People who love Voyager - incomprehensible
SFTV_troy
and there's comment after comment from people who LOVE Voyager. I
simply cannot comprehend. Voyager's not the worst Trek but it's
definitely at the bottom of the pile - worse than TOS, worse than TNG,
worse than DS9 - even worse than Enterprise. How can people love
Voyager and be sad it ended???
By that point I didn't care if Voyager lived or died, and never saw
the final two seasons until the DVD release many years later. It was
so dull. Maybe it has something to do with age - I was 30 while most
of the youtube commentors were still kids or teens.
They grew-up with the show.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nAPY4Vwtpy8
Elzee36
> I stumbled across the video (below) regarding Voyager's final episode,
> and there's comment after comment from people who LOVE Voyager. I
> simply cannot comprehend. Voyager's not the worst Trek but it's
> definitely at the bottom of the pile - worse than TOS, worse than TNG,
> worse than DS9 - even worse than Enterprise. How can people love
> Voyager and be sad it ended???
>
TOS, TNG, DS9 and Enterprise? What remains?
:O)
Davej
> I stumbled across the video (below) regarding Voyager's final episode,
> and there's comment after comment from people who LOVE Voyager. I
> simply cannot comprehend.
It was a chick show you idiot.
Tom
Why do you like some of the things you like, while others do not?
Please explain how and why you like something someone else doesn't.
Tom
Ar Q
"Elzee36" <elz...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:8f97a167-87df-4038...@t21g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Star Trek: the animation series.
SFTV_troy
> On Jul 8, 4:45 pm, SFTV_troy <SFTV_t...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > I stumbled across the video (below) regarding Voyager's final episode,
> > and there's comment after comment from people who LOVE Voyager. I
> > simply cannot comprehend.
>
> Why do you like some of the things you like, while others do not?
> Please explain how and why you like something someone else doesn't.
Well I'll start by saying I don't like shows which make stupid
mistakes and/or insult my intelligence. Namely Voyager. The show
started okay, building on the talented staff from TNG, but it didn't
take long for it to devolve. (Example: The ability to have an
infinite amount of torpedoes and antimatter fuel.)
Tom
You didn't answer my question. All you did was tell us why you don't
like Voyager.
Please explain why you like something someone else doesn't.
It needn't be a TV show. It can be food, drink, clothing... you pick.
Tom
It's the Principle!
You're dealing with STFU_troy. Don't ask for logic on any level.
--
Brandy Alexandre
Yes, the TP should always unwind over, not under.
Pete B
@h8g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, SFTV...@yahoo.com says...
> How can people love
> Voyager and be sad it ended???
>
>
Because their taste is different from yours.
fr...@miami.edu
building a larger scale replicator in a storage bay, to create new
torpedoes and have someone onboard engineer a new fuel base from
substances plentiful in the delta quadrant to help answer these questions.
i recall janeway even saying in the first episode that they only had a
limited amount of torpedoes.
Seamus MacRae
Jeri Ryan's costumes.
clouddreamer
> i would have had an episode near the beginning of the run showing someone
> building a larger scale replicator in a storage bay, to create new
> torpedoes and have someone onboard engineer a new fuel base from
> substances plentiful in the delta quadrant to help answer these questions.
> i recall janeway even saying in the first episode that they only had a
> limited amount of torpedoes.
At that time. Nothing said they didn't make more. Surely any military
space ship would have the capability given the distances involved.
It's the kind of thing you simply have to dismiss with the rational
explanation that there was facilities aboard to construct torpedoes etc.
To let it get in the way of watching the show is pretty dumb. I mean,
why isn't Troy whining about transporters. If he can so easily accept
that the ship can move a human being several hundred miles through thin
air instantly then he should be able to accept that it can build a
bloody torpedo.
Oh wait...we're talking Troy here....my bad...
..
>
>> From: SFTV_troy <SFTV...@yahoo.com>
>> Well I'll start by saying I don't like shows which make stupid
>> mistakes and/or insult my intelligence. Namely Voyager. The show
>> started okay, building on the talented staff from TNG, but it didn't
>> take long for it to devolve. (Example: The ability to have an
>> infinite amount of torpedoes and antimatter fuel.)
--
We must change the way we live
Or the climate will do it for us.
Turk
>
> - Show quoted text -
Yeah, those costumes were something alright, but the Seven of Nine
character was a fun addition to the Star Trek pantheon, and brought
Voyager to life at the time.
Turk
Podkayne Fries
>I simply cannot comprehend.
I'll take "What is the phrase Troy Heagy uses hourly that best sums up
his life?" for $500, Alex.
