# VOYAGER's "Twisted" #
Franklin Hummel
"Twisted" --
This was the episode that Paramount thought was so BAD they
seriously considered not airing it?
Of course, it was ridiculous. And stupid. And boring. All
that spacial (yet -another- anomaly episode!) distortion (which always
seemed to happen, conveniently, right at the doorways until the last 15
minutes, no less!) and yet the power and life support and gravity and
almost everything else (except for communications for some, obviously
plot-device, reason) still functioned fine? Oh, please.
But it was -not- as bad as the sexy space slugs trying to get it
on with Voyager. It wasn't as boring as Amelia E. or as pointless as
Harry back on Earth.
It wasn't good either, of course. But the fact Paramount and
all thought this was So Very Bad and didn't think that most of the other
episodes of STAR TREK: VOYAGER were equally bad or worse just goes to
proves to me what I have suspected for sometime now.
They don't have a clue about what is good, bad, or STAR TREK.
-- Frank Hummel [ hum...@netcom.com ]
Robyn Ansley
Hummel) wrote:
>
>
> "Twisted" --
>
> This was the episode that Paramount thought was so BAD they
> seriously considered not airing it?
>
> Of course, it was ridiculous. And stupid. And boring. All
> that spacial (yet -another- anomaly episode!) distortion (which always
> seemed to happen, conveniently, right at the doorways until the last 15
> minutes, no less!) and yet the power and life support and gravity and
> almost everything else (except for communications for some, obviously
> plot-device, reason) still functioned fine? Oh, please.
But now we know who the couples are. When facing death, the Doctor put his
arms around Kes, Tuvok moved closer to Janeway, Chakotay and B'Elanna held
hands, and Paris put his arm around Kim. That was sweet. Otherwise, this
episode was pretty boring, and that's from a die-hard Voyager fan! I want
to know what was in the information loaded into the ship's computer. Will
they ever let us know what the ring was, or what it wanted, or what
information it left behind?
Robyn
Ed Berlot
>
>
> "Twisted" --
>
> This was the episode that Paramount thought was so BAD they
>seriously considered not airing it?
>
> Of course, it was ridiculous. And stupid. And boring. All
>that spacial (yet -another- anomaly episode!) distortion (which always
>seemed to happen, conveniently, right at the doorways until the last 15
>minutes, no less!) and yet the power and life support and gravity and
>almost everything else (except for communications for some, obviously
>plot-device, reason) still functioned fine? Oh, please.
>
>on with Voyager. It wasn't as boring as Amelia E. or as pointless as
>Harry back on Earth.
>
> It wasn't good either, of course. But the fact Paramount and
>all thought this was So Very Bad and didn't think that most of the other
>episodes of STAR TREK: VOYAGER were equally bad or worse just goes to
>proves to me what I have suspected for sometime now.
>
> They don't have a clue about what is good, bad, or STAR TREK.
>
>
> -- Frank Hummel [ hum...@netcom.com ]
Problem with the entire ST series, is that its a big
cash cow for Paramount. They've got the series sold a
season at a time. They don't fear cancellation(no matter
how bad the ratings) untill they decide to cancel it.
>
>
Ted McCoy
Franklin Hummel <hum...@netcom.com> wrote:
> It wasn't good either, of course. But the fact Paramount and
>all thought this was So Very Bad and didn't think that most of the other
>episodes of STAR TREK: VOYAGER were equally bad or worse just goes to
>proves to me what I have suspected for sometime now.
At the very least, you should've said "rumor" instead of "fact."
Ted
Mark Janssen
>
> "Twisted" --
>
> This was the episode that Paramount thought was so BAD they
>seriously considered not airing it?
>
> Of course, it was ridiculous. And stupid. And boring. All
>that spacial (yet -another- anomaly episode!) distortion (which always
>seemed to happen, conveniently, right at the doorways until the last 15
>minutes, no less!) and yet the power and life support and gravity and
>almost everything else (except for communications for some, obviously
>plot-device, reason) still functioned fine? Oh, please.
What made it bad? That it was an anomaly episode, That they didn't talk
about every ship systems reactions to the anomaly. If you want to be a
critic be a good one. Talk about why the dynamics of these kinds of shows
are bad. How they bring out the bad things in TV. Explain why failure to
expound on technical details would lead to a bad episode.
I have become sick of the dime-a-dozen critics on this group who don't
ever get beyond, HATED IT. Depth Depth Depth, or don't waste our time and
yours.
>
> But it was -not- as bad as the sexy space slugs trying to get it
>on with Voyager. It wasn't as boring as Amelia E. or as pointless as
>Harry back on Earth.
Why wasn't it as bad, Writing acting, lack of consequences? We may
acually agree on some points but if you continue with, HATED IT. I will
never agree with you.
>
> It wasn't good either, of course. But the fact Paramount and
>all thought this was So Very Bad and didn't think that most of the other
>episodes of STAR TREK: VOYAGER were equally bad or worse just goes to
>proves to me what I have suspected for sometime now.
>
> They don't have a clue about what is good, bad, or STAR TREK.
Show me you do!
Mark Janssen
Steve Clark
In Article<ransley2-0...@gatekeeper.marsci.uga.edu>,
<rans...@uga.cc.uga.edu> write:
> But now we know who the couples are. When facing death, the Doctor put his
> arms around Kes, Tuvok moved closer to Janeway, Chakotay and B'Elanna held
> hands, and Paris put his arm around Kim. That was sweet. Otherwise, this
> episode was pretty boring, and that's from a die-hard Voyager fan! I want
> to know what was in the information loaded into the ship's computer. Will
> they ever let us know what the ring was, or what it wanted, or what
> information it left behind?
>
> Robyn
[gag, choke] A bit too sweet for my tastes. The last 5 minutes of before the
distortion swallowed them up was like a meeting of the Voyager Crew Mutual
Admaration Club. Please!
-Steve Clark <mail...@pop.net>
Ted McCoy
> Well, let me add my name to your list of dime-a-dozen critics.
>I think that criticizing Trek in depth is truly a waste of time.
>I'd rather see a million posts that say: "I hated it" than 1000
>well-thought critiques.
Personally, I'd prefer one thoughtful critique over a thousand (or a
hundred, or even a dozen) posts that say: "It sucks." If it's a waste of
time to criticize Trek in depth, isn't it even more of a waste of time to
criticize Trek without even bothering to say anything?
>It's a kids show that has dealt with some
>big issues in an immature manner and has attracted the attention
>of a lot of people. I don't know anyone who actually watches the
>show other than to laugh at how cheezy it is.
When Voyager's bad, I tend to find it more embarrassing than funny (with an
occasional exception such as "The 37'ers" where the camp is intentional).
I'm still watching Voyager for only one reason: I haven't completely given
up hope that it'll improve. Unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately), it's
getting awfully close to the point of not being worth the bother. A few more
episodes like the last two and I'll probably give up on Voyager altogether.
>I look forward to a new wave of SF erasing the painful
>"kiddie fantasy" that is on right now (B5, DS9 (sometimes), X-Files
>excepted of course). The end of Trek dominance is at hand. Maybe
>we can see some real SF at some point.
It's sad, but the shows that are moving the farthest from "kiddie fantasy"
(Strange Luck, The X-Files, and American Gothic, for instance) are also the
shows that are moving farthest away from anything resembling science fiction.
I expect we'll be seeing more dark fantasy and less "science fiction" (even
the "kiddie fantasy" variety) in years to come.
>DS9 is the most consistent Trek show. I haven't caught enough of
>it though (about 1/2 of the episodes) but it strikes me as usually
>adult fantasy. There is really only one SF show aimed at adults
>on the air right now and that is Babylon-5. Check it out.
Don't miss the DS9 season premiere! And from what I hear, it sounds like some
of B5's remaining season two episodes are just as good. Actually, this has
turned out to be a relatively decent season for genre fans; starting at
"sf" and moving towards more explicit fantasy, we have B5, DS9, The X-Files,
Strange Luck, and American Gothic -- all of which seem to be primarily aimed
at adults. (Unfortunately, we've also had such misfires and bombs as Space,
Voyager, seaQuest, and Deadly Games.)
Ted
John Benn
Mark Janssen <la...@flowbee.interaccess.com> wrote:
>hum...@netcom.com (Franklin Hummel) writes:
>
>What made it bad? That it was an anomaly episode, That they didn't talk
>about every ship systems reactions to the anomaly. If you want to be a
>critic be a good one. Talk about why the dynamics of these kinds of shows
>are bad. How they bring out the bad things in TV. Explain why failure to
>expound on technical details would lead to a bad episode.
It's really a waste of time. In the beginning I used to spend
hours dissecting Trek episodes to critique them on the net, but
now the episodes are SO bad that it's really pointless. Anyone
halfway intelligent knows how poor Trek is (DS9 half-excepted).
Why waste time doing a big critique when it's painfully obvious
how bad the scripting is. They have great productions but they
couldn't write a compelling story to save their lives.
>I have become sick of the dime-a-dozen critics on this group who don't
>ever get beyond, HATED IT. Depth Depth Depth, or don't waste our time and
>yours.
Well, let me add my name to your list of dime-a-dozen critics.
I think that criticizing Trek in depth is truly a waste of time.
I'd rather see a million posts that say: "I hated it" than 1000
well-thought critiques. It's a kids show that has dealt with some
big issues in an immature manner and has attracted the attention
of a lot of people. I don't know anyone who actually watches the
show other than to laugh at how cheezy it is.
>Why wasn't it as bad, Writing acting, lack of consequences? We may
>acually agree on some points but if you continue with, HATED IT. I will
>never agree with you.
The SCRIPTS!!!! A moron could see the holes in 90% of Trek
episodes. I look forward to a new wave of SF erasing the painful
"kiddie fantasy" that is on right now (B5, DS9 (sometimes), X-Files
excepted of course). The end of Trek dominance is at hand. Maybe
we can see some real SF at some point.
With this being said, I liked some Trek. Alot of TOS was good
but it was poorly produced (mainly a cash issue) and it was mainly
SF. TNG had some bright moments (some Q episodes were amuzing,
"Inner Light", "Best of Both Worlds Part I" and a few others) but
it was basically kiddie fantasy (occasionally adult fantasy).
DS9 is the most consistent Trek show. I haven't caught enough of
it though (about 1/2 of the episodes) but it strikes me as usually
adult fantasy. There is really only one SF show aimed at adults
on the air right now and that is Babylon-5. Check it out.
--
*** Insanity is part of the times. You must learn to embrace ***
*** the madness and let it fire you.--Londo Mollari, Babylon-5 ***
Doug Lavan
> ever get beyond, HATED IT. Depth Depth Depth, or don't waste our time and
> yours.
Funny you mention this, because, yes, the Voyager problem is more than
just, "Gee, that was lame, let's see what we can gripe about next week."
"Twisted." I'm not just saying this, but that episode was predictable.
I figured either the HoloDeck WAS the bridge OR that they had to wait it
out.
My basic beef with Voyager is believability.
Right now, Voyager is supposed to be Trek Next Gen. with different faces
and it's NOT working! (yet)
There NEEDS to be a driving goal for these people. Sure they are trying
to get home, but they sure seem lackadasical about it. Getting home
should be in the backs of their minds, and they should at least have a
carrot on a stick to make us believe they WANT to get home.
Where's the carrot? They passed it up a few shows ago.
#1--The Eirhardt (sp?) episode. These strange aliens that abducted the
Earthlings? Well, instead of having the alien ship destroyed with no
traces, they should at least have picked up a clue to this race and/or
run across them in space then or later.
THEN the writers should establish this race as hostile, THEN
Voyager should be bound and determined to capture the "Hyperdrive" or
whatever everytime they run across these aliens.
Makes for a wonderful goose chase that's more believable than, "try, try
again."
Voyager is too flowery right now. They need to bend the rules be active
and stop flying that heap into space anomolies
Seriously. They need an evil alien race that wants to KILL Them on
sight. They need to at least find a piece of the puzzle (remember the
planet with the device that would knock 30 years off their trip? Let
them have that device, knock ten years off and THEN have it break. But
also then have them seek a way to fix it modify it , find another....).
They can't be Next Gen until we believe the characters are complete and
have a plan. Janeway is too much of a buddy. She's not believeable as a
leader.
So, knock off the interpersonal mish-mash, and focus on races, true
Trek-tech, and a nemesis/antagonist.
Do comment if I'm not making my point quite right.
Wolvie
Christine Raasch
: I think that twisted had some of the best ST:TOS-like dialogue of any of
: the Voyager eps that I've seen so far. The internal debating, the
: decisions made by the crew and the resolutions.
Voyager has, IMHO, some good characters. What it is typically lacking
is plot...suspense...drama! "Twisted" and last week's "Non Sequitor"
are classic examples. Lots of hand-wringing by the crew, but for me,
never the _slightest_ doubt that everything would be back to ground
zero at the end. And cripes, why did they have to throw in that tired
"something was trying to communicate with us" bit at the end?
: There were points that I didn't like or even thought were lame, but the
: overall concept of twisted was excellent. The special effects made it an
: interesting show and I'm not aware of any other Sci-Fi ideal that has
: specifically bent with a life-form that exists in space and is capable of
: so severly altering spacetime.
Erm, what special effects? Shot after shot of corridors and doors and
the "Sandrine's" set, one green cloud (size Medium), a wireframe pic
of Voyager (which was not distorted _nearly_ enough to account for all
the deck switcheroos, IMHO), and some carnival-mirror wiggly shots of
Janeway's hand and the crew. And as for spacial alterations, they
were awfully orderly, weren't they? Why didn't some corridors dead
end, or open into space, or connect the warp core to the holodeck?
(Crewmen goes to Sandrine's latrine...flash...sizzle... ;-)
: I think Twisted was as good as any of the episodes so far.
I can't disagree with that. :-)
- Chris
--
Christine C. Raasch <*> Neuromuscular Biomechanist <*> Bikerbabe
Stanford University <*> VA Palo Alto Rehab R&D Ctr <*> gone ridin'
<*> Babylon 5 Final Four - 180 Minutes of Perfect Beauty <*>
Dave Christiansen
Next time put spoiler space in, for those who haven't seen it
yet, dumbass.
[Spoilers follow]
>
> Of course, it was ridiculous. And stupid. And boring. All
>that spacial (yet -another- anomaly episode!) distortion (which always
>seemed to happen, conveniently, right at the doorways until the last 15
>minutes, no less!) and yet the power and life support and gravity and
>almost everything else (except for communications for some, obviously
>plot-device, reason) still functioned fine? Oh, please.
Ummm... let's see:
- If the spatial distortion overran the ship in less than an
hour, the episode would have been pretty short, wouldn't it?
- If the spatial distortion took LONGER than an hour, we'd
have had a "continued" episode. Most people HATE those.
- Life support still functioned because the doorways and
hallways remained connected. That's the only thing the distortion
really did, was shift things around. While I'm sure it occurred to
most of us that the distortion might shift a hallway into a warp
plasma thingie, there was probably something keeping this from
happening.
Please open your mind before the next time you open your mouth.
