I think you are missing the point. All Captains say stuff to intimidate an enemy or inspire their crew.
Why is Janeway hated so much?
- Thread starter TheMightyQ
- Start date
That's precisely my point. Intimidation and inspiration mean nothing unless a commanding officer can back up his or her words. Saying "we're gonna' kick their asses" means nothing unless it actually happens. Any outcome less than that and morale goes down the drain.
--Sran
Picard's speech would have meant something to his crew even if they had to fall back and were over run by Borg. They would have known their leader gave his very best.
How about this speech?
[yt]http://youtu.be/52KFUdU1jaQ?t=8m22s[/yt]
Chest-thumping of a sort. I love how Patrick Stewart plays this. Very inspiring, but you can see that Picard knows he's only got minutes to live. He's not sure his sacrifice will mean something, but he's got to inspire his crew.
Link is here: http://youtu.be/52KFUdU1jaQ?t=8m22s
[yt]http://youtu.be/52KFUdU1jaQ?t=8m22s[/yt]
Chest-thumping of a sort. I love how Patrick Stewart plays this. Very inspiring, but you can see that Picard knows he's only got minutes to live. He's not sure his sacrifice will mean something, but he's got to inspire his crew.
Link is here: http://youtu.be/52KFUdU1jaQ?t=8m22s
Sorry, but that's just silly.They would have thought him a brave man who led them to be brave in the face of what turned out bad. They certainly would never have thought him a fool. How was he supposed to know the outcome of the battle? How is anyone supposed to know?
^Picard isn't claiming that the Enterprise is going to kick the Klingons' asses, nor is he making grandiose predictions about the battle's outcome. He's merely reminding his crew of their primary objective, albeit in a poetic way. The speech is inspiring because it isn't chest-thumping at all. It's a statement of his crew's duty to the Federation.
--Sran
--Sran
That's not my point. Inspiration doesn't come about by making outlandish statements about a situation. Saying "we're gonna' kick their asses" only moments before the opposite is likely to happen (but not guaranteed) is foolhardy and ignores the reality of the situation. Picard's speech in "Yesterday's Enterprise" is inspiring precisely because it doesn't involve the sort of chest-thumping you're advocating.
Picard says, "As you know, we could outrun the Klingon vessels. But we must protect the Enterprise-C before she enters the temporal rift, and we must succeed. Let's make sure that history never forgets the name Enterprise."
His speech motivates his crew to fight what's likely to be a losing battle because it reminds them of their duty as Starfleet officers, not because it's a guarantee of something he won't be able to deliver.
--Sran
It really took till almost the end of the series for Janeway to lose me. Up to the end of "Friendship One," I'd explain away inconsistencies with flexibility. I had no problem her occasional bombast. I thought she made some wrong decisions, but no one's perfect and I didn't expect her to be either.
But then there was this conversation:
James Tiberius Kirk is rolling in his grave.
But then there was this conversation:
James Tiberius Kirk is rolling in his grave.
^I'd forgotten about that statement, but it's been a while since I've seen "Friendship One." In fact, I don't think I've seen it since it originally aired back in 2001. Apparently, I'm not missing much. That statement is laughable.
--Sran
--Sran
I'll add that, sure, there are other examples of ST captains being inconsistent. But those tend to be a few examples, less than a handful of incidents.
With Janeway, it became a hallmark of her character throughout the run of the series.
She'd either risk hell or highwater, damn the consequences, to get her crew home --or-- she'll refuse to compromise Federation ideals and Starfleet protocol for any reason.
With Janeway, it became a hallmark of her character throughout the run of the series.
She'd either risk hell or highwater, damn the consequences, to get her crew home --or-- she'll refuse to compromise Federation ideals and Starfleet protocol for any reason.
So yeah... over a replicator she's either willing to kill them or strand them in a best case scenario. But designing weapons for the Borg or giving the Hirogen holodeck technology! Why not?
Conflating the character with the writers just because the character is more visible. I've been guilty of it myself on occasion. It's hardly unique to Voyager/Janeway. I've seen plenty of TOS purists take their dislike for TNG out on the character of Picard. There's the stereotype that Trekkies can't tell the difference between fiction and reality, and in some cases it's true.
), I'd have more confidence in CJ getting me out of scrape than Picard. He begged Q to get them out of that first Borg scrape.
Enough with the whipping it out already. All the Captains have their strong points and flaws, though Janeway is obviously the hottest. If anyone wants to argue for TOS Kirk though I'll give them a pass.
I like Janeway. I think she's a very good captain.
OK, she has her flaws but who hasn't. Both Kirk and Picard did have their fits of anger directed at some people on the ship too, like janeway had in the conversation with Hogan. It's clear to everyone that she will not give the Kazon any technology but I find it also clear that she will do everything she can to avoid destruction of the ship.
Janeway actually cared for her crew. We can see that in her anger when Hogan is killed by that giant lizard in "Basics". We can also see it in certain episodes where she's about to bend the rules and even to take personal risks to save crewmembers in danger.
As for the writing, I think Janeway was OK in the first three seasons. Later on she became a bit strange due to bad writing but the other main characters suffered from bad writing in the later seasons too.
OK, she has her flaws but who hasn't. Both Kirk and Picard did have their fits of anger directed at some people on the ship too, like janeway had in the conversation with Hogan. It's clear to everyone that she will not give the Kazon any technology but I find it also clear that she will do everything she can to avoid destruction of the ship.
Janeway actually cared for her crew. We can see that in her anger when Hogan is killed by that giant lizard in "Basics". We can also see it in certain episodes where she's about to bend the rules and even to take personal risks to save crewmembers in danger.
As for the writing, I think Janeway was OK in the first three seasons. Later on she became a bit strange due to bad writing but the other main characters suffered from bad writing in the later seasons too.
Never hated Janeway. Always loved Kate Mulgrew's performance of her.
I will agree with others here - it was the writing. Never, ever, ever agreed with the choices they made for her in "Equinox". She went off the rails, yes. But the writers then justified her actions. Nope.
I always thought of Voyager being a Star Trek with great characters with a good premise (two diverse crew stranded far for home learning to work with one another as they make their long Trek home), and a writing staff with little know-how or experience to write for it. The stories were "cool", but they abandoned a lot of what I hoped they they would develop throughout the show. And for characters like Janeway, they didn't know what they wanted to do, so most of her development as a character was scatter-shot.
I will agree with others here - it was the writing. Never, ever, ever agreed with the choices they made for her in "Equinox". She went off the rails, yes. But the writers then justified her actions. Nope.
I always thought of Voyager being a Star Trek with great characters with a good premise (two diverse crew stranded far for home learning to work with one another as they make their long Trek home), and a writing staff with little know-how or experience to write for it. The stories were "cool", but they abandoned a lot of what I hoped they they would develop throughout the show. And for characters like Janeway, they didn't know what they wanted to do, so most of her development as a character was scatter-shot.
Everyone has the right to hate any character for any reason whatever for the simple reason no one here has the power to change their feelings.
However, no one has the right to have their professed reason for said hate taken at face value. If the argument against an alleged reason feels like a personal slur? The best defense is a sound justification. Frankly, any disagreement whatsoever implicitly slurs someone's taste and judgment. Demanding that your arguments be respected may be a common position. But your ideas still are not your person.
I'm always amazed that you so rarely see someone mention that they dislike Kate Mulgrew's voice.
