Reply to Fogboy's Trek thread
Date: 12/29/2002
From: Wrong_Arturo
[Warning: "Nemesis" spoilers]
I started this under a new thread, because I wasn't sure if people were going to check the old thread anymore.
Unfortunately, I think Trek needs to die and go away for a while. Let me qualify that: it doesn't really NEED to. People are hungry for good Trek, as the first-season numbers for Enterprise showed. People thought the prequel concept would give a fresh take on the series. Unfortunately, what they got was more recycled pap from Berman & Braga (hereafter referred to as B & B). That's why second-season numbers plummeted.
So as I said, it doesn't really need to go away in the sense that people don't want to see it. It needs to go away in the sense that Paramount for some baffling reason won't remove B & B from power, no matter how many people complain about them. So B & B won't go away until they've absolutely thoroughly destroyed Trek, and Paramount (incorrectly) concludes, "People just aren't interested in Star Trek anymore." All Trek production will come to a stop, B & B will finally be put to work on other projects (hopefully not destroying another genre favorite), and for a while, all will be quiet. Finally, someday, new management will come into Paramount and say, "Hey, we've got this lucrative franchise. Why don't we exploit it?" Someone new will be hired. And then MAYBE Trek will finally be worth watching again.
Anyway, that's my prediction. It may be bleak, but from what I've seen, it's an accurate assessment of the way things work in LA-LA Land. Hopefully, the wait for something good won't be too long.
Enterprise had such potential, and they utterly botched it. Nemesis wasn't all that hot either. The film felt cramped like a TV-movie, in the same way that Generations did. Say what you will about Insurrection, but both films directed by Johnathan Frakes at least felt like theatrical movies. Since Brent Spiner is co-writer, the whole thing is about "Data gets a huge subplot. Data saves the day. Data sacrifices his life. Data gets to live on with a new role for Brent Spiner if he returns." I really like Data, but this was an unfair piece of egoism. Meanwhile, poor Gates McFadden gets a couple of worthless lines as Dr. Crusher that could have been delivered by an extra. Guinan gets a meaningless cameo; I've heard that Wesley had a cameo as well, but it was so insignificant I missed it. And what was the deal with Worf? I thought he was still on DS9. At least in Insurrection, they made a marginal attempt to explain why he was on hand. Here, he's just stuck in with no explanation, as though he's been serving on the Enterprise all along. (Why not just stick O'Brien in the transporter room? That would actually have been a pleasant surprise.) All of Worf's lines are just exposition; there's no character development. At least Riker and Troi got married and left the ship. I didn't feel anything for them when it happened, though. What was great about TNG was the ensemble, and that's been utterly lacking from all of the movies. I hoped they would fix it by this one, but this was the worst one yet in that department.
I felt no emotion about Data's death either. Star Trek II is all about death, life, mortality, and the choices we make. Every moment in that film leads up to Spock's sacrifice. Here, Data's death just felt completely tagged on. And since they hedged their bet by having B-4 around, it truly meant nothing. (BTW, they're acting all shocked about finding a robot that looks like Data, as though they'd never seen one before. Hello? Lor, anyone? In fact, when I saw the previews, I thought Lor was going to be in this, which would have been much cooler than what we got.)
(pant, pant) OK, catch my breath. I admit that was a bit of excessive fanboy ranting. :) But if they can't please their main audience, who can they please? According to the box office reciepts, apparently no one. Instead of feeling like I'm going to miss these characters, my reaction was, "This OUGHT to be the last Trek film, for a long while."
Anyway, random responses to other people:
Shopman: I've never seen DS9 because I wasn't into Trek when it was airing. However, I have seen Voyager (just a handful of episodes, most of them bad). And it seems illogical to say that Voyager was better than DS9 because Voyager only re-invented itself once. Yes, they added a female in a skin-tight space suit, and that boosted the ratings, but it was still a dreadful show. Meanwhile, DS9's reinventing seemed to have paid off big time for it. The editors of Cinefatastique, TV Guide, and Mark Altman have all called DS9 the best Trek series ever, period. Many fans I've talked to feel the same way. When TV Guide held a poll to see which Trek episode was the fans' favorite, DS9's "The Visitor" won out over "Tribbles," "Both of Both Worlds," "Amok Time," even (I think) "City on the Edge of Forever." (Naturally, I'm curious to see the show now, but it's inexplicably not airing anywhere. Was the show not as good as people said? Or was it the complexity of the show that drove people away? I can't say myself, but I can't wait for TNN to start airing the show in 2004!)
