Why Are There So Many Voyager Bashers?
Andrew Curry
perticular?
Let's take a look at the presdent series, In Britain we are only up to
DS9:Change Of Heart, the one with Worf And Dax going on a mission together
and Dax nearly dying, and Voyager:Prey, the Hirogen episode featuring
species 8472. They have just been released here so I can only comment on the
stories up to there and all I can say is that , on the whole the series have
been excellent, stories such as the Year of Hell, and The Hirogen Stories
are excelllent, and the Dominion War arc, especially the two parter where
the Federation retakes DS9 is excellent, Now compare those stories to the
Origional Series' third series, which let's face it, was Carp!!, even
Leonard Nemoy once said that he was happy the Star Trek didn't go to a
fourth series because he was unhappy with the quality of the storiesn in the
third series. The first two series were excellent, but even then they didn't
feature major plot arcs up to the quality of say, the Hirogen stories.
Given all this, I would say that modern Trek is much better than TOS.
So why do so many fans complain, I know I don't!!
GeneK
3rd season of TOS... :)
Many older TOS fans consider the "real" TOS to have lasted only through
the 2nd season. Many of the original production people, including GR
himself, stepped back during the 3rd season because NBC's treatment of
the show in scheduling, advertising, etc., made it clear to them the
series was doomed and they needed to look out for their next jobs.
They were replaced by a bunch of hacks who had no real feel for the Trek
concept and just made episodes by formula...much as TPTB do today.
GeneK
Alan Ashby
>concept and just made episodes by formula...much as TPTB do today.
So how does this explain the phenomenal success of modern Trek ?
Alan Ashby
The Shadow
Brooks a better actor then William Shatner but TOS did have a few good shows
in the third season. DS9 and Voyager have had their share of episodes that
are "crap". TOS paved the way and the others to follow and so far they are
all enjoyable to watch.
Andrew Curry wrote in message <6rpf4f$eno$1...@eros.clara.net>...
>Why do so many fans constantly complain about Modern Trek, Voyager in
>perticular?
>
Biomenace
>>concept and just made episodes by formula...much as TPTB do today.
>
>So how does this explain the phenomenal success of modern Trek ?
What does success(nowwhere near as great as TNG or TOS, BTW) have to
do with quality? Are you saying that the writers of the incredibly
succesful "Beavis and Butthead" or "Beverly Hills: 90210" are good
writers?
- Biomenace
I used to be completely clueless but since then I've done a complete 360. - Dilbert
Email me at bi0menac@---->
------->@bestweb.net
Note that the 0 is a zero.
NOT tos...@aol.com or ab...@hotmail.com. They are spamtraps.
rah...@sonic.net
"Andrew Curry" <and...@clara.net> wrote:
> Why do so many fans constantly complain about Modern Trek, Voyager in
> perticular?
>
> Let's take a look at the presdent series, In Britain we are only up to
> DS9:Change Of Heart, the one with Worf And Dax going on a mission together
> and Dax nearly dying, and Voyager:Prey, the Hirogen episode featuring
> species 8472. They have just been released here so I can only comment on the
> stories up to there and all I can say is that , on the whole the series have
> been excellent, stories such as the Year of Hell, and The Hirogen Stories
> are excelllent, and the Dominion War arc, especially the two parter where
> the Federation retakes DS9 is excellent, Now compare those stories to the
> Origional Series' third series, which let's face it, was Carp!!, even
> Leonard Nemoy once said that he was happy the Star Trek didn't go to a
> fourth series because he was unhappy with the quality of the storiesn in the
> third series. The first two series were excellent, but even then they didn't
> feature major plot arcs up to the quality of say, the Hirogen stories.
>
> Given all this, I would say that modern Trek is much better than TOS.
> So why do so many fans complain, I know I don't!!
