whos your fave?

[Lynx]

They sacrificed some major characters for the sake of others, which in the end didn't prove to be such a good idea.

In this I totally agree. It was sad because Voyager had so good characters with so much potential. It was sad to see how most of them were wasted in the later seasons.

 

[Mrs Paris]

They sacrificed some major characters for the sake of others, which in the end didn't prove to be such a good idea.

In this I totally agree. It was sad because Voyager had so good characters with so much potential. It was sad to see how most of them were wasted in the later seasons.

you said you haven't watched the later seasons so how would you know who was wasted or not.

in fact everyone had equal time in the later seasons. Check the line count. Janeway is ahead of everyone, but the other people had just about equal screen time

 

[kimc]

They sacrificed some major characters for the sake of others, which in the end didn't prove to be such a good idea.

In this I totally agree. It was sad because Voyager had so good characters with so much potential. It was sad to see how most of them were wasted in the later seasons.

you said you haven't watched the later seasons so how would you know who was wasted or not.

in fact everyone had equal time in the later seasons. Check the line count. Janeway is ahead of everyone, but the other people had just about equal screen time

I think you're missing the point of the previous posts. Lines like "Fire phasers" and "I'll be in my ready room" don't count as character development. Some characters were pushed aside to make room for others.

I'm not going to give a synopsis of the extremely well thought-out posts that have appeared in this thread the last day or so but I do believe they do a good job of discounting the "line count" argument for anyone who cares to read them.

 

[teya]

I'm not going to give a synopsis of the extremely well thought-out posts that have appeared in this thread the last day or so but I do believe they do a good job of discounting the "line count" argument for anyone who cares to read them.

You seem to be suggesting that the perceptions of those posters--including yourself--should be accepted as gospel truth, when in fact, they are just their perceptions, and colored by what they like to see, their impressions of the characters, etc.

For example, you said earlier on that the Chakotay of the pilot--the guy who sacrificed his ship--was interesting, while the later season Chakotay was not. I completely agree that the Chakotay of early season one was interesting. But to me, he was wussified long before Seven came on board. He quickly turned into Janeway's yes man, only to be shot down by her whenever he dared disagree with her.

Are my perceptions any less valid than yours or anyone else's?

 

[kimc]

I'm not going to give a synopsis of the extremely well thought-out posts that have appeared in this thread the last day or so but I do believe they do a good job of discounting the "line count" argument for anyone who cares to read them.

You seem to be suggesting that the perceptions of those posters--including yourself--should be accepted as gospel truth, when in fact, they are just their perceptions, and colored by what they like to see, their impressions of the characters, etc.

Nope. What I said is that the posts were extremely well thought-out and did a good job of discounting the "line count" argument.

What I'm actually suggesting by that is that I believe the posts were exremely well thought out and did a good job of discounting the "line count" argument.

 

[teya]

I'm not going to give a synopsis of the extremely well thought-out posts that have appeared in this thread the last day or so but I do believe they do a good job of discounting the "line count" argument for anyone who cares to read them.

You seem to be suggesting that the perceptions of those posters--including yourself--should be accepted as gospel truth, when in fact, they are just their perceptions, and colored by what they like to see, their impressions of the characters, etc.

Nope. What I said is that the posts were extremely well thought-out and did a good job of discounting the "line count" argument.

What I'm actually suggesting by that is that I believe the posts were exremely well thought out and did a good job of discounting the "line count" argument.

And you consider me so frakking dense that you have to repeat that twice?

I don't see anyone arguing that line count *by itself* means a damn thing. What I've always argued is that it can serve as a backup to support or dispute opinions.

For example, my assertion that it wasn't Seven but the Doctor who had the lion's share of attention in Season 7 is borne out by the fact that he had more episodes devoted to his plotlines--and more lines than anyone except Janeway.

 

[kimc]

And you consider me so frakking dense that you have to repeat that twice?

No, I happen to know you're quite intelligent. I also believe you're borderline trolling. After all, I'm a software developer not a writer. When I say x=1 what I mean is x=1. Metaphoric writing is not my forte.