Grizzlor: You liked Star Trek V? Well, to each his own, I guess. ;-) It did do good box office, but that was because so many people liked IV. I think V nearly sunk the franchise. You said Star Trek seemed old to audience members who could choose James Bond. But don't forget, James Bond actually started 4 years before Star Trek (1962 vs. 1966)! Also, please explain: you said "Insurrection was good but it had a bad script." So what did you like about it?
SQ21: re Picard just showing up and saying "Fire there" in First Contact: I don't think that shows the Borg to be pathetic, or the solution to be too tidy. On the contrary; the idea was that Picard retained much of his memory from being assimilated, which is why he knew exactly the weak spot to hit. The rest of the movie was about the downside of Picard's retaining the Borg memories (his anger and thirst for revenge). That's clever plotting and remembering the continuity, IMHO.
BTW, I agree with whomever said that Voyager ruined the Borg. Species 8472 weakened them. Bad plotlines weakened them. And yes, even Seven of Nine weakened them. In my mind, every episode with Seven of Nine is a Borg episode, because if she's not a Borg, what is she? Well, okay, technically, she's the generic "cold logic" character that's felt to be mandatory in every Trek series, from Spock to Data to T'Pol. She's learning what it means to be "hu-man." Please spare me. Of course Voyager ruined the Borg -- they ruined everything they touched (including Q, who went from menacing to sitcom buffoon in their hands. I would have liked to have seen Q in the latest movie in a return to form. Oh, well).
Anyhow, that's my feelings on the subject. Paramount could make so much money if they just put someone in charge who CARED. Here's hoping Enterprise gets cancelled, and gets ignored in the continuity like the Trek animated series, and that after a few years' break, Paramount gives the go-ahead for a fresh Trek series from a new producer in 2006, the show's 40th anniversary. That would be a truly bright future.
W.A.
To Wrong_Arturo
Date: 12/30/2002
From: Shopman
You have a lot of good points, especially about how B &B probably need to be removed. Harve Bennett did a good job with Trek's II, III, and IV, but as you mentioned Trek V nearly killed the movie series. My feeling is that the Shatner directed Trek V once again came across as a Trek TV series episode instead of a motion picture. So Bennett was replaced as Executive Producer of the movie series with Trek VI. It's clear at this point that B & B think they can pass off TV episodes as Trek movies to the fans. I still don't know if they need to stop all Trek production to reinvigorate the series. If Paramount is smart they can just buy out B & B and hire someone else to do movies. In terms of Trek series, it's a matter of opinion. The Next Generation got the highest numbers for Trek series, so if you base success on ratings then Next Gen was the most successful. The ratings did force DS9 into all it's different incarnations. So Voyager had fewer ratings problems than DS9 did. Again, that does not mean that Voyager was a better series than DS9, just that DS9 suffered ratings drops more than Voyager did. Enterprise? My own feeling is that the lower tec/lack of connections to the regular Trek universe is hurting the series. The gimmick of being a prequel has worn off and the lack of substance is obvious to fans by now. Again, this is just a matter of opinion. Newer competition could also account for the ratings drop.
Good points about Worf. Actually, he's supposed to be the Federation Ambassador to the Klingon empire (as seen in the last episode of DS9). B & B ignored this and simply placed him on board Enterprise. But in the previous movie Insurrection they gave no explanation why he was on board also. I believe someone like Ryker asked Worf why he was there and Worf opened his mouth to explain but was cut off by someone else. A poor device for not explaining Worf being on board the ship. The real reason: Michael Dorn insisted when he was signed for DS9 a clause in his contract allowing him to be in the Next Gen Trek movies. B & B didn't want to deal with the problems caused by DS9. Another sign of the sloppy production techniques of B & B.
Points
Date: 12/30/2002
From:
FogBoy
Here's a few reactions from me to the previous posts:
"Say what you will about Insurrection, but both films directed by Johnathan Frakes at least felt like theatrical movies."
Boy, I really disagree. I thought Insurrection felt painfully small-time. It was the biggest budget of the series, and it just wasn't on the screen at all. It looked like any other episode where they went to a planet with some quiet little pre-industrial civilization.
