Account Options

  1. Sign in
The old Google Groups will be going away soon, but your browser is incompatible with the new version.
Google Groups Home
« Groups Home
SIX REASONS ‘STAR TREK: VOYAGER’ NEVER REALL Y WORKED
There are currently too many topics in this group that display first. To make this topic appear first, remove this option from another topic.
There was an error processing your request. Please try again.
flag
  Messages 1 - 25 of 48 - Collapse all  -  Translate all to Translated (View all originals)   Newer >
The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
 
From:
To:
Cc:
Followup To:
Add Cc | Add Followup-to | Edit Subject
Subject:
Validation:
For verification purposes please type the characters you see in the picture below or the numbers you hear by clicking the accessibility icon. Listen and type the numbers you hear
 
Rob Cypher  
View profile  
 More options May 2 2012, 5:55 am
Newsgroups: alt.tv.star-trek.tos, rec.arts.tv, alt.slack, rec.sport.pro-wrestling, rec.arts.sf.tv
From: Rob Cypher <bals...@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 02 May 2012 05:55:18 -0400
Local: Wed, May 2 2012 5:55 am
Subject: Re: SIX REASONS ‘STAR TREK: VOYAGER’ NEVER REALL Y WORKED
On Mon, 19 Dec 2011 21:06:39 -0800 (PST), Karl Johanson

<karl.johan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Dec 17, 8:02 am, Professor Bubba <bu...@nowhere.edu.invalid> wrote:
>>  Voyager turned out to be a complete waste of time,

>Was not... Was a quite effective cure for my Trek addiction.

"Enterprise" was my "cure". Sci-fi prequels never seem to work out. :/

 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
corky  
View profile  
 More options May 3 2012, 8:35 pm
Newsgroups: alt.tv.star-trek.tos, rec.arts.tv, alt.slack, rec.sport.pro-wrestling, rec.arts.sf.tv
From: corky <caseyterry5...@yahoo.com>
Date: Thu, 3 May 2012 17:35:23 -0700 (PDT)
Local: Thurs, May 3 2012 8:35 pm
Subject: Re: SIX REASONS ‘STAR TREK: VOYAGER’ NEVER REALL Y WORKED
On May 2, 5:55 am, Rob Cypher <bals...@aol.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 19 Dec 2011 21:06:39 -0800 (PST), Karl Johanson

> <karl.johan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Dec 17, 8:02 am, Professor Bubba <bu...@nowhere.edu.invalid> wrote:
> >>  Voyager turned out to be a complete waste of time,

> >Was not... Was a quite effective cure for my Trek addiction.

> "Enterprise" was my "cure". Sci-fi prequels never seem to work out. :/

Personally, I would have preferred this woman to play the lead role.
Kate Mugrew did a good job, but was the second choice.

Geneviève Bujold

In 1994 Bujold agreed to play Captain Janeway (at that point named
Nicole), lead character in the American television series Star Trek:
Voyager. However, she dropped out after filming just a few scenes of
the first episode, citing the lengthy work schedule for a TV series
and her unwillingness to do news interviews. The producers
subsequently hired TV veteran Kate Mulgrew for the role, and renamed
the character Kathryn Janeway.


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Duggy  
View profile  
 More options May 3 2012, 9:45 pm
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv, alt.startrek
From: Duggy <p.allan.dug...@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 3 May 2012 18:45:30 -0700 (PDT)
Local: Thurs, May 3 2012 9:45 pm
Subject: Re: SIX REASONS ‘STAR TREK: VOYAGER’ NEVER REALL Y WORKED
On May 4, 10:35 am, corky <caseyterry5...@yahoo.com> wrote:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SIZcDWKyw0

===
= DUG.
===


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Rob Cypher  
View profile  
 More options May 4 2012, 12:54 am
Newsgroups: alt.tv.star-trek.tos, rec.arts.tv, alt.slack, rec.sport.pro-wrestling, rec.arts.sf.tv
From: Rob Cypher <bals...@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 04 May 2012 00:54:21 -0400
Local: Fri, May 4 2012 12:54 am
Subject: Re: SIX REASONS ‘STAR TREK: VOYAGER’ NEVER REALL Y WORKED
On Thu, 3 May 2012 17:35:23 -0700 (PDT), corky

There was no way Bujold would've worked in that role. Did you not see
the pre-pilot shots of her as Captain "Nicole" Janeway? She acted
stiff and distant from the crew. It looked like she hated every second
of it.