> But it was -not- as bad as the sexy space slugs trying to get it
>on with Voyager. It wasn't as boring as Amelia E. or as pointless as
>Harry back on Earth.
I found the space slugs episode rather amusing. The point was
NOT the slugs, but more the deliberation over Kes's childbearing
problem. Gads... I've never read a post so misguided...
Amelia E's episode wasn't all that boring. For those of us
NOT raised in a 2-second-attention-span environment, the plot was
satisfactory. Harry's episode was all development for a character
who, until now, has been neglected in this arena. We now know more
about Harry Kim than we did before.
> It wasn't good either, of course. But the fact Paramount and
>all thought this was So Very Bad and didn't think that most of the other
>episodes of STAR TREK: VOYAGER were equally bad or worse just goes to
>proves to me what I have suspected for sometime now.
What's that, that maybe you should stop watching and posting?
> They don't have a clue about what is good, bad, or STAR TREK.
They aren't the only ones, Frank...
> -- Frank Hummel [ hum...@netcom.com ]
--
Dave Christiansen <href=http://www.public.iastate.edu/~basilisk>
basi...@iastate.edu Stop Senator Exon and the Communications Decency act!
This message may not be transmitted to or received from the Microsoft Network.
-- The opinions expressed above are mine and not necessarily anyone else's. --
Franklin Hummel
la...@flowbee.interaccess.com (Mark Janssen) writes:
>hum...@netcom.com (Franklin Hummel) writes:
>>
>> Of course, it was ridiculous. And stupid. And boring. All
>>that spacial (yet -another- anomaly episode!) distortion (which always
>>seemed to happen, conveniently, right at the doorways until the last 15
>>minutes, no less!) and yet the power and life support and gravity and
>>almost everything else (except for communications for some, obviously
>>plot-device, reason) still functioned fine? Oh, please.
>
>about every ship systems reactions to the anomaly. If you want to be a
illogical, inconsistant manner.
>critic be a good one. Talk about why the dynamics of these kinds of shows
>are bad. How they bring out the bad things in TV. Explain why failure to
>expound on technical details would lead to a bad episode.
>I have become sick of the dime-a-dozen critics on this group who don't
>ever get beyond, HATED IT. Depth Depth Depth, or don't waste our time and
>yours.
Been there. Done that. Done that lots and lots of times for the
past 5+ years. I've gotten tired of wasting my time on "Depth, Depth,
Depth" especially with VOYAGER when there is -no- "Depth". That is a big
part of the series' problems.
In fact, I guess your problem is dealing with the fact since
VOYAGER's problems have become so cliche, the criticism has also become
cliche. There isn't much new or original or creative to the criticism
because there is nothing new or original or creative to VOYAGER.
>> But it was -not- as bad as the sexy space slugs trying to get it
>>on with Voyager. It wasn't as boring as Amelia E. or as pointless as
>>Harry back on Earth.
>
>Why wasn't it as bad, Writing acting, lack of consequences? We may
>acually agree on some points but if you continue with, HATED IT. I will
>never agree with you.
I do not care if you agree with me or not it the slightest. In
fact, after reading your message, I am happier that you do not. However,
one only need to read the messages in rec.arts.startrek.current and
rec.arts.sf.tv for the last 8 months and see how ST:V's ratings are
dropping to know a lot of other folks have opinions similar to mind.
>> It wasn't good either, of course. But the fact Paramount and
>>all thought this was So Very Bad and didn't think that most of the other
>>episodes of STAR TREK: VOYAGER were equally bad or worse just goes to
>>proves to me what I have suspected for sometime now.
>>
>> They don't have a clue about what is good, bad, or STAR TREK.
>
>Show me you do!
VOYAGER is not worth my time to do so. And, sorry, nor are you.
-- Frank Hummel [ hum...@netcom.com ]
Franklin Hummel
>
> Next time put spoiler space in, for those who haven't seen it
>yet, dumbass.
that "Twisted" is an episode you haven't seen yet, that's your problem.
And, by the way, I don't think it is possible to spoil something
like "Twisted" which was already putrid when it aired.
-- Frank Hummel [ hum...@netcom.com ]
Jennifer Ann Kirtley
: Been there. Done that. Done that lots and lots of times for the
: past 5+ years. I've gotten tired of wasting my time on "Depth, Depth,
: Depth" especially with VOYAGER when there is -no- "Depth". That is a big
: part of the series' problems.
: VOYAGER is not worth my time to do so. And, sorry, nor are you.
I've been reading this news group for about a month now.
I /still/ can't figure out why people who seem to dislike the show
so much continue to watch it. I know that many USENET users have
a rather inflated opinion of their importance in the universe,
but in reality all the flaming here really isn't going to have
much of an impact on the show. Writing to the production house
might be a little more helpful, but when you come right down to
it the /only/ way you can really express your opinion and have
any impact on any television show is to watch it, or turn the
channel.
So a brief suggestion to all of those valiently martyring
themselves by watching a show they hate: DON'T. Turn the
channel, read a book, walk the dog.
And let those of us who actually enjoy Voyager watch it
in peace. Thank you.
-Jenni
je...@crl.com
http://www.crl.com/~jenni
Arthur Levesque
>I think Twisted was as good as any of the episodes so far.
Was that supposed to be a compliment or an insult?
E.W. Swan
> > I've been reading this news group for about a month now.
> >
> > I /still/ can't figure out why people who seem to dislike the show
> > so much continue to watch it. I know that many USENET users have
> > And let those of us who actually enjoy Voyager watch it
> > in peace. Thank you.
>
> debate. I admit that saying "Voyager sucks" is pointless, but I don't
> think all that many people have been doing *just* that.
Must be your newsfeeder, then... =) I'd say the ratio of outright
bashing to thoughtful criticism runs at least two to one, and the ratio
of negative to positive overall about three to one. People literally
trip over themselves to point out holes in the stories. I'm guilty of
same once in a while too.
> Jenni, surely you see the contradiction in your own logic here? You say to
> Voyager critics, well, don't watch the show and stop complaining
> here--"leave us in peace". Surely your own comment could be thrown back on
> you to say "stop reading the newsgroup if criticism bothers you."
But the point is, that this newsgroup exists so that people who *enjoy*
Voyager can get together and share their comments, as well as for those
who want to criticize. People posting to alt.tv.star-trek.voyager are
here because they watch the show and would like to discuss it. It
seems puzzling that so many people continue to watch Voyager repeatedly
despite the fact that they consider it utter garbage. Now, I don't watch
shows that I consider to be garbage. When my wife insists on watching
"Beverly Hills 90210" I go downstairs for an hour and play Descent. I
don't go into the 90210 forum and tell them what a crappy show they're
watching.
> For those of you who like the show, presumably reading a bunch of critical
> posts won't particularly change your preferences unless they're very
> shallow to begin with. I'm not at all clear why you feel the need to be
> "left in peace" on the newsgroup, or what would happen if you were.
I dunno, a TV show can be like having a friend that none of your other
friends likes. If your buddies are badmouthing so-and-so, you feel less
and less inclined to want to hang out with this person because of all the
bad vibes the other people send off. People are very quick to run off
with the crowd.... just look at the popularity of "Star Trek" itself.
Trekkers used to be ridiculed as geeks and nerds... but after the success
of TNG, it got so much media coverage that being a Trekker was considered
mainstream.
> And presumably, if you like the show, you want to attract more viewers
> rather than admonish a lot of people to stop watching. Voyager's ratings
If the ratings dip, the producers are more apt to take steps to improve
the show. I say, if you're not happy with Voyager, vote with your
remote.
> really well-done Trek show could and should be getting higher ratings.
> Surely Trek--at its best--is better than Seaquest, even the new and
> allegedly improved Seaquest. Fewer viewers = eventual cancellation.
If the show is not worthy of staying on the air, then it should be
scrapped. I don't want to encourage people to watch TV which they think
sucks. Quality is the key, not the quantity (number of viewers).
> But to date, I really think the show's writers have shown a fundamental
> lack of faith in their own vision. They built up a really intriguing
> foundation before the show ever started but they're now gazing wistfully
> on it from a distance.
I agree completely with your points on how Voyager has drifted since the
days of "Caretaker". Although, with "Twisted", TPTB are starting to take
some steps back toward this vision. You made some excellent points about
crew divisions and a general weariness that would come from making such a
long journey back, plus a lack of really tough choices for the crew.
> I think the characters have been similarly squandered, but I won't dwell
> on that here, as this post is already overlong.
I've said this a bunch of times, but your statement is especially true of
Tom Paris.
> I don't understand why the people who like this show are unwilling to hear
> such criticisms. Is your liking for the show so fragile that you cannot
> bear to hear any critique? Is your pleasure in watching "Voyager" so
> tentative that you have to stick your fingers in your ears and hum real
> loud at any complaint? Do you really want all the people who are sitting
> on the fence to stop watching? If they do, you're not going to have the
> show that you like all that much longer, I think.
It's not that we tolerate *no* criticism of "Voyager". Your thoughts
were most appreciated.... I either said "I agree completely" or "I can
see where he's coming from" to most of your critiques (with exception of
"Learning Curve", which I thought was a terrific episode). You recognize
that there are *good* qualities in Voyager along with some things that
need a lot of work. You saw the potential we had in "Caretaker" and you
know that it hasn't been completely thrown away yet. Those few who have
lost their interest *should* go their separate ways. They'll be doing
two things: a) letting Paramount know that their new baby is a bastard
child and b) making things easier on those of us who still like the show.
The naysayers will have their way, and it's their right to let us know
they're unhappy... it just puzzles me that people would put themselves
intentionally in a situation where they would be so unhappy. Over and over.
Voyager isn't perfect. But I think it's a very enjoyable piece of
entertainment and makes a nice addition to the Trekverse *right now*. I
don't watch it because I think "it will get better". When Voyager stops
entertaining me, I will switch it off and free up my Monday nights for
some other activity. Until then, I'll read this newsgroup and weather
the criticism along with the praise.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|**| es...@cris.com |**| es...@worldbank.org |**| edwar...@wdn.com |**|
Any unsolicited commercial e-mail sent to any of the above addresses will
be proof-read at a rate of $62 an hour, minimum 1 hour. Sending or forwarding
of such mail constitutes an agreement of these terms.
Claire Maier
:
: "Twisted" --
:
: This was the episode that Paramount thought was so BAD they
: seriously considered not airing it?
I wish they'd done more than seriously consider it. Yes, it was that
bad. But I guess Paramount doesn't care if a show is bad or not.
They'll still air it.
Liz Hainey
TREK. The episode revealed some interesting tidbits about the interplay
between characters, and the overall plot wasn't too bad. Although (like
many others) I have suggestions for improvement, we could suggest
improvement about nearly every episode of every ST series. So why not
also take a look at some of the good aspects of every show. Remember,
STAR TREK means different things to different people, and you obviously
have a different view from Paramount (and me). So is it really
necessary that you be so negative? Perhaps you should watch something
else instead....
-liz
-
Dave Christiansen <basi...@iastate.edu> wrote:
>In <Pine.A32.3.91j.95100...@homer28.u.washington.edu> Doug Lavan <wol...@u.washington.edu> writes:
>
>>My basic beef with Voyager is believability.
>
>what's so different about Voyager's?
>
>>Right now, Voyager is supposed to be Trek Next Gen. with different faces
>>and it's NOT working! (yet)
Gods, I hope not! I didn't think too highly of STTNG, and I think
Voyager is twice as good. And let's not even talk about DS9. :-(
>>#1--The Eirhardt (sp?) episode. These strange aliens that abducted the
>>Earthlings? Well, instead of having the alien ship destroyed with no
>>traces, they should at least have picked up a clue to this race and/or
>>run across them in space then or later.
>
>> THEN the writers should establish this race as hostile, THEN
>>Voyager should be bound and determined to capture the "Hyperdrive" or
>>whatever everytime they run across these aliens.
>
>>Seriously. They need an evil alien race that wants to KILL Them on
>>sight. They need to at least find a piece of the puzzle (remember the
>>planet with the device that would knock 30 years off their trip? Let
>>them have that device, knock ten years off and THEN have it break. But
>>also then have them seek a way to fix it modify it , find another....).
>
>>So, knock off the interpersonal mish-mash, and focus on races, true
>>Trek-tech, and a nemesis/antagonist.
Granted, an ongoing nemesis (how 'bout having Q show up? :-) would be nice.
But as for the tech... to discover {mind-boggling/paradigm-shattering/
tantalizing} technology and then {blow it up/leave it behind/decide it's
too dangerous to use/simply ignore it} is a hallmark of classic Star Trek.
How about the Atavacron, the gizmo that turned Play-Doh into perfect
clones, the Time Portal, Spock's Brain... the list goes on and on. Heck,
maybe there's a Star Fleet Directive (the Prime Time Directive) that
forbids searching for useful technology. :-)
It's not that I entirely disagree with the criticism, but it has to be
levied against TNG and the original Trek, too. Voyager is just carrying
the torch.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Bill Thacker AT&T Network Systems w...@cbemg.att.com
(614) 860-5294 Columbus, Ohio
Pam & Rick Buickel
Succinct recommendation, Liz! I get so tired of the bitching and
complaining from people who are watching every single nanosecond and
don't seem to get it that Paramount KNOWS you're watching it,
especially when you're complaining, and they also know that BAD press
is better than NO press. So if you really hate it, CHANGE CHANNELS.
If you can't figure out how to use the remote buttons, find a child to
help you.
Personally, I suspect Liz and I look for the same things from Trek.
There were more than a few interesting tidbits of character interplay,
and the plot was surprisingly very good. I've watched this one twice
already--I liked it the first time, and LOVED it the second. In fact,
I'd have to say this is one of my favorites thus far!! Good plot,
witty writing, clever character interaction, and in the end, pretty
fine directing by Kim Friedman. What I liked best about this one is
that it was a very good ensemble piece--and ultimately, those are the
ones I personally prefer. Case in point, "Civil Defense" was one of my
favorite 3rd season DS9 episodes. Give me a good ensemble episode, and
I'm quite satisfied.
This was a good one!!
Pam
--
"This is where you pucker up and kiss my ass."
-Skinner- [The X Files]
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
Bashir's Incredibly Magnificent Seraglio
Paris-ite #3, Beltranista
X-Phile, Forever Knightie wannabe
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
rick...@ix.netcom.com
Packaging Excellence
"There were points that I didn't like or even thought were lame, but the
overall concept of twisted was excellent. The special effects made it an
interesting show and I'm not aware of any other Sci-Fi ideal that has
specifically bent with a life-form that exists in space and is capable of
so severly altering spacetime.
I think Twisted was as good as any of the episodes so far."
I agree, for reasons below listed in my earlier post (no last-second soultions, something we didn't
understand, possibilities for data dumped into computer, no whining about not being human, no
"dream sequences," etc.)
Timothy Reed
"E.W. Swan" <Es...@cris.com> wrote:
[snip]
> It
> seems puzzling that so many people continue to watch Voyager repeatedly
> despite the fact that they consider it utter garbage.