To me, First Contact looked big and expensive and Nemesis looked big and expensive. The sets, the effects, the battles, the money is on-screen in those movies. Generations, well, it had really nice lighting effects.
*
"Actually, he's supposed to be the Federation Ambassador to the Klingon empire (as seen in the last episode of DS9). B & B ignored this and simply placed him on board Enterprise."
Well, the script did explain, in only ONE LINE, why he was there. He simply stated that he "Was not suited for the life of a diplomat." But they cut it out!
As it is, we can just assume that Worf is there because he's attending the wedding ceremonies. Obviously, he's the best man at the Betazed wedding, so that makes sense.
*
"The ratings did force DS9 into all it's different incarnations. So Voyager had fewer ratings problems than DS9 did. Again, that does not mean that Voyager was a better series than DS9, just that DS9 suffered ratings drops more than Voyager did."
DS9's ratings were never anywhere near as low as Voyager's were, though. They never got that low, even at their worst. Voyager's ratings were lower durings its final two seasons than Enterprise's ratings are right now. It was just that bad of a situation, and it's hard to think of a way to fix it when you've got your whole crew stuck millions of light years from the rest of the continuity of Star Trek.
For the record, DS9's lowest rating was roughly a 4.1. Voyager's lowest rating was roughly a 1.7.
Reply
Date: 12/30/2002
From: Slider_Quinn21
Ugh. I really hate doing this, but I can't let it go...
First, about the First Contact thing. You say that its good that Picard has that weakness. Good character development. I say, "sure."
But the Borg shouldn't have a place on their ship where you can fire once and destroy the entire cube. Their whole goal is PERFECTION and that is a HUGE gaffe. Plus, if Locutus knew about the error, the Borg would know. So, I think that would be a pretty big thing to fix in the YEARS between BOBW and FC.
So, that's a HUGE weakening, if you ask me.
Second, you claim that any Seven of Nine episode is a Borg episode because she's Borg.
Huh?
No individual is Borg. Except for the Borg Queen, but I think she even said she was some other species before.
Seven of Nine is human. And a Seven episode is a human episode.
Do you consider "Family", the episode immediately following BOBW, a Borg episode? You don't see any Borg vessels, and its all about Picard. But its about his dealing with the Borg. So, is that a Borg episode?
What about Voyager's "Workforce". Deals mainly with Janeway. But she was Borg for an episode. Was that a Borg episode?
In fact, Picard was just as much Borg as Seven. Maybe even more, since he was basically the Borg Queen's right hand man (according to First Contact). So, is EVERY episode about Picard after BOBW a Borg episode?
Of course not. You have to draw the line somewhere. And just including Seven is just a cheap shot to Voyager.
Voyager ruined the Q? Turned them into a joke? Did you SEE the Q episodes on TNG in between the premiere and finale? All of them are comedies. All of them are goofy. All of them are crazy, zany, and wacky.
Even the parts where he's being menacing, he's acting goofy. That crazy wardrobe? All that crazy makeup? That crazy chair? It was all done in a spooky but zany (wacky, crazy, goofy, ect) way. The Q were going to destroy humanity but laugh their way through it.
And since Q had fun with Picard, why couldn't he have fun with Janeway?
I don't get the anti-Voyager sentiments. The show wasn't THAT bad. And yet I've met countless people who believe that Voyager is the bane of the Earth. That it ruined Trek, and all the other series.
Know what I have to say to that? DON'T WATCH! If watching Voyager gives you a coronary, don't watch! If you adore TNG and TOS and DS9, watch then until your eyes are out. Because, I promise, Voyager won't be mentioned on any of them. And Voyager's shows won't have any impact on them.
Forget about it all together. It was a rip-off. It wasn't canon. It was all a dream. That admiral in Nemesis? A throw-away character you'll forget about before you leave the theater. You've never seen her before, and you'll never see her again.
Jeri Ryan? She's just Ronnie Cooke on Boston Public. She's never been on anything else before.
Just don't watch. You'll be much happier.
But the anti-Voyager people seem to be the ones that watch it the most. Watching, rewinding, watching, rewinding. Over and over again, picking apart every nook and crannie.
(I'm not saying that's what anyone here does. Its an observation from my year and a half at Section 31)
As for the continuity errors in Nemesis. I haven't seen it. Probably won't until it hits video. Movies are too damn expensive nowadays, and I'm not going to die if I don't see it before then.