--
Regards, Podkayne Fries
"The truth is, I like this world. You've got dog racing,
Manchester United. And you've got people. Billions of
people walking around like Happy Meals with legs." -
Spike, BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER, "Becoming, Part 2"
krp
"Turk" <chica...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:e14a7cb0-48f8-4dff...@d36g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
> >> I stumbled across the video (below) regarding Voyager's final episode,
> >> and there's comment after comment from people who LOVE Voyager. I
> >> simply cannot comprehend. Voyager's not the worst Trek but it's
> >> definitely at the bottom of the pile - worse than TOS, worse than TNG,
> >> worse than DS9 - even worse than Enterprise. How can people love
> >> Voyager and be sad it ended???
>
> >> By that point I didn't care if Voyager lived or died, and never saw
> >> the final two seasons until the DVD release many years later. It was
> >> so dull. Maybe it has something to do with age - I was 30 while most
> >> of the youtube commentors were still kids or teens.
>
> >> They grew-up with the show.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nAPY4Vwtpy8
>
> > Why do you like some of the things you like, while others do not?
>
> > Please explain how and why you like something someone else doesn't.
>
> Jeri Ryan's costumes.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
T> Yeah, those costumes were something alright, but the Seven of Nine
T> character was a fun addition to the Star Trek pantheon, and brought
T> Voyager to life at the time.
Besides being a stunning woman, Jeri Ryan was a good actress. I never
liked Kate Mulgrew as Janeway. Originally they wanted to get Kate Jackson,
but Jackson is known for being a somewhat temperamental "star" and she was
one of two actresses that bolted from the pilot. I am not sure who the other
actress was. Many Star Trek fans never liked Mulgrew. While she isn't a bad
looking woman, she seems to me more suited to the role of a shrew in the
daytime soaps (Ryan's Hope). Kate Jackson would have done a better job, but
I think would have ultimately ruined the series with her "I AM A STAR"
tantrums. Hollywood considers her to be an extremely "difficult" person to
work with. The other actress, I believe refused the role because she felt
the scripts were a bit vapid. I can't disagree with that assessment. The
premise was a bit tepid at the start and never really improved. Voyager and
DS9 were disappointments. Enterprise with Bakula et al had promise but by
then the franchise had been badly tarnished and there just wasn't the
commitment to run it with any real commitment from the studio. Which is why
it was aired all over the dial instead of with a single network commitment.
It just seems that since TNG the rest was all bound to disappoint.
SFTV_troy
First off, why should I answer my question, when you haven't answered
mine? That seems kind of rude (imho). "I know you just asked me a
question, but I'll ignore your curiosity, and ask you a different
question just to aannoy you."
But I'll answer anyway...
I like Babylon 5 even though a lot of people don't. The reason I like
B5 is because the creator/writer took time to develop multiple layers
- references to modern-day politics, references to classic mythology,
references to religion's influence on people's decisions. He didn't
just put random words into characters ("Go here; Do that; move quick")
but took time to give the speeches depth. i.e. I like the
monologues. It's almost shakespearean.
Now back to my original question - why do peoople like the kiddie show
called Voyager? (I call it kiddie because the IQ level is about the
same as the typical Disney Channel show.)
SFTV_troy
>
>The other actress, I believe refused the role because she felt
> the scripts were a bit vapid. I can't disagree with that assessment.
The other actress being a French-Canadian who once played the
excellent role of King Henry's wife. And she was right about the
vapid nature of the scripts. Although one thing I never understood is
why she didn't bother to watch Next Generation - she should have known
she'd get more of the same, since it was essentially the same writing
staff.
> premise was a bit tepid at the start and never really improved.
> Voyager and DS9 were disappointments.
DS9 was hardly a disappointment. Yes it started poorly (first 1.5
years), but it eventually rose to the level of #1 Science Fiction show
ever made. (Tied with B5.) DS9 developed a depth of story,
character, and politics which TOS, TNG, VOY lacked.
DS9 is the only version of Trek where I own the entire series from
start-to-finish.
> Enterprise .... there just wasn't the commitment to run it with any
> real commitment from the studio. Which is why it was aired
> all over the dial instead of with a single network commitment.
You must live in some strange alternate reality that's not ours.
"Aired all over the place"? "No single network"??? Enterprise ran in
the same timeslot as Voyager did, on the national network called UPN.
Every Wednesday at 9 p.m. It was more stable than TNG or DS9 had been
(airing at random times).
And yes Paramount was committed to it - it would have been canceled at
season 3 but Paramount told UPN, "We'll give you one more year at
almost no cost," so that's how we got season 4. (The 66 episodes were
too short for rerun sales.... hence they needed one more season.)
Basically your whole paragraph that I quoted is incorrect.
SFTV_troy
> fr...@miami.edu wrote:
>
> > i recall janeway even saying in the first episode that they only had a
> > limited amount of torpedoes.
>
> At that time. Nothing said they didn't make more. Surely any military
> space ship would have the capability given the distances involved.
The modern military can't make torpedoes or missiles and they operate
a month away from the U.S. ports. For example if a destroyer
(approximately equivalent to Voyager's class) uses-up all its weapons,
it's done. The destroyer lacks the necessary skilled engineers and
equipment to make more weapons, and even if they had the ability, they
lack enough space. (The factories require acres of room.)
