm. In light of that, I really do have to wonder if the so-called "Janeway hatred" is really that prevalent.
I always thought that Janeway was lovely.
What about that pesky "right to choose"?
For someone who values both life and personal liberty, "pesky" is an understatement.
But, fair question. I prefer unopposed access to safe and reliable birth control. And I stand firmly against any religious teaching that opposes it. Better not to create life than to actively destroy it.
In any case, considering how many unborn females are terminated in countries where males are still favored, the right to choose loses some luster, doesn't it?
Opposing a woman's right to have an abortion is a soggy, gaping breach in "firmly".
If you want to discuss this matter further, provide a link to an off-site forum where free speech is respected. I will be perfectly happy to explain the specifics of my position, and my rationale.
The relevant topic is that I feel that it's possible that a person who opposes a decision of Janeway's (and I oppose several) might sometimes be mislabeled as a hater.
I have no interest in discussing politics; I was only pointing out a discrepancy in your broader claim (one which is beyond the bounds of Kathryn Janeway as a subject).
Kathryn Janeway has the legal right to maroon any crewman on her ship for any reason so long as the CMO doesn't think that she is crazy.
Separate names with a comma.