But don't go looking to Trek movies for great writing. If you want great writing, go see something else. There are a bunch of other, smaller, films out there that will make you smile at the brilliance.
But a Trek movie (from Generations on...) is going to be about spaceships, phasers, guns, and explosions. Because that's the best way to attract viewers. They get the Trek crowd and the action crowd.
Because they won't get the "writing" crowd. There's just too much out there, and Trek has such an "action" stereotype to it now.
You won't see another Khan again. So, don't expect it.
Same thing with the series. You won't see DS9 seasons 5-6 again (because, like I said earlier, the other seasons are par at best. And, yes, I am including season 7, which forgot about the Dominion War until the final five episodes)
So don't expect that either.
Just sit back, relax, and turn off your brain for two hours. Enjoy the explosions. Laugh at the corny jokes. Try to remember the character development from TNG so that you can feel for the characters. Because if you don't, you're not going to like anything out of a Trek movie ever again.
Quinn
http://slidersweb.net/otherworlds/214
PS-Don't take any offense to anything I said or the tone in which I said it. If I sounded too harsh, forgive me.
:-)
DS9 reruns
Date: 12/30/2002
From: Recall317
Or lack of reruns
In my area, it usually appears when you least expect it...and then quietly disappears as well. When TNN took over TNG, a lot of local stations lost a solid hour of their programming and subbed in DS9 in TNG's place. The UPN station teamed it with syndicated Voyager re-runs. Another put it on Sunday afternoons before NHL hockey on ABC. And then they disappeared.
I can only guess it's because when you run a syndicated series, it makes sense to start at the beginning and DS9's first season isn't terribly interesting. So the show can't even get off the ground in these time slots.
I sure did enjoy DS9 though, and during its glory seasons, it was must see television, possibly even more so than TNG. Do I prefer DS9 to TNG? I'd have to actually be able to watch DS9 again to make that call.
I never disliked Voyager. I thought it did no disgrace or shame to the franchise. However, I haven't seen them all and some of the eps getting serious debate in this thread are unfamiliar to me.
R317
Replies, replies...
Date: 12/30/2002
From: Wrong_Arturo
Shopman:
“But in the previous movie Insurrection they gave no explanation why he was on board also. I believe someone like Ryker asked Worf why he was there and Worf opened his mouth to explain but was cut off by someone else. A poor device for not explaining Worf being on board the ship.”
Actually, he was seen coming on board from somewhere else—I forget where. The rest of the explanation was cut off, as you say. Still pretty lame, but better in my opinion than the one line in the script for Nemesis that was apparently cut out.
Fogboy:
“As it is, we can just assume that Worf is there because he's attending the wedding ceremonies. Obviously, he's the best man at the Betazed wedding, so that makes sense.”
An excellent explanation. But that wasn’t really made clear in the movie. They should have given him a line about being a diplomat (he could still do that), and then when the emergency situation presented itself, Picard could have ASKED Worf if he would help out. That would have given the character some dignity.
It’s highly ironic that the Klingon-human relations are support to represent racial relations in this country, and about how we’re building a bridge towards understanding and respecting each other. Yet when a problem arises in Nemesis, Worf simply forgets about his promotion and goes back to his old subservient duties. They seem to be saying that Worf “knows his place”!
SQ21: Okay. Good point about the Borg having plenty of time to change their system of doing things since Picard had escaped from assimilation. I guess I just come from the whole Star Wars school of thinking—there’s always an exhaust port somewhere that can blow the whole thing up. ;-)
“Seven of Nine is human. And a Seven episode is a human episode.”
I disagree. If she were just human, then a Seven episode would be the same as a Tom Paris episode. She’s a human on her way BACK from being a Borg. That’s what makes her character interesting (or at least as mildly interesting as it is). Perhaps I overstated in saying that every episode with her in it is a Borg episode. Better to say that every episode focusing on her is a Borg episode in the sense that it’s about a Borg who’s learning to become human again. That’s not an insult, just an observation. Every Spock-centered episode of TOS is an episode about what it’s like to be a Vulcan, whether or not they return to his home planet (though the only one I can think of right now is “Amok Time,” where they did bring him home). Any Data-centered episode was about a robot wanting to be human, whether or not Dr. Noonan Sung (sp?) or Lor were involved. Similarly, it doesn’t have to be about the Collective to be a Borg episode. A hypothetical episode featuring Hugh from TNG, even if it featured no other Borg, would still be a Borg episode in my mind. (Yes, I know I just referred to “other Borg” as if they were individuals. Giving words the proper tense is nearly impossible when referring to Borg!!)