[snip]
> The naysayers will have their way, and it's their right to let us know
> they're unhappy... it just puzzles me that people would put themselves
> intentionally in a situation where they would be so unhappy. Over and over.
Although disappointed by trite plots and frustrated at no development of
once-promising characters, I watch Voyager *hoping* that it will get
better. I don't want it to fail, I want it to be successful. I want it to
be a show that I eagerly await watching each week. So far, it is not.
Unfortunately the only thing that anyone can do outside of Paramount to
improve the show is a longshot at best. Write and submit good scripts, and
maybe once in a great while, they'll buy a story idea. But
Berman/Piller/Taylor seem bent on sticking to scripts without any
substance.
_____________________________________________________________________
Timothy Reed Ball Aerospace and Technologies Corp. tr...@ball.com
Senior Optics Engineer/2nd Generation Hubble Space Telescope Programs
The opinions expressed herein are my own, and do not necessarily
represent those of Ball Corporation or of Ball Aerospace.
Arthur Levesque
>2. The crew came up with NO answer ... they were just lucky. YES! No
>"pulling-a-solution-out-of-my-ass-captain" this time!
Do you mean "Wait a minute! If we just ignore it, it will go away"
ISN'T an anally-extracted solution?
Jose R. Perez
>So a brief suggestion to all of those valiently martyring
>themselves by watching a show they hate: DON'T. Turn the
>channel, read a book, walk the dog.
>
>And let those of us who actually enjoy Voyager watch it
>in peace. Thank you.
>
>-Jenni
>je...@crl.com
>http://www.crl.com/~jenni
I don't hate Voyager, and in fact, I've enjoyed some episodes, although I must admit
to finding DS9 superior (which is a shock, since I hated it the first season). However, this last
Voyager episode was excruciatingly bad, so I can understand the criticism.
To start with:
We have another anomaly... One who supposedly alters the ship's configuration... Fine, but
why is it that none of the characters sees the change happening before their eyes, not behind
some closed door? Why would the corridors change without affecting the hull integrity or
opening up to space? Why would the corridors change instantly? Why is the ship supposedly
compressed, since a compression would have precious little to do with reconfigured corridors?
Why are the corridors always changing, but engineering is still accessible through the turbolift?
Why does Tuvok not realize after leaving the bridge that he is entering an area of the ship in
flux? Why, oh why is everyone praising each other so much? Why is Neelix *so* jealous, and
why does it seem he has never been jealous before in his life? Why is he *so* annoying? Why is the
doctor (a program, for God's sake) affected by the anomaly? Why is it that when an anomaly
affects the computer systems, only convenient (read: plot convenient) things go out, like
comm. systems and the ability to leave the holodeck? Why did we have so many scenes that
seemed like filler? (Example: Kim comes in. He says he is lost. B'ellanna says she is lost too.
They complain about being lost. Finally, they leave.)
This episode did not make sense in so many levels that it was astounding. I also just
realized that it combines the most overused aspects of ST ever, the broken holodeck and
the space anomaly. I love ST when they are exploring, discovering new races that will reappear
and affect the ST universe in some way, or further developing the races already discovered, or the
Federation. Hell, I even enjoy the episodes which only serve to further develop a character like
Picard's family episodes and even Kim on earth. Episodes where they get into a made-up problem,
and get out with a made-up solution are boring and stupid, and possibly insulting.
I still have hope for Voyager, but all other ST shows improved the second season, and this one
is going downhill.
Just my opinion, of course.
--
*Jose R. Perez *"Never tell me the odds!!"-Han Solo *
*gt4...@prism.gatech.edu* Get a head start on obtaining Windows 2010 and *
* * a P7 computer... Use a PowerMac today! *
***************************************************************************
Pam & Rick Buickel
In <44sfmj$1...@news.indy.net> foxm...@indy1.uucp (Rick Hodgin ***
Author of Q/Language) writes:
>I think that twisted had some of the best ST:TOS-like dialogue of any
>of
>the Voyager eps that I've seen so far. The internal debating, the
>decisions made by the crew and the resolutions.
>
>There were points that I didn't like or even thought were lame, but
>the
>overall concept of twisted was excellent.
Well, I find myself happily agreeing with you. If "Twisted" is the
WORST thing they've ever done, then I'm one happy camper. :-)
"Twisted" is about relationships, character interaction--some of the
best dialogue I've heard in a long time. A few characters got more
fleshing out in this ep than ever before--Tuvok, for one . . . even
Neelix!
>The special effects made it an
>interesting show and I'm not aware of any other Sci-Fi ideal that has
>specifically bent with a life-form that exists in space and is capable
>of
>so severly altering spacetime.
Whether this is a valid or hard sci fi concept or not is irrelevant.
Star Trek has NEVER been about hard sci fi. If that's what you're
looking for, read a book. Star Trek is an adventure show--GR's wagon
train to the stars. It's about people who persevere and endure in the
23rd and 24th centuries--who live together, work together, grow
together, have to survive together, while encountering new places and
people, and opportunities. This is what I ultimately look for in each
Trek episode, and I think Voyager is maintaining the legacy nicely.
And "Twisted" meets the criteria for entertainment in my book. Good
stuff!! :-D
>I think Twisted was as good as any of the episodes so far.
The last 10 minutes were overly melodramatic, but I still have to
agree--I think this is one of the better eps I've seen.
Two thumbs UP (both of mine)!!
Pam
--
"I'm not willing to believe I'm simply
that obvious." -Edina- [AbFab]
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
Pam Buickel - rick...@ix.netcom.com
SEFEB * Paris-ite #3 * Beltranista
DRX * RanDoM Flight * Now Voyager * OASIS *
Andy Robinson Fan Club * ORACLE
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
"Before anyone passes judgement, may I
remind you--we are in the Arctic."
-Fox Mulder- [X-Files]
Jennifer Ann Kirtley
: In article <44tseh$g...@crl3.crl.com>, je...@crl.com (Jennifer Ann Kirtley)
: wrote:
: > I /still/ can't figure out why people who seem to dislike the show
: > so much continue to watch it.
: Sigh. I don't grok either of the extremes in this particular interminable
: debate. I admit that saying "Voyager sucks" is pointless, but I don't
: think all that many people have been doing *just* that.
: Jenni, surely you see the contradiction in your own logic here? You say to
: Voyager critics, well, don't watch the show and stop complaining
: here--"leave us in peace". Surely your own comment could be thrown back on
: you to say "stop reading the newsgroup if criticism bothers you."
Ahh, but you see I don't mind /criticism/, I mind the sensless
flaming. Your post is what I *like* to see, and why I read
this group; thoughtful discussion of what you don't like,
what you do like, and what you'd like to see.
Unfortunately, I have to plow through a lot of "this show
sucks!" to get to posts like this. And a fair amount of
"I'll never watch this show again!", of course followed
the next week with "Now I'll /really/ never watch this show
again!"
I know, I know; after over 10 years floating around USENET,
I should be numb to the childish antics of a portion of the
population. I know how to use a killfile, and I do. But
every now and then having to spend 10 minutes adding to
my killfile to come up with a few interesting tid-bits
gets to me still. :)
-Jenni
je...@crl.com
http://www.crl.com/~jenni
Franklin Hummel
>In <DFxLx...@news.arco.com> Liz Hainey <l...@arco.com> writes:
>>I suspect the YOU don't have a clue about what is good, bad, or STAR
>>TREK.
the orignal show, helping run TREK cons, having TREK actors into my home
for dinner. And when was the last time an episode of TREK was produced
in great part as a result of your efforts? Hmm?
>> The episode revealed some interesting tidbits about the
>>interplay
>>between characters, and the overall plot wasn't too bad. Although
Chracter development is great, however, cliche chaacterization is
not and that's what was in this episode.
And, "plot"? What plot??? I must have blink while watching the
episode and missed it.
>>(like
>>many others) I have suggestions for improvement, we could suggest
>>improvement about nearly every episode of every ST series. So why not
>>also take a look at some of the good aspects of every show. Remember,
Always look on the bright side of Life? Don't worry, be happy?
Don't rock the boat? Don't ask; don't tell?
>>STAR TREK means different things to different people, and you
>>obviously
>>have a different view from Paramount (and me). So is it really
>>necessary that you be so negative? Perhaps you should watch something
It sure is necessary that I be so negative. It's the ONLY way
VOYAGER will ever have a chance of improving. Sorry, I don't think
accepting the shit VOYAGER is feeding me and having a big mindless grin
on my face and I eat it is gonna do anything to make it a better series.
>>else instead....
>Succinct recommendation, Liz! I get so tired of the bitching and
>complaining from people who are watching every single nanosecond and
Then follow your own advice and stop reading these newsgroups.
>don't seem to get it that Paramount KNOWS you're watching it,
>especially when you're complaining, and they also know that BAD press
>is better than NO press. So if you really hate it, CHANGE CHANNELS.
>If you can't figure out how to use the remote buttons, find a child to
>help you.
Can't, since most of them are likely the ones watching VOYAGER,
as it seems to be aimed at their intelligence and maturity level.
-- Frank Hummel [ hum...@netcom.com ]
Timothy Burke
> I've been reading this news group for about a month now.
>
> I /still/ can't figure out why people who seem to dislike the show
> so much continue to watch it. I know that many USENET users have
> a rather inflated opinion of their importance in the universe,
> but in reality all the flaming here really isn't going to have
> much of an impact on the show. Writing to the production house
> might be a little more helpful, but when you come right down to
> it the /only/ way you can really express your opinion and have
> any impact on any television show is to watch it, or turn the
> channel.
>
> So a brief suggestion to all of those valiently martyring
> themselves by watching a show they hate: DON'T. Turn the
> channel, read a book, walk the dog.
>
> And let those of us who actually enjoy Voyager watch it
> in peace. Thank you.
Sigh. I don't grok either of the extremes in this particular interminable
debate. I admit that saying "Voyager sucks" is pointless, but I don't
think all that many people have been doing *just* that.
Jenni, surely you see the contradiction in your own logic here? You say to
Voyager critics, well, don't watch the show and stop complaining
here--"leave us in peace". Surely your own comment could be thrown back on
you to say "stop reading the newsgroup if criticism bothers you."
For those of you who like the show, presumably reading a bunch of critical
posts won't particularly change your preferences unless they're very
shallow to begin with. I'm not at all clear why you feel the need to be
"left in peace" on the newsgroup, or what would happen if you were.
And presumably, if you like the show, you want to attract more viewers
rather than admonish a lot of people to stop watching. Voyager's ratings
at this point are hovering right next to Seaquest's and they are miles
below "The X-Files". That makes the show a big hit for UPN, but surely a
really well-done Trek show could and should be getting higher ratings.
Surely Trek--at its best--is better than Seaquest, even the new and
allegedly improved Seaquest. Fewer viewers = eventual cancellation.
I continue to watch the show because I think Voyager has potential: I
don't want to miss it when the show really hits all cylinders, as it did
in "State of Flux", "Prime Factors" and "Projections", particularly the
former. I think the dramatic situation underlying the show could be
tremendously exciting. I think that most of the characters are
well-conceived and could be intriguingly different from past Treks.
But to date, I really think the show's writers have shown a fundamental
lack of faith in their own vision. They built up a really intriguing
foundation before the show ever started but they're now gazing wistfully
on it from a distance.
Two dimensions of the dramatic premise have gone almost completely unused.
First, the inherent divisions between the crew. The writers have moved
with great rapidity to patch these divisions over: within a season, we
have Chakotay as happy Starfleet officer, Maquis malcontents making nice
with Tuvok, and kissy-faces all around at the sickeningly sweet conclusion
to "Twisted". I'm not saying that every episode should have people at each
other's throats, because that would be equally trite.
But why not build off of the really intriguing speech that Sisko made last
season on ST: Deep Space Nine, that people living at the heart of the
Federation no longer understand what it is like to live at its edges? Why
not make the conflict between some Maquis and some Starfleet crewmembers
at its heart a conflict over moral, political and social philosophy rather
than a pure case of personality conflicts? "Learning Curve" should have
been an episode like this, but it wasn't. We should have had two or three
episodes already where a genuine dilemma--a choice between two equally
valid course of action--turned on precisely these kinds of disagreements.
But we haven't. That's a failure on the part of the writing staff, plain
and simple.
The second dimension that goes unused is the Odyssey-like quality of the
whole show. I can buy the relative perkiness of the crew for the first six
episodes or so, but now the difficult choices should be starting to wear a
bit ragged around the edges. There should be a sense of active debate
within the crew, and a sense that this mission is unlike any other. We get
that sometimes in episodes, but only fitfully, as if the writers are
afraid of facing up to *changes* in the Trek formula. The writers don't
want to lose access to some of the standard Trek plots (sent to explore a
planet, sent to negotiate a treaty, that sort of thing) but if they were
afraid of the consequences, they shouldn't have set the situation up in
the first place.
I can buy everyone staying on board in "The 37s", but that decision should
have been the dramatic heart and soul of the episode. Instead, it mostly
happened off camera and it came off as casual and flip. It should have
been hard-won and painful. Likewise, the decision to consider re-fitting
Voyager as a *generation ship* that we saw in "Elogium" shouldn't have
been an afterthought that was crammed into a ridiculous "A story" about
space whales. It should have been the dramatic core of the episode,
without any distractions. Guys, we WILL watch episodes in which the ship
is not in danger: you don't have to do that every time. That was a
weakness of the TNG staff and it's much worse on "Voyager".
I think the characters have been similarly squandered, but I won't dwell
on that here, as this post is already overlong.
I don't understand why the people who like this show are unwilling to hear
such criticisms. Is your liking for the show so fragile that you cannot
bear to hear any critique? Is your pleasure in watching "Voyager" so
tentative that you have to stick your fingers in your ears and hum real
loud at any complaint? Do you really want all the people who are sitting
on the fence to stop watching? If they do, you're not going to have the
show that you like all that much longer, I think.
I think "Voyager" could be a great show, perhaps the most intriguing Trek
ever. But it's not, and it's showing no signs that it will become so. I
don't buy the "this is the first season" excuse because the people who are
writing it have enough experience with Trek to hit the ground running.
They haven't done so.
Some emergency measures to keep the ship and show afloat: no more space
anomalies, space creatures and the like. These could be authentically
intriguing and well-done, but right now, they're a lazy way out for an
unimaginative writing staff. Make "State of Flux", "Prime Factors" and
"Projections" your basic archetypical models for Voyager episodes: forget
that TNG and TNG-type plots ever existed. Focus above all things on two
issues: genuine, complex and deep-seated differences of outlook and
philosophy between characters and the complex dramatic implications of
Voyager's situation.
When those basic things are done, then turn back to some more ambitious
challenges, like the design of consistent and interesting adversaries,
like the development of new and different sorts of alien societies and of
spatial phenomenon unique to the Delta Quadrant and the like. Right now,
these things are carts before horses.
Packaging Excellence
True, the officers managed to get stuck in the holodeck again (though they could leave), and
true, the effects were a bit cheesy and it was yet another space anomoly ... but, finally:
1. We were left with something we didn't understand.
2. The crew came up with NO answer ... they were just lucky. YES! No
"pulling-a-solution-out-of-my-ass-captain" this time!