For example, my assertion that it wasn't Seven but the Doctor who had the lion's share of attention in Season 7 is borne out by the fact that he had more episodes devoted to his plotlines--and more lines than anyone except Janeway.

Great. How does that play into the posts I was referring to? Do you think a character's legacy has anything to do with the number of lines they have? Why or why not?

Let's get back on topic here...

 

[exodus]

I also believe you're borderline trolling.

Wow, seems like this label is being used more and more in this forum lately.

 

[teya]

For example, my assertion that it wasn't Seven but the Doctor who had the lion's share of attention in Season 7 is borne out by the fact that he had more episodes devoted to his plotlines--and more lines than anyone except Janeway.

Great. How does that play into the posts I was referring to? Do you think a character's legacy has anything to do with the number of lines they have? Why or why not?

Let's get back on topic here...

I thought the topic was "Who's your fave?"

It seems to have branched in multiple directions. And some people are using statistics (line counts, number of episodes) to support their opinions. I didn't see anything wrong with that, and was disagreeing with your position that there *was* something wrong with that.

 

[rocketscientist]

I do see Janeway, Chakotay and Tuvok in a different category than Tom and B'Elanna though. Tom and B'Elanna still got a fair number of episodes - even to the end. I wasn't crazy about Tom's domestication...but he did get a good number of episodes and stories. And I don't think B'Elanna suffered much at all or 'lost' much of anything throughout the series. In fact, I'll go so far as to say that B'Elanna was, IMO, the most consistently written character on VOY. They stayed true to what made her interesting from beginning to end.

Janeway, Chakotay and Tuvok, all took major hits to their screentime and storylines as a direct result of B&B's fascination with the EMH and Seven. And since those three were three of my favorites, I struggled alot during EMH/Seven of Nine Show which VOY became during it's last two years.

Janeway lost screentime, but more than that, I felt that episodes like Endgame and (worse) Flesh & Blood were not written with preservation of the Janeway character in mind. And I felt that they should have been. At the end of the day, she was still the captain, and they should have really thought through Endgame and Flesh & Blood alot better...and asked the simple question: what will these do to Janeway's legacy? Because Janeway's legacy is more important to Trek than finding a way to excuse the beloved EMH character for committing treason.

In my view, THAT's what it is all about, in the end - the captain's legacy. Yeah, the rest of the crew is included in that....but at the end of the day, the overriding legacies of Trek really flow from the characters of Kirk, Picard, Sisko, Janeway, and Archer.

I adore Janeway...and I pretty much worship Kate Mulgrew (Avery Brooks, Kate Mulgrew and Leonard Nimoy are the Trek actors I respect most as people), so it really saddened me to see them so focused on other characters that they didn't really think about what they wanted to leave as the Janeway legacy (other than the obvious 'get them home' bit). They were going for the easy ratings with Seven's catsuits mini-me Data experiences...and the EMH's annoying (for me) wisecracks and mini-me Data experiences. And Janeway's main interactions toward the end were mainly to further the storylines of THOSE characters - not her own legacy.

But what they REALLY needed to be doing is asking the harder question: what do we want the legacy of Voyager to be? And then recognized that Voyager's legacy and Janeway's legacy are one and the same.

As for Tuvok...well, he suffered the same fate as Chakotay...only I think they wrote Chakotay somewhat worse, mainly to get back at Beltran for breaking ranks and speaking out about his frustrations.

Tuvok's screentime dropped too...but they did a better job of preserving his dignity by at least not turning him into 'technobabble on the bridge guy'. Tim Russ got screwed...but not quite as screwed as Mulgrew and Beltran did.

At least in my opinion, anyway.