“Do you consider "Family", the episode immediately following BOBW, a Borg episode? You don't see any Borg vessels, and its all about Picard. But its about his dealing with the Borg. So, is that a Borg episode?”
In a sense, yes. That doesn’t make the episode any less in my opinion.
”What about Voyager's "Workforce". Deals mainly with Janeway. But she was Borg for an episode. Was that a Borg episode?”
Absolutely. I think you’ve confusing two ideas of mine. I said that Voyager ruined the Borg, and that all Seven episodes were Borg episodes (which I’ve already corrected). Those two ideas overlap occasionally, but they’re mostly exclusive. Modern Trek SHOULD focus heavily on the Borg. I just didn’t care for how they handled it in several individual episodes.
It’s not an insult that a Trek episode is a Borg episode, any more than it would be an insult to say that many episodes of Buffy revolve around vampires while some do not. The problem is more with execution within those episodes, as well as just a general overexposure to the concept.
“In fact, Picard was just as much Borg as Seven. Maybe even more, since he was basically the Borg Queen's right hand man (according to First Contact). So, is EVERY episode about Picard after BOBW a Borg episode?”
LOL! No, I’d say not. The difference is that we knew Picard beforehand, and his time with the Borg was actually very short. Seven, on the other hand (from what little I know, and I could be way off here) had been with the Borg for years, so it took her longer to recover. She was brought on board specifically (it was said so at the time) to give the Borg more of a presence on Voyager. That metal chip (or whatever it is) over her eyebrow isn’t there by accident; it’s a constant reminder of where she came from. Again, none of that is wrong in and of itself. It was more about the way B & B chose to handle it.
“Of course not. You have to draw the line somewhere. And just including Seven is just a cheap shot to Voyager.”
Wow! Okay, I seem to have touched a nerve here, and I’m sorry. I just honestly expressed my opinion about Voyager from what I had seen. You’ve obviously seen more of the show and have had a different reaction to it than I had.
“Voyager ruined the Q? Turned them into a joke? Did you SEE the Q episodes on TNG in between the premiere and finale? All of them are comedies. All of them are goofy. All of them are crazy, zany, and wacky.”
All right, let me qualify my statement. Q was always intended to be comical, but at least in TNG I got the impression that he could genuinely do some damage. On Voyager, when Q is given a son whom he’s bickering with – that was truly a low moment.
“Know what I have to say to that? DON'T WATCH! If watching Voyager gives you a coronary, don't watch! If you adore TNG and TOS and DS9, watch then until your eyes are out. Because, I promise, Voyager won't be mentioned on any of them. And Voyager's shows won't have any impact on them.”
LOL! Again, I feel I’ve touched a nerve. You’re right that people shouldn’t watch the show if it bothers them that much. I’ve seen only a handful of episodes myself, and I can’t understand the people who complained about the show constantly yet insured its good ratings week after week. Maybe because of my limited viewing of the show, my perspective on the series overall is incorrect. But what I saw didn’t encourage me to see more, and others who have seen more episodes more regularly have confirmed what I thought of it.
“But don't go looking to Trek movies for great writing. If you want great writing, go see something else. There are a bunch of other, smaller, films out there that will make you smile at the brilliance. But a Trek movie (from Generations on...) is going to be about spaceships, phasers, guns, and explosions. Because that's the best way to attract viewers. They get the Trek crowd and the action crowd. Because they won't get the "writing" crowd. There's just too much out there, and Trek has such an "action" stereotype to it now.”
I don’t go looking to Trek films for brilliance (although Khan was). I have no problem with the stories being action films. But there’s such a thing as a clever action film, such as the first “Speed” or “Die Hard” 1 & 2. The studio expects us to give them a LOT of money for their current blockbuster; I don’t think it’s asking too much for a decent script that will entertain me for two hours.
“You won't see another Khan again. So, don't expect it.”