Brits are lucky...Science Fiction never really stopped production over there
during the "Big Sleep" over here...you always had Dr. Who (The BBC didn't
manage to kill it until after Star Wars revitalized American SF.) Over here,
the fans get nostalgic about TOS, because they ONLY had that as a source
for real SF for so long. The only notable SF during the Trek Gap were things
like "Space 1999" and "Battlestar Galactica" which had their points, but
were very short lived. No other SF series has ever lasted as long as Dr. Who
(What, was it 27 whole YEARS in more or less constant production?)
The "Long" run of TNG has spoiled the fans for the newer series, I'm afraid.
TNG was just getting it's second wind when it got cancelled.
--
- RAH Redwood Elf, Sonoma Valley, Breakfast Cereal Country
"The greatest productive force is human selfishness." - R A Heinlein
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
SJohnson
>
> >They were replaced by a bunch of hacks who had no real feel for the Trek
> >concept and just made episodes by formula...much as TPTB do today.
>
> So how does this explain the phenomenal success of modern Trek ?
Because (until lately) we've been walking ST zombies-- no complaints, no
(gasp!!) thoughts on our own about quality writing, lumbering around
with wallets full of disposable ST cash; in other words, just the way
they liked us... or wanted us. We're not fun to them anymore; we
actually THINK about the dialog, the continuity, and the scenes shown in
the aired episodes. Bad Trek fans; bad, bad, BAD!!
SJohnson
I Doo'd It!!
SJohnson
>
> >>They were replaced by a bunch of hacks who had no real feel for the Trek
> >>concept and just made episodes by formula...much as TPTB do today.
> >
> >So how does this explain the phenomenal success of modern Trek ?
>
> do with quality? Are you saying that the writers of the incredibly
> succesful "Beavis and Butthead" or "Beverly Hills: 90210" are good
> writers?
Exactly; couldn't have said it better, myself!
SJohnson
Richard Sliwa
>
> Why do so many fans constantly complain about Modern Trek, Voyager in
> perticular?
>
> Let's take a look at the presdent series, In Britain we are only up to
> DS9:Change Of Heart, the one with Worf And Dax going on a mission together
> and Dax nearly dying, and Voyager:Prey, the Hirogen episode featuring
> species 8472. They have just been released here so I can only comment on the
> stories up to there
Myself likewise. :)
> and all I can say is that , on the whole the series have
> been excellent, stories such as the Year of Hell, and The Hirogen Stories
> are excelllent,
Come on... You thought Year of Hell was a good story? It was
writing-by-numbers and the ending was completely evident from 2 minutes
after the opening credits of the first half. And that's only because one
detail didn't crop up until after the credits. The story just wrote
itself. It would have made an "intersting" (though not outstanding)
single episode, but there simply wasn't enough material for a
two-parter. But more on that in a moment...
> and the Dominion War arc, especially the two parter where
> the Federation retakes DS9 is excellent, Now compare those stories to the
> Origional Series' third series, which let's face it, was Carp!!, even
> Leonard Nemoy once said that he was happy the Star Trek didn't go to a
> fourth series because he was unhappy with the quality of the storiesn in the
> third series.
You're not comparing like with like, I'm afraid. By the third series,
the two Genes (Roddenberry and Coon) had deserted the sinking ship and
they were only making the episodes for contractual reasons. Hang on,
actually, there is a similarity: Voyager *is* only being made for the
money! Take some of the first two seasons of any of the modern Trek
series and you'll find as many stinkers as there were in the third
season of TOS. It's inexcusable that TNG and Voyager took so long to get
going - surely the "formula" should have been settled and, certainly in
Voyager's case, every episode should've been a scorcher. But we were
dealt utter shite.
DS9 isn't really a Star Trek series. It happens in the Trek universe,
but it has very little in common with the others (apart from the obvious
difference of being largely "immobile"). It deals with a HUGE number of
"standard" or regularly recurring characters (about 20 over the last 3
seasons, compared to 8 for Voyager, 10 or so for TNG and 3+4 for TOS).