Here's two comparison videos of Kate Mulgrew and Geneviève Bujold
doing the same scenes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6pgAFV2YxLQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NANUpPaiGG8


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Rob Cypher  
View profile  
 More options May 4 2012, 12:57 am
Newsgroups: alt.tv.star-trek.tos, rec.arts.tv, alt.slack, rec.sport.pro-wrestling, rec.arts.sf.tv
From: Rob Cypher <bals...@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 04 May 2012 00:57:37 -0400
Local: Fri, May 4 2012 12:57 am
Subject: Re: SIX REASONS ‘STAR TREK: VOYAGER’ NEVER REALL Y WORKED
On Fri, 04 May 2012 00:54:21 -0400, Rob Cypher <bals...@aol.com>
wrote:

IIRC, the "Voyager" producers were thinking of casting the person who
played "Dr. Leah Brahms" (the engineer Geordi LaForge had a crush on)
as the captain at first, but they decided that she was too young. (I
don't think she would've resumed her Brahms character had she gotten
the role.)

 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Tater Gumfries  
View profile  
 More options May 4 2012, 11:28 am
Newsgroups: alt.tv.star-trek.tos, rec.arts.tv, alt.slack, rec.sport.pro-wrestling, rec.arts.sf.tv
From: Tater Gumfries <gumfr...@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 4 May 2012 08:28:21 -0700 (PDT)
Local: Fri, May 4 2012 11:28 am
Subject: Re: SIX REASONS ‘STAR TREK: VOYAGER’ NEVER REALL Y WORKED
On May 3, 10:54 pm, Rob Cypher <bals...@aol.com> wrote:

That French gal don't got a captain's bearin, and her voice is too
soft and she don't seem like she's involved. The sharp voice gal's
better, always lookin around. She got authority.

If Tater was 6 months younger, he'd be datin both of em.

Tater


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Rob Cypher  
View profile  
 More options May 4 2012, 6:45 pm
Newsgroups: alt.tv.star-trek.tos, rec.arts.tv, alt.slack, rec.sport.pro-wrestling, rec.arts.sf.tv
From: Rob Cypher <bals...@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 04 May 2012 18:45:57 -0400
Local: Fri, May 4 2012 6:45 pm
Subject: Re: SIX REASONS ‘STAR TREK: VOYAGER’ NEVER REALL Y WORKED
On Fri, 4 May 2012 08:28:21 -0700 (PDT), Tater Gumfries

Bujold (who is French-Canadian) can be a good actress, but I think she
flaked out when she realized a TV shooting schedule was much longer
than one for a movie.

Odd thing about Mulgrew: she's always drinking some sort of liquor in
every interview she's been in, and often talks about her love for fine
alcohol. Sometimes I wonder if she got her distinctive voice from
lots of cigarettes and scotch. I wouldn't necessarily say she's an
alkie, though - or at least she's never gotten in trouble because of
it.


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Ed Stasiak  
View profile  
 More options May 4 2012, 9:21 pm
Newsgroups: alt.tv.star-trek.tos, rec.arts.tv, alt.slack, rec.sport.pro-wrestling, rec.arts.sf.tv
From: Ed Stasiak <estas...@att.net>
Date: Fri, 4 May 2012 18:21:57 -0700 (PDT)
Local: Fri, May 4 2012 9:21 pm
Subject: Re: SIX REASONS ‘STAR TREK: VOYAGER’ NEVER REALL Y WORKED

> corky

> The producers subsequently hired TV veteran Kate Mulgrew
> for the role, and renamed the character

Captain Mom Janeway…

They should have cast Jeri Ryan as the Capt.


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Ed Stasiak  
View profile  
 More options May 4 2012, 9:23 pm
Newsgroups: alt.tv.star-trek.tos, rec.arts.tv, alt.slack, rec.sport.pro-wrestling, rec.arts.sf.tv
From: Ed Stasiak <estas...@att.net>
Date: Fri, 4 May 2012 18:23:19 -0700 (PDT)
Local: Fri, May 4 2012 9:23 pm
Subject: Re: SIX REASONS ‘STAR TREK: VOYAGER’ NEVER REALL Y WORKED

> corky

> The producers subsequently hired TV veteran Kate Mulgrew
> for the role, and renamed the character

Captain Mom Janeway…

They should have cast Jeri Ryan as the Capt.