I don’t expect that from every Trek or even every film. But is it asking so much that my intelligence isn’t completely insulted over and over again for two hours? And for that matter, the Khan analogues in Nemesis were invited by the studio's hype machine. Every interview involved the director, writer, or actor(s) comparing it to Khan. They brought that one on themselves.
“Just sit back, relax, and turn off your brain for two hours. Enjoy the explosions. Laugh at the corny jokes. Try to remember the character development from TNG so that you can feel for the characters. Because if you don't, you're not going to like anything out of a Trek movie ever again.”
“Turn off your brain” is my least favorite expression. That must have been coined by a movie executive trying to make an excuse for his latest cruddy film, and now it’s become a mantra for many. There is plenty of intelligent entertainment that I can spend my time on, and if Trek thinks so little of its audience that it treats us like morons, then (to reiterate my statement in my first post) this should be the last Trek film, because few people are going to get any enjoyment out of it again.
While I disagreed with you more than the others, I appreciate the honesty of your responses. Thanks (all of you) for posting. :-)
W.A.
Let me clarify...
Date: 12/30/2002
From: Slider_Quinn21
:-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) ;-)
I'm not mad at you WA. I'll always remember you as the guy who, time and time again, laughed at some of my more inane posts. Most of the ones in the HOF under my name have at least one "pity laugh" or two. So, I probably COULDN'T be mad at you ;-)
And, sure, you probably did tuch a nerve. But, I feel its my responsibility to explain why that nerve is inflamed.
I'm not sure if you know, but I was a admin/mod at Section 31's BBS for well over a year. There, like at almost every Trek BBS, Voyager got its share of attacks. And, even though it wasn't a haven for trolls (apparently, by their laws), the Voyager forum certainly was.
I seemed to be the only one who could stand and defend it. You see, I actually started watching Trek with Voyager. I had seen Generations, and I liked the idea of the Borg (not sure when or how I heard of them). And I remember turning to Voyager one day, by accident, and seeing the end of "The Gift". Seven of Nine is shown, part human, part Borg, and then Janeway gives her qualifications for a crew member.
I thought, "Wow." A Borg crewmember. This, I gotta see!
Does this give me a unique perspective? Oh yeah it does. I actually look back at the non-assimilating, empty Borg cubes from TNG and laugh. Probably because I'm used to the more visual VOY Borg. I understand TNG had to improvise, and I respect their techniques. But I'd still rather play XBox than Nintendo (the latter may have better games at times, but XBox is far more visually pleasing).
So, I defended Voyager with everything I had. And, eventually, I found some pretty damn-good arguments (in my opinion, of course). And that became my claim to fame. I was the defender of Voyager, and I battled countless numbers of crusaders.
(I, of course, claim to have not failed ;-) )
Of course, this was also, apparently, my downfall. The S31 staff had an anti-Voyager sentiment themselves, and I think I made them angry. Like you said, I say it like it is. And I think that scared them, so I got the boot...
I think that's the nerve. And I hope you can understand how I feel, because I've done this over and over and over and over. Whew...
********
Now, to your reply... :-)
"I disagree. If she were just human, then a Seven episode would be the same as a Tom Paris episode. She’s a human on her way BACK from being a Borg. That’s what makes her character interesting (or at least as mildly interesting as it is). Perhaps I overstated in saying that every episode with her in it is a Borg episode. Better to say that every episode focusing on her is a Borg episode in the sense that it’s about a Borg who’s learning to become human again. That’s not an insult, just an observation."
I'm not arguing that Tom and Seven are the same. Just that they are the same species. And what I guess I meant was that NO character is really Borg. Because another species and individual is always underneath the metal.
And let's say every Seven episode is a Borg episode. Really, how does that impact the Borg themselves? Or weaken them? Because we always knew that a person could rebound after a Borg assimilation (Hugh and Picard).
"She was brought on board specifically (it was said so at the time) to give the Borg more of a presence on Voyager"
That's true. But I also think that she gave a reason for Voyager to survive against the Borg attacks they suffered. Just like Picard could save the Enterprise rather easily after his assimilation.
"On Voyager, when Q is given a son whom he’s bickering with – that was truly a low moment."
Well, let me ask if you saw the Q "arc" Voyager had in its entirety. It all makes pretty good sense, and it wraps up pretty well.
But Q always bickers. He bickered with everyone he ever met up with on the show. Why should his son be any different?