It has a much darker outlook and continually questions the moral
superiority of Starfleet, the Federation and their ideals. Is it worse
for that? No, it's just *different*.
> The first two series were excellent, but even then they didn't
> feature major plot arcs up to the quality of say, the Hirogen stories.
So? The whole of TOS only had one two-parter, and that was only the
re-jigged pilot. TOS wasn't *about* arcs or sweeping stories. It was a
series of action-adventure morality plays, each of which was
self-contained.
As a matter of comparison: I've this evening watched a tape of 3 TOS
episodes
("Who Mourns for Adonais", "Amok Time" and "The Doomsday Machine")
closely followed by the latest Voyager tape to be issued: "Hunters" and
"Prey". I know which I'll be watching again first...
The big difference between tos and modern Trek is that TOS was primarily
about telling a good story. A good idea was tossed about and given to a
good writer (usually the major names in episodic scifi at the time) to
develop. The modern series are written by a bunch of writer-producers
who are more interested in how much money they can make (the "producer"
side of the equation) rather than in telling a good story. More
importantly, they don't seem to be able to tell a good story! The
dialogue is vapid, the characters cardboard cutouts and it takes 10
minutes to say something that TOS would've presented in a single look.
Of course, there's the whole infatuation with technobabble. Why tell a
good story when you can have characters spouting off meaningless jargon?
Scotty hardly ever mentioned a technical term. LaForge, Torres or
O'Brien insist on giving us a running commentary on what they're doing
and why it works. Part of this is because the *fans* have become
obsessed with the technology but don't give a damn about the stories and
whether they make sense. Look in any Trek newgroup and the number of
"technical" threads about stardates, warp travel, ship classes, phasers,
how to use a bat'leth (sp?) or the size of Seven of Nine's heels
outweigh discussion of what the episodes are *about* by a factor of
about 9:1.
And then there's the issue of SFX. The whole third season of TOS was
made on a budget approaching the money spent on the Hirogen episodes.
Again, why tell a good story when you can wow audiences with a picture
of an exploding spaceship?
Don't get me wrong, I like modern Trek - I watch every episode of
Voyager hoping that it'll make sense, that technobabble will be cut to a
minimum, that Seven won't remind us that she was a Borg (as if we'd ever
forget!), and that we'll get some decent writing for a change, but more
often than not, I'm disappointed.
There's lots more I could say, but I'll save that for replies to the
further posts which will undoubtedly disagree with me...
--
Star Trek in Sound and Vision http://www.STinSV.com
Boldly Going Where No Web Site Has Ever Gone Before
Louis Brown
wrote:
Hmm..what was your opinion on Living Witness?
Paul Wright
I thought that Voyager bashing was entirely appropriate in the first
three series - and reading a ST companion book recently, it seems that
Jeri Taylor agrees. In particular she hated the Kazon, who I thought
were a particularly pathetic enemy for Voyager. The Viidians were
rather more interesting.
To my shock and horror, I've found series 4 of Voyager to be very good,
and occasionally excellent. What would have made it even better, apart
of course from sacking Brannon Braga, would have been if they had really
gone through with the Year of Hell part one, and not turned it into a
"dream sequence". Pulling the crew back together would have been more
compelling than just going home.
7 of 9 and a new focus on the writing has really turned it round.
I've been a big DS9 fan from the beginning, and IMHO it remains
excellent.
In article <35E0FD34...@stinsv.com>, Richard Sliwa
<ric...@stinsv.com> writes
>Andrew Curry wrote:
>>
>> Why do so many fans constantly complain about Modern Trek, Voyager in
>> perticular?