3. It was curious seeing how the officers in the holodeck came together just before they thought
they might die. Tuvok, especially, was interesting. Was it loyalty or is there a bit of emotion
showing?
4. Nobody whined about wanting to be human.
A step in the right direction, IMHO.
R. Tang
Timothy Burke <tbu...@cc.swarthmore.edu> wrote:
>I continue to watch the show because I think Voyager has potential: I
>don't want to miss it when the show really hits all cylinders, as it did
>in "State of Flux", "Prime Factors" and "Projections", particularly the
>former. I think the dramatic situation underlying the show could be
>tremendously exciting. I think that most of the characters are
>well-conceived and could be intriguingly different from past Treks.
>
>But to date, I really think the show's writers have shown a fundamental
>lack of faith in their own vision. They built up a really intriguing
>foundation before the show ever started but they're now gazing wistfully
>on it from a distance.
Amen. I think this hits EXACTLY what is wrong with the show in
general (and is an example of intelligent criticism, which is all too
lacking on this news groups).
The crew has said in times past that "a perfect society is
boring". I agree with it; it is the PROCESS of becoming perfect that is
interesting, and which drives much of DS9. Yet, they have developed
PRECISELY this on VOYAGER, when it should be exactly the opposite.
>Two dimensions of the dramatic premise have gone almost completely unused.
>First, the inherent divisions between the crew.
Yes.
>But why not build off of the really intriguing speech that Sisko made last
>season on ST: Deep Space Nine, that people living at the heart of the
>Federation no longer understand what it is like to live at its edges?
Maybe....
>Why
>not make the conflict between some Maquis and some Starfleet crewmembers
>at its heart a conflict over moral, political and social philosophy rather
>than a pure case of personality conflicts?
....but this should be the case in even a perfect society.
>We should have had two or three
>episodes already where a genuine dilemma--a choice between two equally
>valid course of action--turned on precisely these kinds of disagreements.
>But we haven't. That's a failure on the part of the writing staff, plain
>and simple.
Actually, I disagree; we've HAD two or three....when it should be
seven or eight shows. There has been opportunity aplenty (the Phage
victims, etc.), but the Powers That Be has gone mostly for surface action
adventure and ignores the moral/ethical/character underpinnings that make
such surface herorics classic.
>The second dimension that goes unused is the Odyssey-like quality of the
>whole show. I can buy the relative perkiness of the crew for the first six
>episodes or so, but now the difficult choices should be starting to wear a
>bit ragged around the edges. There should be a sense of active debate
>within the crew, and a sense that this mission is unlike any other. We get
>that sometimes in episodes, but only fitfully, as if the writers are
>afraid of facing up to *changes* in the Trek formula.
And, yes again....The basic premise is the stuff of legends; by
all rights, they should be doing exploits that will ring in the annals of
history of the people they pass (a lost space ship? searching for the way
home? Are they Ulysses or the FLying Dutchman?). The stuff they've done
is distincly.....pedestrian.....
>I can buy everyone staying on board in "The 37s", but that decision should
>have been the dramatic heart and soul of the episode. Instead, it mostly
>happened off camera and it came off as casual and flip. It should have
>been hard-won and painful.
Yep.
> Likewise, the decision to consider re-fitting
>Voyager as a *generation ship* that we saw in "Elogium" shouldn't have
>been an afterthought that was crammed into a ridiculous "A story" about
>space whales. It should have been the dramatic core of the episode,
>without any distractions.
Yep, again.
>I don't understand why the people who like this show are unwilling to hear
>such criticisms.
I don't think folks are unwilling to hear such criticisms. I
think they ARE unwilling to hear rants and raves and mud splattering
contests (or, at least, I am). It's one thing to say the plots have not
been executed well and philosophical conflicts have been glossed over;
it's another thing to say that "This is dumb! TWISTED was based on a
stoopid idea" (particularly when it was not; certainly, Heinlein got a
lot of mileage out of it).
>Some emergency measures to keep the ship and show afloat: no more space
>anomalies, space creatures and the like. These could be authentically
>intriguing and well-done, but right now, they're a lazy way out for an
>unimaginative writing staff.
I agree with the reasons why not, but of all the shows, VOYAGER
>>SHOULD<< be running into a lot of space anamolies; it's going out
LOOKING for them. This, of course, indicates a drastic change on how
these items should be TREATED.....
>Make "State of Flux", "Prime Factors" and
>"Projections" your basic archetypical models for Voyager episodes: forget
>that TNG and TNG-type plots ever existed. Focus above all things on two
>issues: genuine, complex and deep-seated differences of outlook and
>philosophy between characters and the complex dramatic implications of
>Voyager's situation.
Yep, again......Master the basics of the VOYAGER situation first,
then go on from there....
>When those basic things are done, then turn back to some more ambitious
>challenges, like the design of consistent and interesting adversaries,
>like the development of new and different sorts of alien societies and of
>spatial phenomenon unique to the Delta Quadrant and the like. Right now,
>these things are carts before horses.
>
>--
>http://www.swarthmore.edu/SocSci/tburke1
--
Roger Tang, gwan...@u.washington.edu, Artistic Director PC Theatre
STILL just another theatre geek....
The most unAmerican thing you can say is "He/she makes too much money."
Ted McCoy
Jennifer Ann Kirtley <je...@crl.com> wrote:
>Unfortunately, I have to plow through a lot of "this show
>sucks!" to get to posts like this. And a fair amount of
>"I'll never watch this show again!", of course followed
>the next week with "Now I'll /really/ never watch this show
>again!"
Yup, that's certainly the truth. For months now, people have been posting
messages here predicting how bad "Twisted" would be -- and yet many of these
same people went ahead and watched the episode anyway. I suppose that it's
sort of like the fascination of watching a particularly noisy train wreck.
I don't know; personally, when I see a show that seems to be utterly without
merit ("Deadly Games" comes to mind), I just avoid the show altogether.
But it could be argued that "Voyager" makes for a much noisier and much more
colorful train wreck than "Deadly Games" does, I guess.
Ted
Scott Johnson
bothered about the main problem I had with the episode. They buzz up to the
unknown anomoly to check it out. They can't go forward for fear of tearing
up the ship. They can't go backwards because the "ring" goes around them.
Duh. What about going up or down???? This is space, not a terrestrial
craft. AARGH!
Scott Johnson
s...@cv.hp.com
John Paulus
: Franklin Hummel (hum...@netcom.com) wrote:
: : Been there. Done that. Done that lots and lots of times for the
: : past 5+ years. I've gotten tired of wasting my time on "Depth, Depth,
: : Depth" especially with VOYAGER when there is -no- "Depth". That is a big
: : part of the series' problems.
: : VOYAGER is not worth my time to do so. And, sorry, nor are you.
: I've been reading this news group for about a month now.
: I /still/ can't figure out why people who seem to dislike the show
: so much continue to watch it. I know that many USENET users have
: a rather inflated opinion of their importance in the universe,
: but in reality all the flaming here really isn't going to have
: much of an impact on the show. Writing to the production house
: might be a little more helpful, but when you come right down to
: it the /only/ way you can really express your opinion and have
: any impact on any television show is to watch it, or turn the
: channel.
: So a brief suggestion to all of those valiently martyring
: themselves by watching a show they hate: DON'T. Turn the
: channel, read a book, walk the dog.
: And let those of us who actually enjoy Voyager watch it
: in peace. Thank you.
: -Jenni
: je...@crl.com
: http://www.crl.com/~jenni
Criticizing it, as many people have, is basically an ego trip: the critics
(i have to include myself) feel they know the Trek Universe, plot
development, & characterization better than the producers. And if you look
at it, you have to agree. Voyager's producers have had at least a year or
two of solid time to develop the show (that's not including general ideas of
different characters and Trek plots, which may have happened sporadically
since TNG first started). What have they come up with? A vast improvement
over TNG? Nope....
What i'm hoping for are some shows which show the TRUE nature of Trek:
exploration. One of the best episodes IMHO is "Darmok", with the race that
spoke only in metaphors. While there were indeed glaring plot holes (The
Federation people might not understand such a complex language as the
aliens; but the aliens should have been able to understand the Federation's
languages), the episode effectively showed Picard & the crew trying to
understand something alien to them. They were far from perfect, but were
making an effort to understand. We unfortunately never heard from these
aliens again, but it was fascinating to see Picard grapple with how to
communicate with someone who spoke the same vocabulary (thanks to the
universal translator), yet still a different language. (Compare it to Black
English and "standard English", but with many more differences.
i'm looking forward to more stuff like Darmok; one can only take so much of
"space anamolies" and holodeck-related stories (well, except if it deals
with the doctor).
--jp--
--
j.p. paulus 4625 N. Kenmore Avenue #2
sha...@ripco.com Chicago IL 60640-5024
shadow...@nwu.edu 312/784-5640
********************** GO GOD!!!!! ************************
L. R. Bowen
An excellent post, and a real pleasure to read among all the extremes on
each side of the Voyager argument! I agree with you on nearly every point
that you make, especially that the built-in conflict so carefully set up
in "Caretaker" has been dribbled away. The impulse to make everyone nice
and positive and friendly defuses tension before it starts. I enjoy these
characters no end; now if they would be allowed to SHOW some character,
and express the frustrations of their situation, the stories would write
themselves. Voyager is a gold mine of potential, but so far the writers
are bypassing the richer veins in favor of scratching around on the
surface.
Even if I disagreed with you, however, I would still enjoy reading such a
well-considered article that makes so many thoughtful points. The
occasional appearance of such posts among the spam and slam is what keeps
me reading the newsgroups.<g>
L. R. Bowen Lrb...@aol.com
Alexander Glazamitsky
1-dimensional characters on a 2-dimensional ship.
Marce
I liked Twisted. As my spacial ability is notoriously sucky, I won't
even try to comment on the spacial twistings and stuff.
I thought of this as an interesting character show. The first half
hour, with an increasingly pissed-off crew roaming the hallways trying to
figure out what's going on, had -- hmmm, it's hard to explain, sort of a
"real" feel to it. My vague confusion as a viewer was mirrored by that of
the Voyager crew.
I enjoyed the fact that B'Ellana's little magic show didn't work --
in fact, the chain-of-command squabbles really enhanced my appreciation of
the episode. Maybe Janeway should enter more comas! (please, no jokes to
the effect that she's already in one) (And what the hell was she saying,
anyway? Get me a haircut?)
Of course, the last sappy five minutes were really too much. There's
something to be said for a spacial thingie that _just can't be figured out_,
but the lovefest in the holodeck, combined with the absolutely moronic
revelation at the end that it was a benign alien intelligence (if they're so
smart, why don't they just send the Voyager a little gift-wrapped probe or
something), nearly sunk the whole show. Why couldn't it just have been a
spacial thingie, weird, nasty, hope we don't run into another one, and leave
it at that?
Neelix's disappearance was much appreciated!
And I don't understand the bickering about Tuvok's aborted
hand-holding w/Janeway at the end. It was the only last minute PDA that I
actually liked... Tuvok was very regal in this episode, I like him extremely.
Steve Afsahi
Trek on it. This weeks episode was ridiculous. The end was pure cop out.
I love Star Trek at least as much as anyone else, and more than most.
Because of this I can't settle for the crap they have been dishing out
lately. You people are so unwilling to admit that anything Trek is bad.
Well it is. Very Bad. the only reason I watch the show is because I'm
still depressed that TNG is not on. I'm also hoping the writing will get
better, as it did, and had to do, in TNG.Face reality and don't defend a
HOPELESS cause.
Jennifer Ann Kirtley
: But it could be argued that "Voyager" makes for a much noisier and much more
: colorful train wreck than "Deadly Games" does, I guess.
Well, the Enterprise *did* make a hell of a lot of noise when
it crashed in "Generations". :) :)
-Jenni
je...@crl.com
http://www.crl.com/~jenni
Mimi W. Tzeng
: I don't hate Voyager, and in fact, I've enjoyed some episodes, although I
: To start with:
(Just linewrapping it so I can read it... )
--
Insane Bum | "You are a fluke of the Universe.
| You have no right to be here.
| And whether you can hear it or not,
mtz...@copper.ucs.indiana.edu | the Universe is laughing behind your back."
http://copper.ucs.indiana.edu/~mtzeng -- National Lampoon
Lloyd R. Parker
: I can't believe you people. Blindly endorsing anything that says Star
If you liked TNG, you don't know good sf, good tv, good writing, or good
ST. Stop expecting Voy to be a clone of TNG and enjoy it.
IMO, TNG was poor and Voy is good. IYO, TNG was good and Voy is poor.
Why waste posts arguing this? This group is for discussion of current
Trek, not reminiscing about bygone Trek.
Laura Ware
ick Buickel ) writes:
::>"Twisted" is about relationships, character interaction--some of the
:>best dialogue I've heard in a long time. A few characters got more
:>fleshing out in this ep than ever before--Tuvok, for one . . . even
:>Neelix!
I agree. B'Lanna also was done well here - is it me or is she starting to
et short-tempered again?
Laura Ware
e R. Perez) writes:
:>
:>In article <44tseh$g...@crl3.crl.com>, je...@crl.com (Jennifer Ann Kirtley) wrote:
:>
: Why is Neelix *so* jealous, and
:>why does it seem he has never been jealous before in his life? Why is he *so* annoying? :>hat
He HAS. The episode when he gets his lungs stolen, he is VERY suspicious of
aris. I think he had similar feelings in Elogium, too. This was certainly
ot sudden.
Laura Ware
:>craft. AARGH!
Actually, that DID occur to me. But Trek has a history of thinking
-dimentioanl in space - Check out "The Nitpicker's Guide to Classic Trek" for
xamples of such.
Gharlane of Eddore
>
.....<deletia>
>
> What i'm hoping for are some shows which show the TRUE nature of Trek:
> exploration. One of the best episodes IMHO is "Darmok", with the race that
> spoke only in metaphors. While there were indeed glaring plot holes (The
You'd better believe there were glaring plot holes.
"DARMOK" was very nearly as stupid and ill-conceived a script as the
infamous seventh-season exercise in "retrograde evolution," and for
much the same reason; the writers hadn't bothered to find out what they
were writing about.
Formal Linguistics is as much of a science as Physics, and the basic
theory (*AND* practice!) in the field is well-understood and very well
quantified. Paramount is right over the hill from UCLA, and they
could have called a linguist with a PhD and gotten some expert advice
for the price of a lunch or maybe a small consultant's fee and credit.
Heck, at one time they had Marc Okrand (the guy who wrote the Klingon
language), a Linguistics type with considerable professional qualification,
on tap... and they didn't even use HIM.
The major point is that the language, as shown, could not develop or
remain stable under usage; and that it could not be used by a technical
civilization.
Further, since the complete unwieldiness of Darmokkian was not compensated
by high density (Darmokkian utterances took about the same time as
Federation English to pass a set of referent words)..... it would have
been replaced by something with more direct referents long ago.