"But what I saw didn’t encourage me to see more, and others who have seen more episodes more regularly have confirmed what I thought of it."
That makes sense. And I'm BY NO MEANS trying to convince you that Voyager did no wrong. And I'm not trying to tell you that Voyager was the be all and end all of Trek. People always think that, because I defend Voyager, I love it. Not true. I defend Voyager because I honestly believe it doesn't deserve the crap it gets...
"But there’s such a thing as a clever action film, such as the first “Speed” or “Die Hard” 1 & 2. The studio expects us to give them a LOT of money for their current blockbuster; I don’t think it’s asking too much for a decent script that will entertain me for two hours."
Oh, I completely agree. I think "Die Hard" is a great example, particularly with the officer from "Family Matters". It actually has an emotional story or two, along with all the explosions...
"But is it asking so much that my intelligence isn’t completely insulted over and over again for two hours?"
Maybe it is. Remember that Trek is always trying to reach out to new viewers. And having a ten-minute scene describing why Worf if there (which it probably needed) might confuse new people.
So, the producers have to make it as generic as possible. They'll throw in lines and faces that will appeal to Trekkies, but they're not aiming for you anymore, sadly enough. They're COUNTING on the fact that you'll see it no matter what. Crap or not, you'll follow it because its Trek.
And that's their problem, story-wise. They'd do a Trek story that would appeal to Trek fans, but then only Trek fans would want to see it. And I don't think that a Trek film can be supported by Trek fans alone. Maybe I'm wrong, but there has to be some sort of stats to back it up or the studios wouldn't do it.
Again, my theory is that Trek succeeded because it filled a "space" left by the departure of Star Wars. If you look at the timeline, TNG appeared just after Star Wars ended.
Now that Star Wars is back, other films and series are going the "space" route. And I think that, eventually, the genre is going to need a break. Trek included...
Again, I hope that I didn't make it look like I was mad at you. I respect everyone here, and you're definitely allowed to hate Voyager. I hate many of its episodes myself. But I see a lot of crap thrown around by it, and I have yet to see much to back it up.
And, now, phrases like "Voyager ruined the Borg", "Janeway should be executed", and "Voyager ruined Trek" are thrown around like its been proven. But the fact is that it hasn't. Its just widely accepted, and that's sad IMO.
If you feel differently, feel free to tell me so. I'd love to hear the other side of the coin, because at S31 everyone always retreated after I started to defend.
;-)
Quinn
http://slidersweb.net/otherworlds/214
More for SQ21
Date: 01/01/2003
From: Wrong_Arturo
Happy new year to you...and death to BT. ;-)
Don't worry, I understand you're not mad. I hadn't known about your situation over at the Trek BBS, but I can see why that would make you a little more inflamed about the complaints. Believe me, as a Sliders fan, I know all about defending a show that non-fans can't understand why I like!
I am going to have to needle you about this one statement:
"I thought, "Wow." A Borg crewmember. This, I gotta see!"
Ah-HA! So you ADMIT she's a Borg!!! ;-P
LOL! Sorry, I couldn't resist. Just being a smart aleck.
"Does this give me a unique perspective? Oh yeah it does. I actually look back at the non-assimilating, empty Borg cubes from TNG and laugh. Probably because I'm used to the more visual VOY Borg. I understand TNG had to improvise, and I respect their techniques. But I'd still rather play XBox than Nintendo (the latter may have better games at times, but XBox is far more visually pleasing)."
Yeah, TNG had less of a budget (I think). They did well with lighting, shadows, music, etc. to build the suspense, IMHO. In fact, in a sense, that can be more creepy than the more populated Borg cubes. Where would you rather be: a house filled with a bunch of mobsters you can see, or a dark abandoned building where you keep hearing strange noises just around the corner? Neither is desirable, of course, but the second concept gives me the greater willies, and I think that's the mood TNG captured.
For the record, I'm a hard-core old school Nintendo fan.
;-)
"I'm not arguing that Tom and Seven are the same. Just that they are the same species. And what I guess I meant was that NO character is really Borg. Because another species and individual is always underneath the metal."
This is a very intriguing explanation. I've never quite heard it that way before. By this description, "Borg" is more like a disease or an infection than a group of people. Hmm...
"Well, let me ask if you saw the Q "arc" Voyager had in its entirety. It all makes pretty good sense, and it wraps up pretty well."