Great post PKTrekGirl! I think you summed things up really well. I agree with you wrt the other characters. I do think that the focus shifted from Janeway, Chakotay, and Tuvok, the three most important characters (at least Janeway and Chakotay), to Seven and the EMH. Obviously, the writers enjoyed writing for and exploring those two characters more. I have to say that I didn't mind that, since they're my two favorites, but I do think you made a very good point that I can't argue with: Janeway needed to be the most important character. In the end, I don't think she was. In ST, you had a strong trinity with Kirk, Spock, and McCoy. In TNG, while an ensemble, Picard was definitely the most important character and had a lot of development. In DS9, while being the most balanced in terms of the ensemble for the ST spin-offs, Sisko still came across as the most important character: he was the Bajoran Emmissary and the leader on the front-line against the Dominion.

With VOY, though, I think you're right. When Seven showed up, Janeway was relegated to a mother role, kind of like Picard being a humanities professor for Data. The difference is, despite that role, Picard wasn't short-changed by the writers the way Janeway was imo. I just don't think her character was written as well as the other captains in the later seasons. Maybe because Jeri Taylor left the show and probably because of the writers focusing on Seven and the EMH.

I think that's another reason why VOY just didn't do it for me the way ST, TNG, and DS9 did. I just don't think the writers, led by Braga, exploited all the potential in the show's premise that well at all.

 

[exodus]

It kinds sounds like many just want formula and wanting the next Trek show to be similar to the one before it. I think that's why Voy. like ENT found an audience outside the standard long time Trek ones. While they varied in degrees of success, I see Voy & ENT. trying to expand Treks fanbase beyond the "Trekkie" crowd and bring in viewers that would never watch Trek in the past. Characters like Tom, Seven & Be'Lanna weren't as stuffy as the TNG crew, they were more like common people and easier to relate too.

If Trek is too grow and survive, it has to break from what we've become accustomed too and not appeal to the "next" generation but too a "new" one. If JJ Abrams gives us a Trek retelling like Nolan did for Batman with Batman Begins, then Trek will be reborn.

 

[kimc]

It seems to have branched in multiple directions. And some people are using statistics (line counts, number of episodes) to support their opinions. I didn't see anything wrong with that, and was disagreeing with your position that there *was* something wrong with that.

Yikes!

There is nothing "wrong" with thinking that - I simply question the value and validity of it for reasons given by posters much more eloquent than I am. I guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree on that.

 

[MiralParis]

It kinds sounds like many just want formula and wanting the next Trek show to be similar to the one before it. I think that's why Voy. like ENT found an audience outside the standard long time Trek ones. While they varied in degrees of success, I see Voy & ENT. trying to expand Treks fanbase beyond the "Trekkie" crowd and bring in viewers that would never watch Trek in the past. Characters like Tom, Seven & Be'Lanna weren't as stuffy as the TNG crew, they were more like common people and easier to relate too.

If Trek is too grow and survive, it has to break from what we've become accustomed too and not appeal to the "next" generation but too a "new" one. If JJ Abrams gives us a Trek retelling like Nolan did for Batman with Batman Begins, then Trek will be reborn.

I agree with you 100%. I have always felt that if Star Trek wants to find itself a highly successful place in the hearts of TV watchers again than it will have to be completely revamped. I'm talking new writers, new characters, new ships and new ideas. The "same old" thing isn't going to be successful but they will still need to keep that special element that makes Star Trek...Star Trek, so that it won't those the millions of loyal fans it already has.

I'm not saying it is an easy job, and might I add I am glad it is not mine , but I think it can be done. I hope they don't jump into anything because they are desparate to get a show on TV. Afterall, it has only been 3 years since ENT was on TV.

Also, on a side note, I also agree that "Fire pasers" and "Yes, Captain" or "Rerouting auxillary power to the lateral thrusters erray" doesn't count as quality screen time. Quality screen time is when a characters gets numerous episodes to focus on their trials and tribulations to show them growing as characters.

 

[teya]

Also, on a side note, I also agree that "Fire pasers" and "Yes, Captain" or "Rerouting auxillary power to the lateral thrusters erray" doesn't count as quality screen time.

No one using line counts to argue that characters got attention has said that it was.