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
David E. Powell  
View profile  
 More options May 4 2012, 9:54 pm
Newsgroups: alt.tv.star-trek.tos, rec.arts.tv, alt.slack, rec.sport.pro-wrestling, rec.arts.sf.tv
From: "David E. Powell" <David_Powell3...@msn.com>
Date: Fri, 4 May 2012 18:54:48 -0700 (PDT)
Local: Fri, May 4 2012 9:54 pm
Subject: Re: SIX REASONS ‘STAR TREK: VOYAGER’ NEVER REALL Y WORKED
On May 4, 9:23 pm, Ed Stasiak <estas...@att.net> wrote:

> > corky

> > The producers subsequently hired TV veteran Kate Mulgrew
> > for the role, and renamed the character

> Captain Mom Janeway…

> They should have cast Jeri Ryan as the Capt.

I always felt that Natalya Nouglich (sp?) would have been tons
better.  Admiral Nechayev. Then the ship's Captain dies and the
Admiral takes over a la Kirk getting given command by Spock in Star
Trek II.

Or another possibility might have been to bring back Ronny Cox as
Captain Jellico.


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Rob Cypher  
View profile  
 More options May 6 2012, 5:16 am
Newsgroups: alt.tv.star-trek.tos, rec.arts.tv, alt.slack, rec.sport.pro-wrestling, rec.arts.sf.tv
From: Rob Cypher <bals...@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 06 May 2012 05:16:59 -0400
Local: Sun, May 6 2012 5:16 am
Subject: Re: SIX REASONS ‘STAR TREK: VOYAGER’ NEVER REALL Y WORKED
On Fri, 4 May 2012 18:54:48 -0700 (PDT), "David E. Powell"

<David_Powell3...@msn.com> wrote:
>On May 4, 9:23 pm, Ed Stasiak <estas...@att.net> wrote:
>> > corky

>> > The producers subsequently hired TV veteran Kate Mulgrew
>> > for the role, and renamed the character

>> Captain Mom Janeway…

>> They should have cast Jeri Ryan as the Capt.

>I always felt that Natalya Nouglich (sp?) would have been tons
>better.  Admiral Nechayev. Then the ship's Captain dies and the
>Admiral takes over a la Kirk getting given command by Spock in Star
>Trek II.

Kirk aside, most admirals (real life or otherwise) don't like stepping
down in rank just because there's a ship involved. It's not like
Voyager had the same name value as Enterprise. Seems to me like
she liked flexing her influence over whole areas of space as opposed
to just one starship.

>Or another possibility might have been to bring back Ronny Cox as
>Captain Jellico.

Nope - Voyager's producers were aiming for a woman. Besides,
something happened to the character by the time of Voyager's
launch - he was no longer captain of the USS Cairo (his normal
ship) when it was destroyed by the Dominion. Either he
became an admiral, died, or retired (or the writers forgot who
was captain, which is also possible).

I don't know why I know this stuff.


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
David E. Powell  
View profile  
 More options May 6 2012, 12:51 pm
Newsgroups: alt.tv.star-trek.tos, rec.arts.tv, alt.slack, rec.sport.pro-wrestling, rec.arts.sf.tv
From: "David E. Powell" <David_Powell3...@msn.com>
Date: Sun, 6 May 2012 09:51:48 -0700 (PDT)
Local: Sun, May 6 2012 12:51 pm
Subject: Re: SIX REASONS ‘STAR TREK: VOYAGER’ NEVER REALL Y WORKED
On May 6, 5:16 am, Rob Cypher <bals...@aol.com> wrote:

I hear you. I'd be thinking, this was a big mission to get these
Maquis types and find them, big enough to spring a guy out of jail to
help, so she goes along to supervise or give some advice. Then the
captain and a lot of the officers get killed and she has to take over,
along with Chakotay as her second. Maybe even a backstory with
Chakotay as someone she had mentored before he "defected" which could
also be why she was involved.

> >Or another possibility might have been to bring back Ronny Cox as
> >Captain Jellico.