>>
>> Let's take a look at the presdent series, In Britain we are only up to
>> DS9:Change Of Heart, the one with Worf And Dax going on a mission together
>> and Dax nearly dying, and Voyager:Prey, the Hirogen episode featuring
>> species 8472. They have just been released here so I can only comment on the
>> stories up to there
>
>Myself likewise. :)
>
>> and all I can say is that , on the whole the series have
>> been excellent, stories such as the Year of Hell, and The Hirogen Stories
>> are excelllent,
>
>Come on... You thought Year of Hell was a good story? It was
>writing-by-numbers and the ending was completely evident from 2 minutes
>after the opening credits of the first half. And that's only because one
>detail didn't crop up until after the credits. The story just wrote
>itself. It would have made an "intersting" (though not outstanding)
>single episode, but there simply wasn't enough material for a
>two-parter. But more on that in a moment...
Are there two more frightening words in the English language than
"Brannon Braga"?
Well President Thatcher, actually, but I digress.
>
>DS9 isn't really a Star Trek series. It happens in the Trek universe,
>but it has very little in common with the others (apart from the obvious
>difference of being largely "immobile"). It deals with a HUGE number of
>"standard" or regularly recurring characters (about 20 over the last 3
>seasons, compared to 8 for Voyager, 10 or so for TNG and 3+4 for TOS).
>It has a much darker outlook and continually questions the moral
>superiority of Starfleet, the Federation and their ideals. Is it worse
>for that? No, it's just *different*.
>
Actually I think it makes it better. Much as I love TNG, I think there
are more interesting characters in DS9. Garak, Gul Dukat, Quark ...
>The big difference between tos and modern Trek is that TOS was primarily
>about telling a good story. A good idea was tossed about and given to a
>good writer (usually the major names in episodic scifi at the time) to
>develop.
And didn't survive...
>The modern series are written by a bunch of writer-producers
>who are more interested in how much money they can make (the "producer"
>side of the equation) rather than in telling a good story. More
>importantly, they don't seem to be able to tell a good story! The
>dialogue is vapid, the characters cardboard cutouts and it takes 10
>minutes to say something that TOS would've presented in a single look.
>
And has been going for more than 10 years, in a more money driven
environment. The producers must be doing something right.
>Of course, there's the whole infatuation with technobabble.
I have to agree. I've had enough science training to be a)bored with
science, and b)irritated with the technobabble as an excuse for the
plot
>And then there's the issue of SFX. The whole third season of TOS was
>made on a budget approaching the money spent on the Hirogen episodes.
>Again, why tell a good story when you can wow audiences with a picture
>of an exploding spaceship?
>
I don't think we can forget that this is tv, and the general audience
wants the occasional exploding spaceship. I know I do. They shouldn't
be at the expense of story, but Star Trek can seem VERY SLOW compared to
say ER so they have to do something to keep the audience.
>Don't get me wrong, I like modern Trek - I watch every episode of
>Voyager hoping that it'll make sense, that technobabble will be cut to a
>minimum, that Seven won't remind us that she was a Borg (as if we'd ever
>forget!), and that we'll get some decent writing for a change, but more
>often than not, I'm disappointed.
It is a tv series, and people do have to be brought up to speed
occasionally - not everyone is as obsessive/compulsive as we all are.
--
Paul Wright
Beezel
wrote:
Well Beavis and Butthead WAS written well at least.
The theme of a show is not a testament to the quality of the writing.
No one is more successfully "stupid" than Beavis and Butthead.
That's probably why Voyager sucks so deeply. The theme of the show
sounds like pure "Trek" exploring strange new worlds and all . In
practice it's the most unexciting unoriginal of all the series. DS9
seams more dramatic even without the war element.
Beezel
Biomenace
>>> >>concept and just made episodes by formula...much as TPTB do today.
>>> >
>>> >So how does this explain the phenomenal success of modern Trek ?
>>>
>>> What does success(nowwhere near as great as TNG or TOS, BTW) have to
>>> do with quality? Are you saying that the writers of the incredibly
>>> succesful "Beavis and Butthead" or "Beverly Hills: 90210" are good
>>> writers?
>>
>>Exactly; couldn't have said it better, myself!