Quality screen time is when a characters gets numerous episodes to focus on their trials and tribulations to show them growing as characters.

Which both Tom and B'Elanna got. Which Janeway got. Whether or not you *like* the direction the characters went in, they still got development.

Tuvok got shafted.

And Chakotay was wussified long before Seven's arrival, IMO. He became Janeway's yes man, to be shut down on the rare occasions he disagreed with her.

 

[kimc]

The "same old" thing isn't going to be successful but they will still need to keep that special element that makes Star Trek...Star Trek, so that it won't those the millions of loyal fans it already has.

I'm just curious, what do you think that special element is?

Also, on a side note, I also agree that "Fire pasers" and "Yes, Captain" or "Rerouting auxillary power to the lateral thrusters erray" doesn't count as quality screen time. Quality screen time is when a characters gets numerous episodes to focus on their trials and tribulations to show them growing as characters.

Amen! Those are lines said by extras.

 

[Orac Zen]

Also, on a side note, I also agree that "Fire pasers" and "Yes, Captain" or "Rerouting auxillary power to the lateral thrusters erray" doesn't count as quality screen time. Quality screen time is when a characters gets numerous episodes to focus on their trials and tribulations to show them growing as characters.

Amen! Those are lines said by extras.

Agreed. It's where the line count argument - such as it is - falls in a screaming heap and loses what little relevance it has. What a character says is infinitely more relevant than how often they say something.

 

[Lynx]

It kinds sounds like many just want formula and wanting the next Trek show to be similar to the one before it. I think that's why Voy. like ENT found an audience outside the standard long time Trek ones. While they varied in degrees of success, I see Voy & ENT. trying to expand Treks fanbase beyond the "Trekkie" crowd and bring in viewers that would never watch Trek in the past. Characters like Tom, Seven & Be'Lanna weren't as stuffy as the TNG crew, they were more like common people and easier to relate too.

If Trek is too grow and survive, it has to break from what we've become accustomed too and not appeal to the "next" generation but too a "new" one. If JJ Abrams gives us a Trek retelling like Nolan did for Batman with Batman Begins, then Trek will be reborn.

I agree with you 100%. I have always felt that if Star Trek wants to find itself a highly successful place in the hearts of TV watchers again than it will have to be completely revamped. I'm talking new writers, new characters, new ships and new ideas. The "same old" thing isn't going to be successful but they will still need to keep that special element that makes Star Trek...Star Trek, so that it won't those the millions of loyal fans it already has.

I'm not saying it is an easy job, and might I add I am glad it is not mine , but I think it can be done. I hope they don't jump into anything because they are desparate to get a show on TV. Afterall, it has only been 3 years since ENT was on TV.

Also, on a side note, I also agree that "Fire pasers" and "Yes, Captain" or "Rerouting auxillary power to the lateral thrusters erray" doesn't count as quality screen time. Quality screen time is when a characters gets numerous episodes to focus on their trials and tribulations to show them growing as characters.

The problem is that if they are changing too much, like giving in for current trends, making it "darker" or so, they might lose their regular fanbase and if they do, they are dead. Because the new fanbase they might attract may not be as loyal, they will move on to the next novelty while the regular fanbase will turn their backs on the new Trek completely.

They got to keep the regular fanbase who are actually keeping Trek alive, while at the same time try to attract new fans, just like TNG did in the end of the 80:s. Not an easy task.

Personally I think that they must use and develope what's best in Trek which is: Good characters, good stories and the original premise of a better future for mankind.

As for the characters, if they have 9 characters, then all of them must have a chance to shine. OK, the captain and maybe the first officer might get a little more screen time, like Picard and Riker, Kirk and Spock.

 

[rocketscientist]

It kinds sounds like many just want formula and wanting the next Trek show to be similar to the one before it.