(Hint: When the landslide starts, you don't yell, "Clinton, when the
avalanche came..." you yell "DUCK!")
The *idea* of an alternate language was good; the implementation was
equivalent to claiming the Enterprise runs on gunpowder rockets and
has a screened-in back porch so the Space Mosquitoes can't bother
the crew when they're out on the veranda watching the sunset.
> Federation people might not understand such a complex language as the
> aliens; but the aliens should have been able to understand the Federation's
> languages), the episode effectively showed Picard & the crew trying to
> understand something alien to them. They were far from perfect, but were
> making an effort to understand. We unfortunately never heard from these
> aliens again, but it was fascinating to see Picard grapple with how to
> communicate with someone who spoke the same vocabulary (thanks to the
> universal translator), yet still a different language. (Compare it to
> Black English and "standard English", but with many more differences.
Again, NO. The records showed prior contacts; the slightest HINT of an
"incomprehensible" language would have resulted in shiploads of academic
linguists converging on the Darmokkians from all over the Federation,
each trying to figure it out and publish first.
> i'm looking forward to more stuff like Darmok; one can only take so much
> of "space anamolies" and holodeck-related stories (well, except if it
> deals with the doctor).
A repeat of "DARMOK" would certainly be in keeping with the level of
quality we've been seeing from "VOYAGER" since Jeri Taylor began the
series; but since she won't have two actors of the same consummate
professional capacity as Patrick Stewart and Paul Winfield to carry
the show despite the script, such an episode would probably not be
watchable.
"DARMOK" was an utterly horrible script, only slightly mitigated by the two
lead actors and the professionalism of the production crew. The people who
wrote it should have, subsequent to surgery to insure their incapacity to
breed more of their kind, been sold as slave labor to a Red Chinese factory
that makes Trekkie "Action Figures."
Tae W Son
|> I can't believe you people. Blindly endorsing anything that says Star
|> Trek on it. This weeks episode was ridiculous. The end was pure cop out.
|> I love Star Trek at least as much as anyone else, and more than most.
|> Because of this I can't settle for the crap they have been dishing out
|> lately. You people are so unwilling to admit that anything Trek is bad.
|> Well it is. Very Bad. the only reason I watch the show is because I'm
|> still depressed that TNG is not on. I'm also hoping the writing will get
|> better, as it did, and had to do, in TNG.Face reality and don't defend a
|> HOPELESS cause.
|>
YOU face reality. If you'd stop carping your head off, then you'd
notice that not many people liked that episode of VOYAGER either! As
for myself . . . I only liked the first half of it . . . it could have
been better . . .
--
"Somewhere else the tea's getting cold." -- The Doctor
"In science there is only physics; everything else is stamp collectiong."
--Ernest Rutheford
"Politics is for the moment. An equation is for eternity." -- A. Einstein
Liz Hainey
>2. The crew came up with NO answer ... they were just lucky. YES! No
>"pulling-a-solution-out-of-my-ass-captain" this time!
>
answer, since she was the only one "captured" by the distortion. I thought it
would have pulled the story together better if she had come out of her coma
with at least a little understanding of the alien, rather than simply that the
alien was trying to communicate with the crew.
liz
--
Elizabeth C. Hainey 214-509-6952 (voice)
ARCO Exploration & Production Technology 214-509-6010 (fax)
2300 West Plano Parkway l...@arco.com (email)
Plano, TX 75075
Petrea Mitchell
: In article <Pine.SUN.3.90.951004...@mariner.cris.com>,
: "E.W. Swan" <Es...@cris.com> wrote:
: [snip]
: > It
: > seems puzzling that so many people continue to watch Voyager repeatedly
: > despite the fact that they consider it utter garbage.
<munch>
: Although disappointed by trite plots and frustrated at no development of
: once-promising characters, I watch Voyager *hoping* that it will get
: better. I don't want it to fail, I want it to be successful. I want it to
: be a show that I eagerly await watching each week. So far, it is not.
My feelings exactly. I've come to like almost all of the regular
characters; I'd like to see them do something other than walk into space
anomalies and spout technobabble.
In the meantime, what keeps me coming back is that being a MSTie,
I have a perverse fascination with horrendously bad TV.
: Unfortunately the only thing that anyone can do outside of Paramount to
: improve the show is a longshot at best. Write and submit good scripts, and
: maybe once in a great while, they'll buy a story idea. But
: Berman/Piller/Taylor seem bent on sticking to scripts without any
: substance.
--
/ <|> <|> <pr...@mvp.com> <pr...@gm.dev.com>
Petrea Mitchell ** GO NINERS ** <pem...@is.nyu.edu>
"There's a time to think, and a time to act. And--" <whirr> "--this is
no time to think." ---_Canadian Bacon_
*** Push the button... someone. :~( *** eWorks!
Gabe White
: I can't believe you people. Blindly endorsing anything that says Star
: I love Star Trek at least as much as anyone else, and more than most.
: Because of this I can't settle for the crap they have been dishing out
: lately. You people are so unwilling to admit that anything Trek is bad.
: Well it is. Very Bad. the only reason I watch the show is because I'm
: still depressed that TNG is not on. I'm also hoping the writing will get
: better, as it did, and had to do, in TNG.Face reality and don't defend a
: HOPELESS cause.
Uh.... How do I respond to this?
I'll say this much, at least from the group I'm reading (rasftv)
all-things trek are anything BUT blindly praised. I've seen very few
people (anywhere) who will even try to defend Voyager.
DS:9 is a different story. It's good, quality TV.
In fact, the season premier was as good as anything TNG ever did (with the
exception of _Best of Both Worlds_).
The worst thing I've heard about DS:9 is "inconsistent".
--
---
"It is better to deserve honours and not have them than to have them
and not to deserve them."
-Mark Twain
A. Hutchinson
A. Hutchinson
A. Hutchinson
Ed Berlot
Dumb and Dumber!
First off I'd like to know, what is a GIGAQUAD?(I
realise that its an element of storage, but a
gigaquad?..
Secondly did you notice when Chakoty was placed in a
command position, he ran with his Maquis ball? Told
Tuvok to take a hike. When all failed, he didn't know
what to do.
I think part of the problem is that we've been spoiled
with incredible actors like Patrick Stewart. He carried
& presented his part well. Granted this is something
that has evolved over 8 years. Voyager is what? 15-16
episodes old, and we'll ready to flush down the tubes?
Think back to the first few TNG episodes. The characters
looked wooden, cold, they didn't interact with each
other well. This takes time, the writing evolved too.
Man there were some lousy episodes in TNG (some
mentioned Darmok.. actually I thought it was well done).
The problem with Voyager more than anything else, is
that a) the characters are not evolving.
Janeway in her husky little shrill drives me nuts.
Harry strikes me as little kid on this trip to the mall
or someting!
Tuvok, his staid Vulcan appearance(incidently did you
notice that in Twisted he mentioned how Chakoty's
promotion to First Officer ' Gave him a feeling that he
was unacustomed to?" -- since when do Vulcans have
feelings?..) Sorry got off track...drive me nuts. Spock
at the very least was funny, call him the straight man,
with Bones and Kirk delivering the punch lines. IT
worked..
B'elanna... strikes me as a spoiled kid who doesn't get
here way when things go wrong.
Neelix, and the Doctor-- comedy relief
Kess and Paris-- what are they doing on the show, they
seem to offer so little in the way of a contribution to
the shows growth(especially the "I'm in heat" episode).
Bottom line, the show needs some serious writing
updates, the actors can only work with what they're
given and can't really improvise all that much.
Jose R. Perez
>In message <gt4434d-0410...@192.0.2.1> - gt4...@prism.gatech.edu (Jos
>e R. Perez) writes:
>:>
>:>In article <44tseh$g...@crl3.crl.com>, je...@crl.com (Jennifer Ann
Kirtley) wrote:
>:>
>: Why is Neelix *so* jealous, and
>:>why does it seem he has never been jealous before in his life? Why is
he *so* annoying? :>hat
>
>He HAS. The episode when he gets his lungs stolen, he is VERY suspicious of
>aris. I think he had similar feelings in Elogium, too. This was certainly
>ot sudden.
Actually I am not talking about his current jealousy, but that it seems
that he has never experienced jealousy before being in Voyager, as can be
learned from the inexperienced questions he asked to Chakotay. That a man
(o.k., an alien) of 30-40 yrs. of age has never felt extreme jealousy
seems a little bit ridiculous.
--
* Jose R. Perez * "Never tell me the odds!" - Han Solo *
* gt4...@prism.gatech.edu * Get a head start on obtaining Windows2010 *
* * and a P7 PC... Get a PowerMac today. *
****************************************************************************
Ubiquitous
>
>Criticizing it, as many people have, is basically an ego trip
No, they are watching in the hopes that it will get better and
offering suggestions in the vain hope that someone will take
note and fix these errors. Unfortunately, the producers of
Voyager don't care about quality as much as the ones of B5.
>What i'm hoping for are some shows which show the TRUE nature of Trek:
>exploration. One of the best episodes IMHO is "Darmok", with the race that
>spoke only in metaphors.
You gotta be kidding!
>While there were indeed glaring plot holes (The Federation people might
>not understand such a complex language as the aliens; but the aliens
>should have been able to understand the Federation's languages),
The language was no more complex than English, it the fact that every
thing they spoke was a catch phrase from their history and people from
outside their culture had no idea of knowing what they were referencing
is what made it unintelligable. And let us not forget how Picard
magically figured it all out in less than 30 minutes, without any
of their history books and the alien (presumably) being able to describe
the refernces without refering to itself. (I don't think a language
like this could ever possibly evolve).
>i'm looking forward to more stuff like Darmok; one can only take so much of
>"space anamolies" and holodeck-related stories (well, except if it deals
>with the doctor).
Oh, if only Voyager took risks like this, instead of rehashing the
same three jaded plotlines in a round-robin manner!
Arthur Levesque
> In the meantime, what keeps me coming back is that being a MSTie,
>I have a perverse fascination with horrendously bad TV.
Ha ha! Well put! As a Rocky Horror fan, I just yell rude things
at the screen whenever something stupid happens. After some episodes
my throat is raw...
Arthur Levesque
>Actually I am not talking about his current jealousy, but that it
>seems that he has never experienced jealousy before being in Voyager,
>as can be learned from the inexperienced questions he asked to
>Chakotay. That a man (o.k., an alien) of 30-40 yrs. of age has never
>felt extreme jealousy seems a little bit ridiculous.
Maybe the "little toad" has never had a girlfriend (and therefore a
reason to be jealous) before. :)
Dave Christiansen
>I can't believe you people. Blindly endorsing anything that says Star
>Trek on it. This weeks episode was ridiculous. The end was pure cop out.
>I love Star Trek at least as much as anyone else, and more than most.
>Because of this I can't settle for the crap they have been dishing out
>lately. You people are so unwilling to admit that anything Trek is bad.
>Well it is. Very Bad. the only reason I watch the show is because I'm
>still depressed that TNG is not on. I'm also hoping the writing will get
>better, as it did, and had to do, in TNG.Face reality and don't defend a
>HOPELESS cause.
You know what this newsgroup needs? An FAQ. In the FAQ, it
should say, "if you just don't like voyager, stop watching and don't
waste our time about it."
--
Dave Christiansen <href=http://www.public.iastate.edu/~basilisk>
basi...@iastate.edu Stop Senator Exon and the Communications Decency act!
This message may not be transmitted to or received from the Microsoft Network.
-- The opinions expressed above are mine and not necessarily anyone else's. --
Christopher Beattie
><rans...@uga.cc.uga.edu> write:
>> I want
>> to know what was in the information loaded into the ship's computer. Will
>> they ever let us know what the ring was, or what it wanted, or what
>> information it left behind?
My guess is Season 3 scripts. <G> ;-)
Not that it will do any good, but maby they can use them to "change the future"
and get better ones. ;-)
Comming up ... Non Sequetor II, Hary Kim battles the writers for posession
of VOYAGER. Will Harry survive the dreaded eraser weapons of the writers?
| _____ |Christopher Beattie |Tantalus Incorporated|
| ___ |[]|_n_n_I_c |Tantalus @ Key West | P.O. Box 2310|
| |___||__|###|____)|Development Division| Key West, FL 33045|
| O-O--O-O+++--O-O |chr...@mpgn.com |Phone: (305) 293-8100|
| Opinions expressed here belong to me! | Fax: (305) 292-7835|
Dave Christiansen
>I just finished watching this episode.
>Dumb and Dumber!
What a wonderful clichee you've invented here...
>First off I'd like to know, what is a GIGAQUAD?(I
>realise that its an element of storage, but a
>gigaquad?..
Do you watch Trek at all? Read the ST Technical Manuals if
you don't. They always measured data storage units in abstract
amounts called "quads". This is because they didn't want to trip
themselves up by trying to guess how much data storage would be
needed or available centuries from now. Think about it.
>Secondly did you notice when Chakoty was placed in a
>command position, he ran with his Maquis ball? Told
>Tuvok to take a hike. When all failed, he didn't know
>what to do.
Your point?
>I think part of the problem is that we've been spoiled
>with incredible actors like Patrick Stewart. He carried
>& presented his part well. Granted this is something
>that has evolved over 8 years. Voyager is what? 15-16
>episodes old, and we'll ready to flush down the tubes?
I dunno about some other people, but I was about ready to
flush TNG when it first came out. Talk about an exercise in
goat-blowing...
>Think back to the first few TNG episodes. The characters
>looked wooden, cold, they didn't interact with each
>other well. This takes time, the writing evolved too.
>Man there were some lousy episodes in TNG (some
>mentioned Darmok.. actually I thought it was well done).
Darmok was filmed, acted, and otherwise done well... the whole
concept was kind of, well, it kind of sucked, IMHO.
>The problem with Voyager more than anything else, is
>that a) the characters are not evolving.
I'd say it's too early to tell, personally. Voyager's
situation makes evolution kind of odd, characterwise.
>Janeway in her husky little shrill drives me nuts.
FAQ: Janeway's voice?
>Tuvok, his staid Vulcan appearance(incidently did you
>notice that in Twisted he mentioned how Chakoty's
>promotion to First Officer ' Gave him a feeling that he
>was unacustomed to?" -- since when do Vulcans have
>feelings?..) Sorry got off track...drive me nuts. Spock
>at the very least was funny, call him the straight man,
>with Bones and Kirk delivering the punch lines. IT
>worked..
Vulcans have feelings. This has been mentioned many times in
other (TOS, VOY, and a little TNG) episodes.
>Harry strikes me as little kid on this trip to the mall
>or someting!
>B'elanna... strikes me as a spoiled kid who doesn't get
>here way when things go wrong.
Whether we like the characters (except for, say, Wesley
Crusher) is irrelevant. It's whether we find them believable or they
interact properly with the rest of the crew.
>Bottom line, the show needs some serious writing
>updates, the actors can only work with what they're
>given and can't really improvise all that much.