>>
>
> Well Beavis and Butthead WAS written well at least.
Hehehehe. Hey beavis, I wonder if when you have sex with a hologram
character your left with your, hehehehe, stuff at the end. Hehehehe.
Hehehehe. Hey butthead, I just shit on your couch. Hehehehe.
HEHEHEHEHE.
Hey butthead, lets burn our house down. Hehehe.
Alright beavis, but first we better pee on the rug to keep that from
burning. Hehehehe.
Such good writing.
Beezel
>
>>
>> Well Beavis and Butthead WAS written well at least.
>
>Hehehehe. Hey beavis, I wonder if when you have sex with a hologram
>character your left with your, hehehehe, stuff at the end. Hehehehe.
>Hehehehe. Hey butthead, I just shit on your couch. Hehehehe.
>HEHEHEHEHE.
>Hey butthead, lets burn our house down. Hehehe.
>Alright beavis, but first we better pee on the rug to keep that from
>burning. Hehehehe.
>
>Such good writing.
>
So you watched the show how many times? once? 1.5? I can really
tell by the way you quoted them so accurately.
I also like the way you only quoted that tiny little bit of my
posting so that you wouldn't have to address the rest of it.
Thank you for missing the point. Your not supposed to IDENTIFIE
with them, your supposed to laugh AT them. Kind of like not wanting to
be LIKE Chris Farley.
But don't let me discourage you. Keep wearing the Janeway wig
and padded bra. they look fine on you! I'm serious!
Beezel
Sandra James
series, or better than TOS. Na...
Anyway, as you're from Britain, do you know when there will be new DS9
episodes on SKY ONE? We're up to "Change of Heart" in Germany too, and
the episodes are going on on a weekly basis, but surely Britain won't
hang behind Germany for long?
Mene sakkhet ur-seveh (Live long and prosper),
T'Reija (Sandra James)
Intelligence Officer
USS Fearless
R Leddy
TNG came out. During that time I have see fans of all trek and some who
like certain series. I found every series have bad episodes and good one's
but it depends on what you like for science fiction. For me I like Trek
because it has a bright future for humans but lots of other science
fiction shows are all dark and humans fighting with every one and
themselves. I like DS9 the most but Voyager like TOS and TNG grow on
you but each series catterers to certain fans of trek.
Sandra James
> Thank you for missing the point. Your not supposed to IDENTIFIE
> with them, your supposed to laugh AT them. Kind of like not wanting to
> be LIKE Chris Farley.
Um, is it just me, or is there anybody else who thinks B&B isn't funny??
> But don't let me discourage you. Keep wearing the Janeway wig
> and padded bra. they look fine on you! I'm serious!
So much for politeness in the NG.
Andrew Curry
GeneK wrote in message <35E056DE.AC66E9F4@genek_hates_spammers.com>...
>Because modern Trek appears to have a great deal in common with the
>3rd season of TOS... :)
>
>Many older TOS fans consider the "real" TOS to have lasted only through
>the 2nd season. Many of the original production people, including GR
>himself, stepped back during the 3rd season because NBC's treatment of
>the show in scheduling, advertising, etc., made it clear to them the
>series was doomed and they needed to look out for their next jobs.
>They were replaced by a bunch of hacks who had no real feel for the Trek
>concept and just made episodes by formula...much as TPTB do today.
>
>GeneK
Kill Switch
Andrew Curry wrote:
> Given all this, I would say that modern Trek is much better than TOS.
No way in hell.
> So why do so many fans complain, I know I don't!!
Because Voyager sucks.
Asmaul (McChesney)
>
> "Asmaul (McChesney)" <ja...@javanet.com> writes
>
> >If paramount wants to turn ST into just a money making show that has no
> >intellect behind it, they're doing well so far.
> that is an astonishingly silly thing to say. Why do you think the
> Original trek was made? it wasn't on PBS you know! I agree that the
> science is irritatingly sketchy (prime candidate is that Voyager episode
> with the "evolved" Dinosaurs?) but it's still more intelligent than most
> shows.