I think that's an accurate statement. Speaking for myself, I'd prefer each series to feel/look/be significantly different from the others. I like variety. The trick is to go as far as you can but not too far from the ST formula. IMO, ST, TNG, and DS9 all did that. VOY, from what I saw, didn't. It looked and felt to me largely like TNG v2. I think there were a lot of things they could've done to help VOY stake out it's own territory, but, in the end, thanks to the network and Berman, VOY never became what it could've been. I still enjoyed the show. I thought they had a couple of great and a few good characters (and some of the worst in ST too) and they had some great episodes. I just don't think the show's as good or as original as ST, TNG, and DS9.

I think that's why Voy. like ENT found an audience outside the standard long time Trek ones.

If those shows found a new audience, they weren't big ones. Both shows had steadily declining audiences and never achieved the popularity of TNG. To be fair, DS9 didn't either.

While they varied in degrees of success, I see Voy & ENT. trying to expand Treks fanbase beyond the "Trekkie" crowd and bring in viewers that would never watch Trek in the past.

I agree with that wrt ENT. Berman and Braga were trying to get new fans with that show, i.e. ditching ST from its title and using a pop song. They also, of course, wanted to keep their existing TNG fanbase.

But from the interviews I read there seemed to be a concious attempt to make VOY appeal to the existing TNG fans. Berman knew that not all the TNG fans were watching DS9 and he and Paramount wanted to make sure they'd hold on to them with VOY. I think that's one of the reasons VOY ended up looking and feeling like TNG all over again (for me and others at least).

Characters like Tom, Seven & Be'Lanna weren't as stuffy as the TNG crew, they were more like common people and easier to relate too.

That's very true, though I wouldn't use the word stuffy myself, I'd say PC smug or something like that. That's one of the things I did think VOY had going for it: flawed characters, at least with Tom, Seven, and B'lanna. Janeway, Chakotay, and Tuvok, not so much. I really liked Seven, Tom, and B'lanna because they were all damaged people that had to work throught their problems with the help and support of each other.

If Trek is too grow and survive, it has to break from what we've become accustomed too and not appeal to the "next" generation but too a "new" one. If JJ Abrams gives us a Trek retelling like Nolan did for Batman with Batman Begins, then Trek will be reborn.

Agreed. Again, the trick is to update things while not to stray too far from the core. This is especially tricky when it involves recasting iconic characters as Abrams is doing with XI. I actually think ST XI is the riskiest ST production ever because of that. I mean, I don't think they spent as much for TNG's first season, did they? At the time, even the people behind the cameras thought TNG could likely fail to catch on. It wasn't perceived as a sure thing at all.

I've got a good feeling wrt ST XI though. I'm really looking forward to it. I think it was the right and logical way to go for the next ST movie after the franchise was damaged by Berman's later productions.

 

[MiralParis]

Also, on a side note, I also agree that "Fire pasers" and "Yes, Captain" or "Rerouting auxillary power to the lateral thrusters erray" doesn't count as quality screen time.

No one using line counts to argue that characters got attention has said that it was.

Quality screen time is when a characters gets numerous episodes to focus on their trials and tribulations to show them growing as characters.

Which both Tom and B'Elanna got. Which Janeway got. Whether or not you *like* the direction the characters went in, they still got development.

Tuvok got shafted.

And Chakotay was wussified long before Seven's arrival, IMO. He became Janeway's yes man, to be shut down on the rare occasions he disagreed with her.

I agree about Tom and B'Elanna, Janeway perhaps. Tuvok, Harry, and Chakotay did get the shaft. Definately. Chakotay seemed to be Janeway's "yes man" from the beginning, IMO.

I agree that Star Trek needs new ideas, new but no so different and out of Star Trek "character" that it loses its original fans, because that would be a terrible shame.

Once you lose the "thing" that makes Star Trek, Star Trek......that is just going to take away the magic and while it may gain new fans, they'd lose all the original fans. Star Trek isn't Star Trek without the original fans who loved the shows and movies from the beginning.

 

[B'Elanna]

I think it's obvious from my name who my favorite is.....Neelix!!, Just kidding, it's B'Elanna

honestly though I like all the characters a lot