> Nope - Voyager's producers were aiming for a woman. Besides,
> something happened to the character by the time of Voyager's
> launch - he was no longer captain of the USS Cairo (his normal
> ship) when it was destroyed by the Dominion. Either he
> became an admiral, died, or retired (or the writers forgot who
> was captain, which is also possible).

I agree. It could open up him being available to give a new ship for
the mission, though. It also might be neat to have him sort of
questioning himself a bit, as he's been very confident in the past. He
takes a "milk run" mission to get a few Maquis fugitives, then ends up
on the other side of the Galaxy with a shaken crew of young people who
have lost most of their experienced officers, plus the former Maquis
people who don't trust starfleet, in a similar dynamic to the one he
had when Riker was insubordinate to him on the Enterprise.

In the end I think the well ran a bit dry on the writing side.

> I don't know why I know this stuff.

Memory is strange sometimes, it twigged something and it stays there.
Star Trek's a fun thing to have on the mind though :)

 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Jim G.  
View profile  
 More options May 5 2012, 6:18 pm
Newsgroups: alt.tv.star-trek.tos, rec.arts.tv, rec.arts.sf.tv
From: "Jim G." <jimgy...@geemail.com>
Date: Sat, 05 May 2012 17:18:56 -0500
Local: Sat, May 5 2012 6:18 pm
Subject: Re: SIX REASONS ‘STAR TREK: VOYAGER’ NEVER REALL Y WORKED
[Newsgroups trimmed]

Rob Cypher sent the following on 5/4/2012 5:45 PM:

> Odd thing about Mulgrew: she's always drinking some sort of liquor in
> every interview she's been in, and often talks about her love for fine
> alcohol.

She's probably trying to drown out the voices of all of the Federation
victims of Capt. Janeway over the years.

--
Jim G. | Waukesha, WI
"I find it's best if you just ... go with it." -- Lincoln Lee, providing
us with FRINGE's "Every question just leads to more questions" moment


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Rob Cypher  
View profile  
 More options May 7 2012, 2:38 pm
Newsgroups: alt.slack, alt.tv.star-trek.tos, rec.sport.pro-wrestling, rec.arts.sf.tv, alt.usenet.kooks
From: Rob Cypher <bals...@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 07 May 2012 14:38:13 -0400
Local: Mon, May 7 2012 2:38 pm
Subject: Re: SIX REASONS ‘STAR TREK: VOYAGER’ NEVER REALL Y WORKED
On Fri, 4 May 2012 23:28:37 +0000 (UTC), JJ Baybee <jjbay...@west.net>
wrote:

Sez the guy who proudly bought every single thing "Rev. Stang" put out
since 1988 or so. "Nerd" indeed.

.


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Steven L.  
View profile  
 More options May 7 2012, 4:57 pm
Newsgroups: alt.tv.star-trek.tos, rec.arts.tv, alt.slack, rec.sport.pro-wrestling, rec.arts.sf.tv
From: "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net>
Date: Mon, 7 May 2012 20:57:41 +0000
Local: Mon, May 7 2012 4:57 pm
Subject: Re: SIX REASONS ‘STAR TREK: VOYAGER’ NEVER REALL Y WORKED

"Tater Gumfries" <gumfr...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:1bf1b43a-bf3d-47fe-9dd1-823ee713a9cc@m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com:

Besides, we already had a French captain in TNG.

-- Steven L.


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
cains...@windstream.net  
View profile  
 More options May 7 2012, 10:53 pm
Newsgroups: alt.slack, alt.tv.star-trek.tos, rec.sport.pro-wrestling, rec.arts.sf.tv, alt.usenet.kooks
From: cains...@windstream.net
Date: Mon, 7 May 2012 19:53:27 -0700 (PDT)
Local: Mon, May 7 2012 10:53 pm
Subject: Re: SIX REASONS ‘STAR TREK: VOYAGER’ NEVER REALL Y WORKED
On May 7, 2:38 pm, Rob Cypher <bals...@aol.com> wrote:

ROB CYPHER HAS BEEN DEAD SINCE 1998. WHO ARE YOU, YOU IMPOSTER???????