No, that's beyond the range of what I saw. Q wasn't ever exactly my favorite character in the first place. Basically, the writers just took what I didn't like about the character and moved him even further down the continuum (pun slightly intended). And at any rate, John de Lancie apparently didn't like what they did what the character, so that must count for something. ;-)
"Crap or not, you'll follow it because its Trek."
I don't think fans ought to do that (i.e. those who complained about Voyager yet kept watching it). I still watch the movies, but that's two hours of my life every 3 years or so -- not like watching a weekly series.
"And that's their problem, story-wise. They'd do a Trek story that would appeal to Trek fans, but then only Trek fans would want to see it. And I don't think that a Trek film can be supported by Trek fans alone. Maybe I'm wrong, but there has to be some sort of stats to back it up or the studios wouldn't do it."
I don't think it's a mutually exclusive thing. II and IV appealed to both the hardcore Trek fan and a mainstream audience. They keep dumbing down the movies, though, so that neither mainstream audiences *nor* Trek fans are pleased. The current box office numbers show this.
"Again, my theory is that Trek succeeded because it filled a "space" left by the departure of Star Wars. If you look at the timeline, TNG appeared just after Star Wars ended."
It's an intriguing theory, and we'll have to see if that bares out. If the final Star Wars movie is in 2005, and a new Trek series hits the air in 2006...
"Now that Star Wars is back, other films and series are going the "space" route. And I think that, eventually, the genre is going to need a break. Trek included..."
In a sense, space movies are kind of taking a break anyway. The big thing right now is fantasy (Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, Shrek, etc.).
Again, I understand you weren't mad at me. This has been a great discussion. And I'll try to be more specific from now on when I criticize something about Voyager rather than just scapegoating it!
W.A.
P.S. Voyager is responsible for Internet porn, the Columbine shootings and the mistrial of O.J. Simpson.
I HATE BEGINNING TEXT!
Date: 01/02/2003
From: Slider_Quinn21
Getting that out of the way...
"I hadn't known about your situation over at the Trek BBS, but I can see why that would make you a little more inflamed about the complaints."
Section 31, not the Trek BBS. Two different things (the latter, strangely enough, realized as the more civilized).
"Ah-HA! So you ADMIT she's a Borg!!! ;-P"
Well, like I said, I don't see anyone as a Borg. Even the Queen is another species. Like you said, its almost like a disease (since it can be "aquired" and "cured".
"They did well with lighting, shadows, music, etc. to build the suspense, IMHO. In fact, in a sense, that can be more creepy than the more populated Borg cubes."
Yes, it can be. Look at "Signs". That movie scared the Hell out of people UNTIL we saw the aliens.
But TNG didn't make the Borg themselves scary. Their technology? Yes. But the individual Borg? No.
I mean, before First Contact, were you really scared of assimilation? Were you really that afraid of being on a Borg cube? Because as long as you had a phaser, you could take out the seven or so drones they send and you're safe.
And they'd just line up to get shot. In TNG, they just weren't scary. Now, maybe NOW, if they tried to pull that same trick, knowing what they're capable of, maybe that would work. But second-hand accounts from Guinan aren't going to scare me.
"For the record, I'm a hard-core old school Nintendo fan."
Oh, I will go to my grave thinking "Karate" and "Ninja Turtles" are the greatest games ever. :-)
"Basically, the writers just took what I didn't like about the character and moved him even further down the continuum (pun slightly intended)."
Well, the first Q/Voyager episode wasn't a comedy at all. It was a very big ethical/debate episode. And the second was an interesting story about the continuum. Of course, the son episode was strange by TNG standards, but it fit in with the Q story IMO...
"I don't think it's a mutually exclusive thing. II and IV appealed to both the hardcore Trek fan and a mainstream audience."
Yes, but now they're just aiming for a mainstream audience because they'll get more money that way. The problem is, however, that I don't think Trek is going to get any more people. The line, I believe, has been drawn, and the "independents" have moved to one side or the other.
"P.S. Voyager is responsible for Internet porn, the Columbine shootings and the mistrial of O.J. Simpson."
Don't forget about communism and fascism...
;-)
Quinn
http://slidersweb.net/otherworlds/214
Original URL http://bboard.scifi.com/bboard/browse.cgi/1/5/545/4065700