*shrug*
Lloyd R. Parker
: I think part of the problem is that we've been spoiled
: with incredible actors like Patrick Stewart. He carried
: & presented his part well. Granted this is something
: that has evolved over 8 years. Voyager is what? 15-16
: episodes old, and we'll ready to flush down the tubes?
I'm wondering about Stewart's "incredible" acting. In a USA movie last
night, he played a role exactly like he played Picard -- I mean exactly.
Maybe he wasn't acting...
: Think back to the first few TNG episodes. The characters
: looked wooden, cold, they didn't interact with each
: other well.
Picard was still that way in the 7th season.
: This takes time, the writing evolved too.
: Man there were some lousy episodes in TNG (some
: mentioned Darmok.. actually I thought it was well done).
It was, next to Masks, the worst hour I've ever seen on tv.
: The problem with Voyager more than anything else, is
: that a) the characters are not evolving.
Neither did Picard, Crusher, Pulaski, Geordi, etc.
: Janeway in her husky little shrill drives me nuts.
Data with his taking everything literally and stupid laughter in
Generations drove me nuts.
: Harry strikes me as little kid on this trip to the mall
: or someting!
Geordi always struck me as someone who had swallowed a technology
dictionary. Troi stuck me as somebody playing with her Barbie doll.
: Tuvok, his staid Vulcan appearance(incidently did you
: notice that in Twisted he mentioned how Chakoty's
: promotion to First Officer ' Gave him a feeling that he
: was unacustomed to?" -- since when do Vulcans have
: feelings?..) Sorry got off track...drive me nuts. Spock
: at the very least was funny, call him the straight man,
: with Bones and Kirk delivering the punch lines. IT
: worked..
: B'elanna... strikes me as a spoiled kid who doesn't get
: here way when things go wrong.
At least she emotes. Stewart could take lessons.
: Neelix, and the Doctor-- comedy relief
Like Q, Wesley, the Paklans, the barber, Lwaxana, ad nausem.
: Kess and Paris-- what are they doing on the show, they
: seem to offer so little in the way of a contribution to
: the shows growth(especially the "I'm in heat" episode).
What did Troi, Crusher, Wesley, Yar add?
: Bottom line, the show needs some serious writing
: updates, the actors can only work with what they're
: given and can't really improvise all that much.
Relax and enjoy it for what it is -- a rollicking adventure series like
TOS, not a "Brady Bunch in Space" like TNG.
Mike Hopkins
"Darmok." They are all valid points. But the language nonsense
of the episode can be put in a more simple manner:
Darmok (noun) and (conjunction) Jalad (noun) at (preposition)
Tanagra (noun)
That looks like "normal" language to me.
But in the end, I enjoyed "Darmok" in spite of those problems because:
o It had, as Gharlange points out, good performances by Patrick
Stewart and Paul Winfield.
o It was more imaginative than the average TNG.
o It was dramatic in a way that TNG often was not.
o It was nice to see, for the first time ever, that magic universal
translator not work. (Actually this episode unintentially showed
one of the many fallacies of this impossible devise -- how could
it translate unknown cultural references of a previously unknown
species with an unknown language? Lets face it, we use a ton
of cultural references in everyday speech. So in that sense,
this episode was more believable at language than 99% of the
rest of Trek.)
o It had good production values. (Sans firing phasers from the photon
tube.)
Control Trigati Morobuto Kha'Muk Jack Turhan Draal Ironheart
Shadows Great War
Minbari Mike Hopkins <*> mike1...@delphi.com Gen Hague
Striebs michael...@oubbs.telecom.uoknor.edu Babylon 5
In fire Lou Welch
Rangers G'Sten Guerra Malachi Lurkers Ramirez Narn Alexander
Cal Jacobson
: In <hummelDF...@netcom.com> hum...@netcom.com (Franklin Hummel) writes:
: [Spoilers follow]
: > Of course, it was ridiculous. And stupid. And boring. All
: >that spacial (yet -another- anomaly episode!) distortion (which always
: >seemed to happen, conveniently, right at the doorways until the last 15
: >minutes, no less!) and yet the power and life support and gravity and
: >almost everything else (except for communications for some, obviously
: >plot-device, reason) still functioned fine? Oh, please.
: Ummm... let's see:
: - If the spatial distortion overran the ship in less than an
: hour, the episode would have been pretty short, wouldn't it?
: - If the spatial distortion took LONGER than an hour, we'd
: have had a "continued" episode. Most people HATE those.
Really?
How long it took for the spatial anomaly to overrun the ship is a moot
point: the story was just plain BAD.
: - Life support still functioned because the doorways and
: hallways remained connected. That's the only thing the distortion
: really did, was shift things around. While I'm sure it occurred to
: most of us that the distortion might shift a hallway into a warp
: plasma thingie, there was probably something keeping this from
: happening.
What kept one of these hallways from being "twisted" into open space?
: > But it was -not- as bad as the sexy space slugs trying to get it
: >on with Voyager. It wasn't as boring as Amelia E. or as pointless as
: >Harry back on Earth.
: I found the space slugs episode rather amusing. The point was
: NOT the slugs, but more the deliberation over Kes's childbearing
: problem. Gads... I've never read a post so misguided...
Are you related to Lloyd Parker, perchance?
: Amelia E's episode wasn't all that boring. For those of us
: NOT raised in a 2-second-attention-span environment, the plot was
: satisfactory.
And for those of us who tend to ask questions like "how could a 1936
Ford survive in deep space for 400 years," "how come nobody knows what
the word 'key' is anymore," and "why the hell wouldn't anybody from the
Voyager want to stay behind or anybody from the planet want to go along
for the ride to Earth?", "The 37ers" was a joke.
: Harry's episode was all development for a character
: who, until now, has been neglected in this arena. We now know more
: about Harry Kim than we did before.
All we know is that Harry is CONFUSED. The same homesick Ensign on the
Voyager became pretty damn eager to get back to the Delta Quadrant and
leave his family, girlfriend, and a great job!
: > It wasn't good either, of course. But the fact Paramount and
: >all thought this was So Very Bad and didn't think that most of the other
: >episodes of STAR TREK: VOYAGER were equally bad or worse just goes to
: >proves to me what I have suspected for sometime now.
: What's that, that maybe you should stop watching and posting?
Why, so fanboys like yourself can continue to give Paramount the idea
that the absolue CRAP that they are spewing with the label "Star Trek:
Voyager" is the best Trek series ever?
God forbid anybody post anything critical of Star Trek on a Usenet newsgroup.
: > They don't have a clue about what is good, bad, or STAR TREK.
: They aren't the only ones, Frank...
I suspect that Frank Hummel has a better idea of what 'good' Star Trek is
than you do, Dave. I can't condone his spoiler-spaceless post, but most
of his critiques of what is wrong with Star Trek today are on-target.
If you don't like what he's saying, then take your own damn advice and
DON'T PAY ATTENTION TO IT.
CJ
--
============================================================
These are my opinions. Learn to live with this sad fact.
------------------------------------------------------------
OJ Simpson Verdict Commentary #1:
For the right price, Justice can be anybody's whore.
============================================================
FredC29333
>Face reality and don't defend a
>HOPELESS cause.
Open your mind to something new. Voyager is great Star Trek. It just needs
a little work. So did TNG, as you mentioned. When I watch alot of first
and second season reruns of TNG, there are several that I have come to
like even though I didn't like them 7 or 8 years ago. The point is I
didn't trash TNG eight years ago. I kept watching because it was Trek and
because I am a long time fan of fan of Star Trek since 1971. I did the
same with DS9 and am doing the same with Voyager. You and many of the
others on this newsgroup should do the same.
BTW I think Berman has sold DS9 out for ratings. I liked the old DS9
better.
FredC29333
>You know what this newsgroup needs? An FAQ. In the FAQ, it
should say, "if you just don't like voyager, stop watching and don't
waste our time about it."<
Something sensible at last. Now who will volunteer to make this FAQ?
Franklin Hummel
>Dave Christiansen said:
>>You know what this newsgroup needs? An FAQ. In the FAQ, it
"-This- newsgroup"??? Your message was posted to:
rec.arts.sf.tv
rec.arts.startrek.current
alt.tv.voyager
>should say, "if you just don't like voyager, stop watching and don't
>waste our time about it."
If you don't want to hear criticism of VOYAGER, but only want to
read "Don't worry, be happy; don't rock the boat; all's right with the
world" posts, then I suggest you learn how to edit your Newgroups list
ASAP.
"If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen."
>Something sensible at last. Now who will volunteer to make this FAQ?
Hardly. It is but another example of the cluelessness of some
VOYAGER viewers when they don't even know to which newsgroups the messages
they write are going.
-- Frank Hummel [ hum...@netcom.com ]
Franklin Hummel
(FredC29333) writes:
>Dave Christiansen said:
>>You know what this newsgroup needs? An FAQ. In the FAQ, it
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
"-This- newsgroup"??? Your message was posted to:
rec.arts.sf.tv
rec.arts.startrek.current
Dave Christiansen
>> >Funny you mention this, because, yes, the Voyager problem is more than
>> >just, "Gee, that was lame, let's see what we can gripe about next week."
>>
>> Picky, but: it's not THE problem-- it's probably your problem
>> right now. If everyone else sees it as a problem, it's THE problem.
>I don't need a "constructive Exageration" Badge do I...?
Maybe a clue badge would help...
>> >"Twisted." I'm not just saying this, but that episode was predictable.
>> >I figured either the HoloDeck WAS the bridge OR that they had to wait it
>> >out.
>>
>> I had a problem with this too. For example, the part where
>> Tuvok and Chakotay separate and then run into each other a few seconds
>> later. That was just a LITTLE predictible.
>Yup. They didn't realy leave to viewer saying, "Well, what if..." We
>were just kinda following them around. ST:NG always made you wonder, and
>you wanted them to eventually confirm or deny your theories, and they did.
Ha! TNG usually put me to sleep. If anyone wants to
criticize the "particle-of-the-week" concept, hit them. TNG
occasionally made me wonder, but it was when Troi would put in for a
transfer, or maybe when Wesley would be put on duty as a guard at the
Neutral Zone.
>> >My basic beef with Voyager is believability.
>>
>> How so? If you can put up with TNG and DS9's techno-problems,
>> what's so different about Voyager's?
>>
>> >Right now, Voyager is supposed to be Trek Next Gen. with different faces
>> >and it's NOT working! (yet)
>>
>> Well, no. For one thing, they have more problems and don't
>> have starfleet. They come up against more unknowns and probably less
>> allies. If anything, this should make everything MORE explainable.
>What I mean, is that we are already delving into so many interpersonal
>stories and what-not which is fine, but it doesn't seem like the OVERALL
>plot of this series has panned out. ST:NG "To seek out new life..."
>well, every episode, we know they are doing that, so we don't scratch our
>heads when we have an entire episode on, say Riker or Data, cause we are
>comfortable with the plot and characters.
That's probably true. The episodes don't have too much
cohesion, IMHO. Give it time... TNG episodes didn't have much of this
quality either, although DS9 manages it sometimes.
> But I don't CARE about Mudshark's stupid recipes every episode,
>until I'm sure each character has his place and the ship is heading
>somewhere...
Every series has to have its annoying character.
>> Ummm, if someone told you, "start walking-- you're seventy
>> years from home" you probably wouldn't start sprinting, would you?
>> The occasional stop probably won't affect your overall travel time much.
>No, but they are too much the opportunists. "Oh, we stumbled across this
>sentient anomoly, let's see if IT can help us." There needs to be a holy
>grail. Otherwise each episode we are wondering not, "Will they get
>closer, will they find the grail." It's, "What will they happen upon this
>time." that gets muy dull.
I would personally like to see both concepts. Do you hear us
Paramount? :)
[...]
>> >Seriously. They need an evil alien race that wants to KILL Them on
>> >sight. They need to at least find a piece of the puzzle (remember the
>> >planet with the device that would knock 30 years off their trip? Let
>> >them have that device, knock ten years off and THEN have it break. But
>> >also then have them seek a way to fix it modify it , find another....).
>>
>> Ummm... Alien race that wants to kill them... hmmm.. sounds
>> kind of like another Fox show that's on right now... hmm...
>By chance, yes, but those aliens don't talk and they throw up at the
>sight of water! :)
Yes, but Neelix's cooking, on the other hand...
Aaron Bergman
(FredC29333) wrote:
(munch)
: I kept watching because it was Trek and
:because I am a long time fan of fan of Star Trek since 1971. I did the
:same with DS9 and am doing the same with Voyager. You and many of the
:others on this newsgroup should do the same.
Why? I think your first sentence is the problem. Where is the incentive to
improve when they have the guaranteed watching it "because it was Trek"?
Aaron
--------
Aaron Bergman -- aber...@minerva.cis.yale.edu
<http://minerva.cis.yale.edu/~abergman/abergman.html>
--A flag burning amendment would burn the flag--
Aaron Bergman
(FredC29333) wrote:
:Dave Christiansen said:
:
:>You know what this newsgroup needs? An FAQ. In the FAQ, it
:should say, "if you just don't like voyager, stop watching and don't
:waste our time about it."<
:
:Something sensible at last. Now who will volunteer to make this FAQ?
If we don't complain, who will? The whole "if you don't like it, don't
watch it" argument is stupid. This is a group for the discussion for sf.tv
(I'm posting from rasftv) and the other groups are for discussion of the
TV show. Discussion != praise.
Carlos G Diaz III
>
>I suspect the YOU don't have a clue about what is good, bad, or STAR
>TREK. The episode revealed some interesting tidbits about the
interplay
>between characters, and the overall plot wasn't too bad. Although
(like
>many others) I have suggestions for improvement, we could suggest
>improvement about nearly every episode of every ST series. So why not
>also take a look at some of the good aspects of every show. Remember,
>STAR TREK means different things to different people, and you
obviously
>have a different view from Paramount (and me). So is it really
>necessary that you be so negative? Perhaps you should watch something
>else instead....
>
>-liz
>
>
Some of us do and are happily waiting for the 3rd season of Babylon 5.
Carlos'94
BTW- Since when did Star Trek have major battles that lasted more then
one scene, good episode of DS-9 but I still hate how they cannot hold a
war for more then a 2 part episode. Damn, I was looking forward to
seeing the Klingons use mass drivers on Nar.. uh Cardassia. ;^)
VDENNY
<chr...@mpgn.com> writes:
>>> I want
>>> to know what was in the information loaded into the ship's computer.
Will
>>> they ever let us know what the ring was, or what it wanted, or what
>>> information it left behind?
>
>My guess is Season 3 scripts. <G> ;-)
>
>Not that it will do any good, but maby they can use them to "change the
>future"
>and get better ones. ;-)
>
>Comming up ... Non Sequetor II, Hary Kim battles the writers for
posession
>of VOYAGER. Will Harry survive the dreaded eraser weapons of the
writers?
>
>
Actually I think it's some of that MIME-Encapsulated shit I keep getting
on Usenet.
Vince
VDENNY
(Dave Christiansen) writes:
> Darmok was filmed, acted, and otherwise done well... the whole
>concept was kind of, well, it kind of sucked, IMHO.