 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
David E. Powell  
View profile  
 More options May 7 2012, 11:19 pm
Newsgroups: alt.slack, alt.tv.star-trek.tos, rec.sport.pro-wrestling, rec.arts.sf.tv, alt.usenet.kooks
From: "David E. Powell" <David_Powell3...@msn.com>
Date: Mon, 7 May 2012 20:19:34 -0700 (PDT)
Local: Mon, May 7 2012 11:19 pm
Subject: Re: SIX REASONS ‘STAR TREK: VOYAGER’ NEVER REALL Y WORKED
On May 7, 10:45 pm, shiny <a@b.ç> wrote:

> "In a very dark China Blue, China Blue condition."
> <chine.b...@yahoo.com> sez 07 May 2012:

> >> >Hit the road, slag. Stop posting your space case crap in alt.slack.
> >> >Keep it in your nerd group, where it belongs.

> >> Sez the guy who proudly bought every single thing "Rev. Stang" put
> >> out since 1988 or so. "Nerd" indeed.

> > When I saw that Yoda was willing to let Anakin's mother be tortured to
> > death merely as some lesson in emotional detachment, I realised the
> > Jedi were no better than the Sith. They had fancier Japanese clothes
> > than the black cloak gang, but no real moral difference.

> i didn't watch that crap, but have to agree with this statement anyhoo.

I also noticed in "Phantom Menace" that the Jedi had zero problem with
slavery, as long as it didn't inconvenience anyone who had the force
who they wanted for themselves. Anakin's mom didn't have to see him
again, but they didn't have to leave her there either. Especially
after they won the big battle and had a grateful Princess who could
have paid whatever needed to get the mom out and stash her somewhere
that was decent.


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Rob Cypher  
View profile  
 More options May 8 2012, 3:55 am
Newsgroups: alt.slack, alt.tv.star-trek.tos, rec.sport.pro-wrestling, rec.arts.sf.tv, alt.usenet.kooks
From: Rob Cypher <bals...@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 08 May 2012 03:55:42 -0400
Local: Tues, May 8 2012 3:55 am
Subject: Re: SIX REASONS ‘STAR TREK: VOYAGER’ NEVER REALL Y WORKED
On Mon, 7 May 2012 19:53:27 -0700 (PDT), cains...@windstream.net
wrote:

The undead version, which would be appropriate considering the state
of Usenet these days.

.


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
tenworld  
View profile  
 More options May 8 2012, 11:54 am
Newsgroups: alt.tv.star-trek.tos, rec.arts.tv, alt.slack, rec.sport.pro-wrestling, rec.arts.sf.tv
From: tenworld <t...@world.std.com>
Date: Tue, 8 May 2012 08:54:31 -0700 (PDT)
Local: Tues, May 8 2012 11:54 am
Subject: Re: SIX REASONS ‘STAR TREK: VOYAGER’ NEVER REALL Y WORKED
On May 6, 2:16 am, Rob Cypher <bals...@aol.com> wrote:

> Kirk aside, most admirals (real life or otherwise) don't like stepping
> down in rank just because there's a ship involved.

Patrick Obrien used that technique in several variations to keep Jack
Aubrey in command of the Surprise as a captain even after being
promoted several times either to admiral (commodore) or to a larger
ship.  People have compared his relationship with Dr Maturin to Kirk-
Spock. Since he started writing Master & commander in 1970 not sure if
he was influenced by TOS, but there are numerous parallels in the
characters personalities.

 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Your Name  
View profile  
 More options May 8 2012, 5:05 pm
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv, rec.arts.sf.tv
From: YourN...@YourISP.com (Your Name)
Date: Wed, 09 May 2012 09:05:51 +1200
Local: Tues, May 8 2012 5:05 pm
Subject: Re: Re: SIX REASONS ‘STAR TREK: VOYAGER’ NEVER REALL Y WORKED
On May 6, 2:16=A0am, Rob Cypher <bals...@aol.com> wrote:

> Kirk aside, most admirals (real life or otherwise) don't like stepping
> down in rank just because there's a ship involved.

That's because most people are selfish and greedy - they want "power" and
promotion. Kirk on the other hand was perfectly happy being a starship
captain and wasn't interested in moving up the ladder.

 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Ed Stasiak  
View profile  
 More options May 8 2012, 11:17 pm
Newsgroups: alt.tv.star-trek.tos, rec.arts.tv, alt.slack, rec.sport.pro-wrestling, rec.arts.sf.tv
From: Ed Stasiak <estas...@att.net>
Date: Tue, 8 May 2012 20:17:44 -0700 (PDT)
Local: Tues, May 8 2012 11:17 pm
Subject: Re: SIX REASONS ‘STAR TREK: VOYAGER’ NEVER REALL Y WORKED

> David E. Powell
> > Ed Stasiak

> > They should have cast Jeri Ryan as the Capt.