> What I will say though is that it is odd that Trek shows take ages
> to get going... if you look at Stargate SG1 ferex, it is cool right from
> the beginning and I HATED the film.
Obviously paramount wants to make money but the people behind the show itself
are not doing so in an intelligent manner; instead they pander to people who
want nothing but sex and war, etc. Star Trek originally had a real meaning
behind it and had some valuable (if sometimes questionable) points made.
Newer trek has none of this - Voyager and DS9 have devolved into just another
Sci-Fi show. In short, they lack that special touch that Gene Rodenberry
alsways had and seems to be fading now.
--
Jasper (Asmaul) McChesney - ja...@javanet.com
http://www.javanet.com/~jasp/asmaul1.html
Windows 95; the most user friendly pile of crap ever designed.
Antony Alonso
>Original trek was made? it wasn't on PBS you know! I agree that the
>science is irritatingly sketchy (prime candidate is that Voyager episode
>with the "evolved" Dinosaurs?) but it's still more intelligent than most
>shows.
This brings to mind a question: do you refer to "Threshould" or the one
where VOY's crew research a species and found it to evolve from dinosaurs?
I forget the name of that ep (perhaps "Scientific Method"?)
*ATTENTION*
==========
Do NOT auto-reply to this message. The return address has been purposefully
altered so as to prevent unsolicited spam mail. To properly respond via
email, remove the "1" from "NightShade1" in the reply-to address.
The Philosopher's Stone
>This brings to mind a question: do you refer to "Threshould" or the one
>where VOY's crew research a species and found it to evolve from dinosaurs?
>I forget the name of that ep (perhaps "Scientific Method"?)
Both were dodgy but I was referring to the "Scientific method". A
good ep but ridiculous scientifically.
~ "There is no Mathematical substitute for Philosophy" ~
Saul Kripke ~ "Truth and Meaning"
Richard Sliwa
What a deep and *intelligent* reply! If you don't have anything to add
to the discussion, why waste everyone's time?
Give me a bucket, I'm gonna puke...
Richard Sliwa
I'm afraid you've lost me there: if you like the bright, breezy,
optimistic view of Trek, how come your favourite is DS9? Ds9 meets your
description of the SF series you don't like - I can't think of any DS9
episode recently which hasn't been about someone fighting someone else,
ships blowing up, etc.
As for the bright future, for the last 2 seasons, the series is mainly
about the destruction in some way or another of everything we hold dear
about the world the series inhabits.
Don't get me wrong, I like DS9 as well, but I don't say I like it
because of its bright outlook - on the contrary, I like it because it
has a decidedly bleak outlook and dares to question the foundations of
most of what we know of the Trek universe.
DB
<Night...@Clarksburg.com> wrote:
>Hello The Philosopher's Stone, on 29-Aug-98 08:27:22, you said,
>
>>Original trek was made? it wasn't on PBS you know! I agree that the
>>science is irritatingly sketchy (prime candidate is that Voyager episode
>>with the "evolved" Dinosaurs?) but it's still more intelligent than most
>>shows.
>
>This brings to mind a question: do you refer to "Threshould" or the one
>where VOY's crew research a species and found it to evolve from dinosaurs?
>I forget the name of that ep (perhaps "Scientific Method"?)
No, it was "Distant Origin".
Antony Alonso
>>This brings to mind a question: do you refer to "Threshould" or the one
>>where VOY's crew research a species and found it to evolve from
>>dinosaurs? I forget the name of that ep (perhaps "Scientific Method"?)
> Both were dodgy but I was referring to the "Scientific method". A
>good ep but ridiculous scientifically.
Yeah and both featured dinosaur-like creatures :)
>~ "There is no Mathematical substitute for Philosophy" ~
> Saul Kripke ~ "Truth and Meaning"