>
>>The problem with Voyager more than anything else, is
>>that a) the characters are not evolving.
I would like to start a category on this message board called "Darmok."
One of us blurts a "Darmok" type phrase and we all try to figure out what
was said.
I'll start this idea in a message titled, "Darmok."
Vince
VDENNY
*** Author of Q/Language) writes:
>
>The show has a goal and each episode can take the ship to an extreme, but
>the ship's state must be saved from episode to episode within the bounds
>of the show's goal. In other words, when the show's over everything's
got
>to be pretty much the way it was when the show started.
>
>Any questions, comments or flames ... please e-mail me.
>
>
B'Klingon was ready to orgasm when she saw that oriental guy in the next
room.
How's that for extreme? The guy in the next room seemed like everything
was pretty normal to him. Maybe he was gay or female officers walk into
his room all the time. But when a half-Klingon female is staring you in
the face (and body), well, that'd be a "downer" to me, too. Sharp teeth.
Vince
VDENNY
sak...@hsdvxa.hsd.utc.com writes:
>I agree with John. Darmok IS one of the best Trek episodes ever. I've
>watched it many, many times.
>
>Bozena
>
>
>
Absolutely the best ST episode dealing with Isaac Asimov's interpretation
of "spontaneous mental freeze-out." This concerns the Universal
Translator, which can pick out words but not meaning. I loved "Darmok" and
it is a classic line around this household (all action stops here when a
new ST is on TV) when you don't understand the technobabble going on.
"Darmok and Jilad at Tinagra." Roll the r's. That's important. "Darmok and
Jilad at Tinagra." In other words,
"What the F... are you talking about?"
Vince
VDENNY
Everyone
>>...Lots of hand-wringing by the crew, but for me, never the _slightest_
>>doubt that everything would be back to ground zero at the end.
>I wrote a paper about this in college. Basically it falls under a theory
>I have regarding any successful TV show. The theory states that any
>episode must not change the base line premise of the show too much
>because to do so means previous knowledge of the change to many key
>people, and that means leaks to you and I (the public).
Hey, Dick, you wrote a paper? about what? I guess it doesn't
matter because That's a stupid theory!
>The show has a goal and each episode can take the ship to an extreme, but
>the ship's state must be saved from episode to episode within the bounds
>of the show's goal. In other words, when the show's over everything's got
>to be pretty much the way it was when the show started.
That's stupid! What was the point than anyway, Dick?
>Any questions, comments or flames ... please e-mail me.
Hey, Dick,
That sort of defeats the purpose of newsgroups.
>---
>Rick Hodgin
>foxm...@indy.net
Gharlane of Eddore
Mike Hopkins <mike1...@delphi.com> writes:
>
> I won't quote Gharlane's long list of technical/plot problems of
> "Darmok." They are all valid points. But the language nonsense
> of the episode can be put in a more simple manner:
I didn't get technical. You want "technical," I can put up a
copy of the original entries on the subject.
> Darmok (noun) and (conjunction) Jalad (noun) at (preposition)
> Tanagra (noun)
Darmok <=> "comrade" backwards
Taunogra <=> "argonaut" backwards
.....and so on, and so forth. reeeeeeelllly clever. *yawn*
I leave the translation of the rest of "Darmokkian" to the viewer
as a trivial exercise.
>That looks like "normal" language to me.
>
>But in the end, I enjoyed "Darmok" in spite of those problems because:
>
>o It had, as Gharlange points out, good performances by Patrick
> Stewart and Paul Winfield.
If you could *HEAR* the performances over your own whimpering.
>o It was more imaginative than the average TNG.
But not imaginative enough to justify watching a second time.
>o It was dramatic in a way that TNG often was not.
Oh, yes. Fighting an invisible monster with a partner whose
language is constructed of referent sets that should have been
just as easy for the translator to handle as Ferengi.
>o It was nice to see, for the first time ever, that magic universal
> translator not work. (Actually this episode unintentially showed
> one of the many fallacies of this impossible devise -- how could
> it translate unknown cultural references of a previously unknown
> species with an unknown language? Lets face it, we use a ton
> of cultural references in everyday speech. So in that sense,
> this episode was more believable at language than 99% of the
> rest of Trek.)
Nope. The Universal Translator is something we can actually see
how to begin building... UNlike the transporter.
>o It had good production values. (Sans firing phasers from the photon
> tube.)
At that budget level, it bluidie welle *should*.
Gharlane of Eddore
> I wrote a paper about this in college. Basically it falls under a theory
> I have regarding any successful TV show. The theory states that any
> episode must not change the base line premise of the show too much
> because to do so means previous knowledge of the change to many key
> people, and that means leaks to you and I (the public).
Right. This explains why the cast of "BLAKE'S SEVEN" and "DOCTOR WHO"
never changed, and why no one would have watched them if they'd, for
example, changed major characters every few shows or seasons....
> The show has a goal and each episode can take the ship to an extreme, but
> the ship's state must be saved from episode to episode within the bounds
> of the show's goal. In other words, when the show's over everything's got
> to be pretty much the way it was when the show started.
This is "STAR TREK" you're talking about, not TV series in general.
> Any questions, comments or flames ... please e-mail me.
Only one comment.... hope you didn't get an "A" on that paper.
StoOdin101
>episode must not change the base line premise of the show too much
>because to do so means previous knowledge of the change to many key
>people, and that means leaks to you and I (the public).
>The show has a goal and each episode can take the ship to an extreme, but
>the ship's state must be saved from episode to episode within the bounds
>of the show's goal. In other words, when the show's over everything's
got
>to be pretty much the way it was when the show started.
This is the reason that more and more I become persuaded that the only
dramatic TV fit to watch is cast in the anthology format, with no
continuing characters or plot lines from one week to the next. Of course
such programs will have their share of bad episodes --- TV is scarcely
known for its content ---- but if one is a total bust one week, the next
week they can try again from scratch. Unlike Voyager, which is locked into
a hopeless format that puts it in the category of Gilligans Island, Lost
in Space and Land of the Lost. Scarcely stellar company. But I still
watch it, madly clinging to the forlorn idea that somehow, in the face of
all logic, it will improve.
And it never does. Twisted was horribly bad, but no worse than 90% of the
previous episodes. And will that gigaquad of new info somehow move things
off Square One, or will we just never hear about it again?
Jennifer Ann Kirtley
: So a brief suggestion to all of those valiently martyring
: themselves by dating people they don't like: DON'T. Quick
: socializing, read a book, walk the dog.
Hey. I /tried/. I even looked at this post sideways. I
*still* don't get the point. Of course, It's possible I'll
never get it since in my universe television watching does
not equal social relationships...
: But, I reserve the right
: to complain when they air 4 episodes filmed for the first season which
: are so awful they almost did not put them on.
I never asked anyone to stop complaining. I just asked that they
either apply a little thought to their complaints, add something
of substance to this group, or else to please stop wasting
bandwidth.
In all honesty, I could care *less* that someone hates Voyager.
*Why* they hate it is a much more interesting subject, and
even better is *what* they suggest to do about it.
: BTW, before you say that flaming here is not going to have much of
: an impact on the show, think about how many times we've seen Internet
: mentioned in interviews and articles related to the show.
Have you any idea of what the ratio of USENET users to T.V. viewers
is? The Internet gets mentioned often for several reason;
as a general rule we're a roudy, noisy bunch. And the Internet
is the new darling of the Media. When push comes to shove,
however, the `net is not the Force that many people seems to
think it is. If you're lucky, you might run into a producer or
writer that will take into consideration well though out
critiques of their work that they see posted in a news group.
Bad reviews are cheap and easy, and more than likely to
be ignored because in the end they are next to useless.
"Such-and-such sucks!" sounds like the work of a peevish
attention-starved teenager. "Such-and-such sucks because..."
followed by some detail indicates that the writer actually
*cares* about the subject matter at hand.
Once again, however, even the best, well though out critiques
aren't going to have much over all effect. I'm sure your
average producer would like to please as many of his/her
viewers as possible, but the producer works for the studio,
and the studio works effectively for the advertisers. And
*they* care only about the numbers.
So really, the only audience we have on this group are each
other. We could allow this to all dissolve (as, unfortunately,
mush of USENET seems to have done in the past 10 years) to
so-much name calling and Voyager-bashing. *Personally* I'd
much rather see thoughtful discussion, be it pro or anti.
Charles Owen
>I've been reading this news group for about a month now.
>
>I /still/ can't figure out why people who seem to dislike the show
>so much continue to watch it. I know that many USENET users have
>a rather inflated opinion of their importance in the universe,
>but in reality all the flaming here really isn't going to have
>much of an impact on the show. Writing to the production house
>might be a little more helpful, but when you come right down to
>it the /only/ way you can really express your opinion and have
>any impact on any television show is to watch it, or turn the
>channel.
>
>So a brief suggestion to all of those valiently martyring
>channel, read a book, walk the dog.
>
>And let those of us who actually enjoy Voyager watch it
>in peace. Thank you.
>
I still can't figure out why people who seem to dislike all the
men/women they date continue to do it. After all, you may like
men/women, but if your dates have been less than perfect, then
flaming here really isn't going to have much of an impact on
members of the opposite sex.
So a brief suggestion to all of those valiently martyring
themselves by dating people they don't like: DON'T. Quick
socializing, read a book, walk the dog.
I've heard this argument a million times. I love Star Trek. I've
even liked (yes, believe it or not) a few Voyager episodes. I
keep watching in the hope that they will fire the idiots currently
writing episodes and we'll have some new, much better, material.
Just as people date to try to find the right person, I'm watching
hoping to find decent episodes. Star Trek has an enormous potential
for interesting and entertaining episodes. But, I reserve the right
to complain when they air 4 episodes filmed for the first season which
are so awful they almost did not put them on.
BTW, before you say that flaming here is not going to have much of
an impact on the show, think about how many times we've seen Internet
mentioned in interviews and articles related to the show. They
probably ignore most of the hundreds of posts, but they are not ignorant
to their existence. The problem is they are ignorant that the people
posting here are the biggest FANS of the show. If they are insulting
our intelligence, who do they expect to watch the show, anyway?
--
Charles B. Owen Charles...@dartmouth.edu
Dartmouth College Office: 603-646-3297
6211 Sudikoff Laboratory, Rm 108 Home: 603-448-5677
Hanover, NH 03755 http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~cowen/
Mike Lemons
unconnected scenes that for the most part had no effect on the story
line. Most scenes could have been shown in any order or left out
entirely. The actors had this "deer in the headlights" look in their
eyes that indicated that they were trying to figure out just what they
were supposed to do in the scene.
The director must have been asleep or on drugs.
In many scenes the actors can be seen trying very hard to make something
happen. Considering the bad situation, B'lanna's order shouting scene
should be considered Emmy nomination material since she manages to rise
to the level of mediocre.
Neelix, though, was positively cartoonish.
Given the lack of direction, I half expected to see the actors start
hoisting their legs up onto the props as in _The Giant Gila Monster_
on MST3K.
I can see why Paramount didn't want to show the episode and yet many
fans think that it was O.K. People in the business of producing films
and TV shows would be more aware/concerned with the director not doing
his job and less concerned with the enjoyment factors that fans care
about.
--
Mike Lemons | Still waiting on Lloyd Parker to reconcile the
mi...@crash.cts.com | existence of CRT's with his assertion that
| electrons cannot have position and momentum.
George Dainis
>
> You know what this newsgroup needs? An FAQ. In the FAQ, it
>should say, "if you just don't like voyager, stop watching and don't
>waste our time about it."
>
If you want a newsgroup that only says boring "I love this" tripe
about the show, go start one in alt.fan. If you don't like
critical posts, follow your own advice and don't read them.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
sup...@argo.net Argo Communications 508-261-6121 voice
129 North Main Street 508-261-0221 fax
Mansfield, MA 02048
E.W. Swan
> BTW I think Berman has sold DS9 out for ratings. I liked the old DS9
> better.
How do you mean? There is really nothing "new" about DS9, save for an
additional character who happens to hail from TNG, a new look for Captain
Sisko, and some teeth for the station (a logical extension of the Dominion
threat). Yes, the last 20 minutes or so is a hellacious orgy of
incredible FX, intense hand-to-hand fighting, and so forth, but it is
bookended by the same thoughtful storytelling and character interaction
that made DS9 the most interesting Trek series so far.
To paraphrase Worf, engaging in this battle to save the Empire was NOT
without honor!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
es...@cris.com \ I'm not worried about being "Politically Correct" --
es...@worldbank.org \ -- just doing what is CORRECT.
edwar...@wdn.com \ WHAT is right is more important than WHO is right.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
E.W. Swan
> If we don't complain, who will? The whole "if you don't like it, don't
> watch it" argument is stupid. This is a group for the discussion for sf.tv
> (I'm posting from rasftv) and the other groups are for discussion of the
> TV show. Discussion != praise.
REGARDLESS of what forum this is ... "if you don't like, don't watch" is
NOT stupid. Watching a show just because it is Star Trek, hoping that
"it will get better like TNG did", IS stupid.
Good God. Rick Berman could take a shit on a silver platter and people
would still cry "it stinks!". NO KIDDING... I'd be holding my breath
rather than sticking my nose right in it!
ej...@winternet.com
>My basic beef with Voyager is believability.
If that is true then why want any star trek at all. Most of the shows
are based on faulty science. I watch it so that I can suspend belief
otherwise they are not worth the time.
After all is just a TV show. If you want real life watch COPS.
BTW, why is there no COPs or America's Most Wanted newsgroup?
From my desk to yours.
ej...@winternet.com
>I actually thought "Twisted" was an improvement from the previous two eps.
>True, the officers managed to get stuck in the holodeck again (though they could leave), and
>true, the effects were a bit cheesy and it was yet another space anomoly ... but, finally:
>1. We were left with something we didn't understand.
>2. The crew came up with NO answer ... they were just lucky. YES! No
>"pulling-a-solution-out-of-my-ass-captain" this time!
>3. It was curious seeing how the officers in the holodeck came together just before they thought
>they might die. Tuvok, especially, was interesting. Was it loyalty or is there a bit of emotion
>showing?
>4. Nobody whined about wanting to be human.
>A step in the right direction, IMHO.
I never thought about it in that way and you are on to something,
especially the not pulling the rabbit out of the hat at the end. That
is what I like about the story and given the past stuff with ST it is
a novel idea, no one could have predicted.
It is clear that many people do not like the UFP humans not having an
answer but hey they didn't and things worked out.
Ted McCoy
>The problem with "Twisted" was that it consisted of a series of
>unconnected scenes that for the most part had no effect on the story
>line. Most scenes could have been shown in any order or left out
>entirely. The actors had this "deer in the headlights" look in their
>eyes that indicated that they were trying to figure out just what they
>were supposed to do in the scene.
Yup. The episode consisted, quite literally, of characters wandering around
aimlessly, displaying no real signs of intelligence, and eventually deciding
to simply sit down and let the plot resolve itself. What drama.