> I always felt that Natalya Nouglich (sp?) would have been

Captain 7th Grade Math Teacher Nechayev…

I'm not knocking the acting abilities of her or Kate Mulgrew
(I liked Voyager for the most part) but if you're going to cast
a woman as a starship captain, "curb appeal" must be your
first priority.


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Harold Groot  
View profile  
 More options May 9 2012, 4:56 am
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv, rec.arts.sf.tv
From: ques...@infionline.net (Harold Groot)
Date: Wed, 09 May 2012 08:56:50 GMT
Local: Wed, May 9 2012 4:56 am
Subject: Re: Re: SIX REASONS ‘STAR TREK: VOYAGER’ NEVER REALL Y WORKED
On Wed, 09 May 2012 09:05:51 +1200, YourN...@YourISP.com (Your Name)
wrote:

>On May 6, 2:16=A0am, Rob Cypher <bals...@aol.com> wrote:

>> Kirk aside, most admirals (real life or otherwise) don't like stepping
>> down in rank just because there's a ship involved.

>That's because most people are selfish and greedy - they want "power" and
>promotion. Kirk on the other hand was perfectly happy being a starship
>captain and wasn't interested in moving up the ladder.

If memory serves, the position of "Captain of the ship" is usually
filled by Admirals these days on The Big Ships (US Navy Aircraft
Carriers).  There is NO actual reason that Admiral Kirk couldn't have
permanently been "Captain of the Enterprise".  (And of course, on
smaller ships you might have a Lieutenant (rank) as Captain (position)
of the ship.) But ST:TMG just tried to make things more dramatic while
explaining why there hadn't been more episodes of ST-TOS with Kirk as
Captain.

Even in ST:TOS they showed other Constellation-Class ships with
Commodores as Captains (this was before the invention of "Rear
Admiral, Lower Half" in the US Navy to take the place of "Commodore".)
So it's not as if Star Fleet absolutely REQUIRED Captains to give up
commanding ships when they were promoted.


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Professor Bubba  
View profile  
 More options May 9 2012, 9:30 am
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv, rec.arts.sf.tv
From: Professor Bubba <bu...@nowhere.edu.invalid>
Date: Wed, 09 May 2012 09:30:42 -0400
Local: Wed, May 9 2012 9:30 am
Subject: Re: Re: SIX REASONS ‘STAR TREK: VOYAGER’ NEVER REALL Y WORKED
In article <4faa2ca3.25898...@news.west.earthlink.net>, Harold Groot

Those ships are commanded by captains, but an admiral might use a
carrier as his flagship.  From his flagship, an admiral commands many
ships, including the one he's on.  An admiral with his flag aboard the
Enterprise could order the captain of the Enterprise to do whatever it
is he wants him to do, but actual command of the ship would remain with
the captain.

 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Discussion subject changed to "SIX REASONS ŒSTAR TREK: VOYAGER¹ NEVER REALL Y WORKED" by anim8rFSK
anim8rFSK  
View profile  
 More options May 9 2012, 11:21 am
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv, rec.arts.sf.tv
From: anim8rFSK <anim8r...@cox.net>
Date: Wed, 09 May 2012 08:21:08 -0700
Local: Wed, May 9 2012 11:21 am
Subject: Re: SIX REASONS ŒSTAR TREK: VOYAGER¹ NEVER REALL Y WORKED
In article <090520120930426798%bu...@nowhere.edu.invalid>,
 Professor Bubba <bu...@nowhere.edu.invalid> wrote:

So just like VOYAGE TO THE BOTTOM OF THE SEA then.

--
So we're all agreed that Clod is as stupid as Charlie Sheen?


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Adam H. Kerman  
View profile  
 More options May 9 2012, 2:20 pm
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv, rec.arts.sf.tv
From: "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com>
Date: Wed, 9 May 2012 18:20:00 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: Re: SIX REASONS ŒSTAR TREK: VOYAGER¹ NEVER REALL Y WORKED

There was a fleet?

 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Messages 1 - 25 of 48   Newer >
« Back to Discussions « Newer topic     Older topic »