Now, even if the plot is weak, good character interaction can save an episode
for me, but even the characterization was weak here. The dialogue could've
been reshuffled randomly among the characters and an awful lot of it would've
still made sense, because so much of it was meaningless filler material.
Only two real attempts at characterization in the entire episode: Neelix
being jealous over Kes (which plays like a Baywatch subplot, only without the
swimsuits) and the conflict between Tuvok and Chakotay (which basically
served to reinforce the idea that Starfleet is always right, the Maquis are
always wrong, and conflicts will always evaporate by the end of the episode).
>The director must have been asleep or on drugs.
There were reports earlier that the episode ended up several minutes too short,
because the fx scenes were expected to last longer. (Yeah, I know: what fx?)
I definitely agree that "Twisted" had some of the worst direction I've seen
on Trek in a long time.
>In many scenes the actors can be seen trying very hard to make something
>happen. Considering the bad situation, B'lanna's order shouting scene
>should be considered Emmy nomination material since she manages to rise
>to the level of mediocre.
>
>Neelix, though, was positively cartoonish.
The acting all seemed . . . mechanical. Maybe not wooden, but certainly not
interesting. Blame the writing and direction, I guess. Considering how
generic and bland most of the dialogue was, it's not surprising that the
actors would also come across as a bit bland.
Ted
VDENNY
(StoOdin101) writes:
>
>This is the reason that more and more I become persuaded that the only
>dramatic TV fit to watch is cast in the anthology format, with no
>continuing characters or plot lines from one week to the next. Of course
>such programs will have their share of bad episodes --- TV is scarcely
>known for its content ---- but if one is a total bust one week, the next
>week they can try again from scratch. Unlike Voyager, which is locked
into
>a hopeless format that puts it in the category of Gilligans Island, Lost
>in Space and Land of the Lost. Scarcely stellar company. But I still
>watch it, madly clinging to the forlorn idea that somehow, in the face of
>all logic, it will improve.
>And it never does. Twisted was horribly bad, but no worse than 90% of the
>previous episodes. And will that gigaquad of new info somehow move things
>off Square One, or will we just never hear about it again?
I don't agree that changing the cast each week would be better. TNG was
successful because it changed the FOCUS of the cast each week. One or two
characters were developed further, with little side plots to leave you in
suspense. This is where "Generations" kind of lost me. When you have 120
minutes of commercial-free movie you need to develop all those little side
plots. "Generations" was OK but not great because the only character who
progressed in this fan's eyes was Data, and they may have overdone that
(except he found Spot at the end. I love cats).
"Twisted" was completely awful. People wandering the ship lost. No one got
to know each other better until the last five minutes, and even that was
pathetic. The only characters I like are Kes and the EMH and everyone else
should gradually be killed off...if the show itself doesn't die first. DS9
is kicking ass right now. Loved that season premier. Going to watch it
again in a minute. Bye!
Vince
ej...@winternet.com
>>...Lots of hand-wringing by the crew, but for me, never the _slightest_
>>doubt that everything would be back to ground zero at the end.
>I wrote a paper about this in college. Basically it falls under a theory
>I have regarding any successful TV show. The theory states that any
>episode must not change the base line premise of the show too much
>because to do so means previous knowledge of the change to many key
>people, and that means leaks to you and I (the public).
>The show has a goal and each episode can take the ship to an extreme, but
>the ship's state must be saved from episode to episode within the bounds
>of the show's goal. In other words, when the show's over everything's got
>to be pretty much the way it was when the show started.
>Any questions, comments or flames ... please e-mail me.
>---
>Rick Hodgin
>foxm...@indy.net
Did you watch any TV before you wrote the paper? Did the person
grading the paper every watch any TV. There are so many holes in your
logic I do not know where to start.
Doctor Who
Mission Impossible
MASH
I love lucy, lucille ball show, lucy
to name a few with changing charaters
Sliders, Hill Street Blues, and Quantum Leap ended their shows with
trouble coming at you
The twilight zone, outer limits, and alfred hitchcock presents ended
shows on very down beat themes
I could go on and on and on
ej...@winternet.com
> You know what this newsgroup needs? An FAQ. In the FAQ, it
>should say, "if you just don't like voyager, stop watching and don't
>waste our time about it."
I would prefer the FAQ to say if you take this newsgroup chatter to
seriously then don't lurk, reply, comment, read, or waste our
bandwith.
WAYNE CROW
GN> I'll say this much, at least from the group I'm reading (rasftv)
>all-things trek are anything BUT blindly praised. I've seen very few
>people (anywhere) who will even try to defend Voyager.
I've been watching Voyager. And I'm saying, IMO, I'm so far
disappointed in this season. There's been two episodes that I've
actually liked this season so far. The "37er's" and the one where the
Kazon boy is after Chakotay, can't remember the exact name. I liked
those two episodes, but the rest is so so.
GN> DS:9 is a different story. It's good, quality TV.
> In fact, the season premier was as good as anything TNG ever did (with the
>exception of _Best of Both Worlds_).
> The worst thing I've heard about DS:9 is "inconsistent".
DS9 on the other hand has done very well with the premier. I just
watched it yesterday (Saturday). I must say I was pleasantly surprised.
I liked the battle scenes a lot. I see several storylines this season
for Lt. Cmdr. Worf. I think adding Worf now, was a great idea. I had my
reservations to begin with, but those reservations are long gone.
Comments???
---
QMPro 1.53 ILDCAT! BBS QmodemPro Off-Line Xpress: Perfection!
E.W. Swan
> foxm...@indy1.uucp (Rick Hodgin *** Author of Q/Language) wrote:
>
> >I wrote a paper about this in college. Basically it falls under a theory
> >I have regarding any successful TV show. The theory states that any
> >episode must not change the base line premise of the show too much
> >because to do so means previous knowledge of the change to many key
> >people, and that means leaks to you and I (the public).
>
> matter because That's a stupid theory!
It is NOT a stupid theory! It's the way TV works! Most drama is made to
be wrapped up by the end of the hour. That included TNG, DS9 (to a
certain extent) and now Voyager. It also includes "Murder, She Wrote",
"Law & Order", "The A-Team" ... ad nauseum.
A few shows trancend these boundaries, like "ER", "Murder One", "The
X-Files", "Melrose Place", and "Party of Five". I tend to like these
kinds of shows better. But historically a TV show returns to status quo
by the end of the episode so new viewers can jump in at any time and the
studio doesn't have to worry about continuity too much.
> >The show has a goal and each episode can take the ship to an extreme, but
> >the ship's state must be saved from episode to episode within the bounds
> >of the show's goal. In other words, when the show's over everything's got
> >to be pretty much the way it was when the show started.
>
> That's stupid! What was the point than anyway, Dick?
At least he HAD one ... unlike you.
E.W. Swan
> >So a brief suggestion to all of those valiently martyring
> >themselves by watching a show they hate: DON'T. Turn the
> >channel, read a book, walk the dog.
>
> themselves by dating people they don't like: DON'T. Quick
> socializing, read a book, walk the dog.
This coming from a person who probably has had very few relationships.
=) Really, now, that was a very weak analogy. Before I was married, I
went out with people to see what they were like. When it was apparent
that she and I weren't going to get along, we discontinued the
relationship. No reason to stop dating altogether... there ARE other
fish in the sea, and other TV shows to watch if you're unhappy.
> I've heard this argument a million times. I love Star Trek. I've
> even liked (yes, believe it or not) a few Voyager episodes. I
> keep watching in the hope that they will fire the idiots currently
> writing episodes and we'll have some new, much better, material.
> Just as people date to try to find the right person, I'm watching
> hoping to find decent episodes. Star Trek has an enormous potential
> for interesting and entertaining episodes. But, I reserve the right
> to complain when they air 4 episodes filmed for the first season which
> are so awful they almost did not put them on.
You have a valid point, but people have a tendency to judge whole
episodes based on the previews, making the judgment that they will
probably suck. Then they act so surprised when they don't enjoy the
show. Personally I enjoy "Voyager" and I watch because I have fun during
that hour. My time is valuable to me, and if something makes me unhappy,
I stop doing it.
> BTW, before you say that flaming here is not going to have much of
> an impact on the show, think about how many times we've seen Internet
> mentioned in interviews and articles related to the show. They
I think we shouldn't overestimate our importance. The online community
can vary greatly whether you're on RIME, Fido, Genie, Prodigy,
Compuserve, AOL, or Usenet, and we really represent only a small fraction
of the millions of viewers who watch Star Trek.
Although, I must say, Berman & Co. is pretty foolish to pass up
opportunities to gather information on what does and does not please a
cross-section of fans.
Greg Bryant
: Speaking of the teaser, were they trying to send some sort of
: mesage when the words "GO TO HELL" flashed upon the screen?
: Also, didn't the aliens they showed briefly look like Jem Hadar?
:
The ships were definitly Jem Hadar (though ST ships have been doing double,
triple and quadruple duty for different races for years - keeps the
special effects budgets down).
--
Greg Bryant * gbr...@erinet.com * Middletown Public Library
------------------------------------------------------------
"Central Services! We do the work - you do the pleasure!"
--
The views expressed do not represent the views of my employer.
Ubiquitous
>First off I'd like to know, what is a GIGAQUAD?(I
>realise that its an element of storage, but a gigaquad?..
As far as I can guess, it's either 4 GIGs, a quarter of a GIG,
or a million quarters.
If they wanted to make us think 'BIG number", at least use a real one!
(insert joke about complex numbers if you wish)
>Secondly did you notice when Chakoty was placed in a
>command position, he ran with his Maquis ball? Told
>Tuvok to take a hike. When all failed, he didn't know
>what to do.
Chakote was "punishing" Tupoc for getting them in that mess by not
flying over the ring-shaped anomoly. ;-)
Did Tupoc and Chakote's behavior seem funny to anyone else?
>The problem with Voyager more than anything else, is
>that a) the characters are not evolving.
>
>Janeway in her husky little shrill drives me nuts.
I think that's not a valid reason to dislike her, particuarly
when there's a bunch of other character flaws to use.
How about the fact that she's obnoxiously "PC" and has no backbone?
If you want details, there's a whole other thread on it and I dont
feel like rehashing it.
>Tuvok, his staid Vulcan appearance (incidently did you
>notice that in Twisted he mentioned how Chakoty's
>promotion to First Officer ' Gave him a feeling that he
>was unacustomed to?" -- since when do Vulcans have
>feelings?..) Sorry got off track...drive me nuts. Spock
>at the very least was funny, call him the straight man,
>with Bones and Kirk delivering the punch lines. IT
>worked..
Vulcans have feelings, but I dont feel like rehashing that again
either. What's annoying about Tupoc is that he's like the
Uhura of Voyager. Can anyone recall anything interesting
about him?
Doug Lavan
> >> >Funny you mention this, because, yes, the Voyager problem is more than
> >> >just, "Gee, that was lame, let's see what we can gripe about next week."
> >>
> >> Picky, but: it's not THE problem-- it's probably your problem
> >> right now. If everyone else sees it as a problem, it's THE problem.
>
> >I don't need a "constructive Exageration" Badge do I...?
>
> Maybe a clue badge would help...
Ahh, it's you, again. I recognized your characteristic negativity...
We live in a very "confrontaion-based" "opinion-based" society right now
Dave. Please don't contribute.
Besides your logic is flawed. You don't need a majority or unanimous
decision for something to be truth. no wonder the KKK still thinks
they're right!
ANYHOW.....
> Ha! TNG usually put me to sleep. If anyone wants to
> criticize the "particle-of-the-week" concept, hit them. TNG
> occasionally made me wonder, but it was when Troi would put in for a
> transfer, or maybe when Wesley would be put on duty as a guard at the
> Neutral Zone.
Sure those bits were sleepers, but at least they made up for it next
episode. And i didn't mind the particle of the week so bad in TNG. It
was kinda fun, but it loses all it's value in Voyager. They need to find
a new way to figre out tough problems. Perhaps go back to tearing out
panels and hard-wiring (?) stuff together like in the old series?
> >What I mean, is that we are already delving into so many interpersonal
> >stories and what-not which is fine, but it doesn't seem like the OVERALL
> >plot of this series has panned out. ST:NG "To seek out new life..."
> >well, every episode, we know they are doing that, so we don't scratch our
> >heads when we have an entire episode on, say Riker or Data, cause we are
> >comfortable with the plot and characters.
>
> That's probably true. The episodes don't have too much
> cohesion, IMHO. Give it time... TNG episodes didn't have much of this
> quality either, although DS9 manages it sometimes.
>
> > But I don't CARE about Mudshark's stupid recipes every episode,
> >until I'm sure each character has his place and the ship is heading
> >somewhere...
>
> Every series has to have its annoying character.
Yup. Thus the problem. Oh, sorry, *A* problem.
> >No, but they are too much the opportunists. "Oh, we stumbled across this
> >sentient anomoly, let's see if IT can help us." There needs to be a holy
> >grail. Otherwise each episode we are wondering not, "Will they get
> >closer, will they find the grail." It's, "What will they happen upon this
> >time." that gets muy dull.
>
> I would personally like to see both concepts. Do you hear us
> Paramount? :)
> [...]
ha! more like [...?...]
> >> Ummm... Alien race that wants to kill them... hmmm.. sounds
> >> kind of like another Fox show that's on right now... hmm...
>
> >By chance, yes, but those aliens don't talk and they throw up at the
> >sight of water! :)
>
>
> Yes, but Neelix's cooking, on the other hand...
True. I can only imagine how much of his furry little crust balls get
into the soup!
Wolvie
Petrea Mitchell
: I /still/ can't figure out why people who seem to dislike the show
: so much continue to watch it.
It's fun to MST, and there's always the remote chance that the
next episode could have some decent writing.
--
/ <|> <|> <pr...@mvp.com> <pr...@gm.dev.com>
Petrea Mitchell ** GO NINERS ** <pem...@is.nyu.edu>
"There's a time to think, and a time to act. And--" <whirr> "--this is
no time to think." ---John Candy in _Canadian Bacon_
*** Push the button... someone. :~( *** eWorks!
Daniel B Case
>Did you watch any TV before you wrote the paper? Did the person
>grading the paper every watch any TV. There are so many holes in your
>logic I do not know where to start.
>
>Doctor Who
>Mission Impossible
>MASH
>I love lucy, lucille ball show, lucy
>to name a few with changing charaters
>
>Sliders, Hill Street Blues, and Quantum Leap ended their shows with
>trouble coming at you
>
>The twilight zone, outer limits, and alfred hitchcock presents ended
>shows on very down beat themes
And what about the X Files? After the recent trilogy ended,
1) Mulder's dad is dead.
2) Scully's sister is dead when she should have been.
3) Cancer Man is really on the outs with his cabal, and someone wants to
kill him to boot.
4) They know more about what they're up against.
5) Skinner's ass can get kicked too, we learn.
Now, granted, you don't do that every other episode. But I like that in a
TV show.
Daniel Case V140...@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu
"A man should build a house with his own hands
before he calls himself an engineer."
Prodigy:WDNS15D -Alexander Solzhenitsyn dc...@acsu.buffalo.edu