Even if Star Trek used its magic to replicate the hardware for the
torpedoes, you still don't have any antimatter to make them go
"boom". Antimatter isn't just laying around in space. In fact it's
the rarest element in the universe - rarer than diamonds or gold. So
basically if you built a replication room, then Voyager would be
filled with a bunch of empty torpedo cases, and nothing to fuel them.
(Or the ship - which also needs antimatter.)
> To let it get in the way of watching the show is pretty dumb.
Yeah but this was just ONE example of dozens. Even if we assume
Voyager had a resupply port nearby with tons of new torpedoes and
fuel, the resolution to each week's episode was often ridiculous.
Example: The numerous episodes where the Borg should have beat Voyager
and assimulated the entire crew, but somehow did not (i.e. dumb
luck). Example: The one where Tom Paris & Janeway turn into
lizards.
Elzee36
>
> Well I'll start by saying I don't like shows which make stupid
> mistakes and/or insult my intelligence.<
Which basically is every TV show or movie out there.
Its a TV show.
Its FICTION.
SCIENCE FICTION.
Entertainment.
Dont take it sooooooooo seriously.
Are you one of the regulars on "The Big Bang Theory"?
Have a good day sir.
Anim8rFSK
<9e9c4d0c-19e2-4ae9...@x5g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
Elzee36 <elz...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Jul 8, 8:38�pm, SFTV troy <SFTV t...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > Well I'll start by saying I don't like shows which make stupid
> > mistakes and/or insult my intelligence.<
>
> Which basically is every TV show or movie out there.
> Its a TV show.
> Its FICTION.
> SCIENCE FICTION.
> Entertainment.
Nonsense. Voyager wasn't entertainment.
> Dont take it sooooooooo seriously.
> Are you one of the regulars on "The Big Bang Theory"?
> Have a good day sir.
> �
The fact that YOU put a 'low standards zone' sign on your front lawn
doesn't mean the rest of us have to.
--
Uncle Jack: "Will, you're invisible!"
Will: "Invisible? I can't be! I can touch myself!"
--actual dialog from third season LAND OF THE LOST
Tom
> On Jul 8, 8:03 pm, Tom <drso...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 8, 7:38 pm, SFTV_troy <SFTV_t...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 8, 7:05 pm, Tom <drso...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jul 8, 4:45 pm, SFTV_troy <SFTV_t...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > I stumbled across the video (below) regarding Voyager's final episode,
> > > > > and there's comment after comment from people who LOVE Voyager. I
> > > > > simply cannot comprehend.
> > > > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nAPY4Vwtpy8
>
> > > > Why do you like some of the things you like, while others do not?
> > > > Please explain how and why you like something someone else doesn't.
>
> > > Well I'll start by saying I don't like shows which make stupid
> > > mistakes and/or insult my intelligence. Namely Voyager. The show
> > > started okay, building on the talented staff from TNG, but it didn't
> > > take long for it to devolve. (Example: The ability to have an
> > > infinite amount of torpedoes and antimatter fuel.)
>
> > You didn't answer my question. All you did was tell us why you don't
> > like Voyager.
>
> > Please explain why you like something someone else doesn't.
>
> First off, why should I answer my question, when you haven't answered
> mine? That seems kind of rude (imho). "I know you just asked me a
> question, but I'll ignore your curiosity, and ask you a different
> question just to aannoy you."
Oy, first off, I hope you meant to write 'your question' above.
Second, Not answering a seemingly rhetorical question is not rude.
Jeeze, what are you, three?
Third, if you're so easily annoyed, Usenet is not the place for you.
Fourth, the answer to your question lies in your answer to my
question.
>
> But I'll answer anyway...
>
> I like Babylon 5 even though a lot of people don't. The reason I like
> B5 is because the creator/writer took time to develop multiple layers
> - references to modern-day politics, references to classic mythology,
> references to religion's influence on people's decisions. He didn't
> just put random words into characters ("Go here; Do that; move quick")
> but took time to give the speeches depth. i.e. I like the
> monologues. It's almost shakespearean.
Are you deliberately trying to be dense? You still haven't answered my
question. I suppose this is the best I'm going to get, tho.
So you like B5 for the reasons stated above. Why isn't it ok for
someone to like Voyager for their own reasons?
Just because you don't/can't understand their reasons doesn't mean
they are not valid.
As far as I'm concerned, JMS is about as far from Shakespear as a
writer can get, but I'm not insulting you or questioning your I.Q. by
disagreeing with you. You have your opinion and I have mine... judging
someone for their opinions shouldn't play into a crituqe of, well,
anything.
Now, do you see how I've disagreed with your assessment of B% without
insulting you?
>
> Now back to my original question - why do peoople like the kiddie show
> called Voyager? (I call it kiddie because the IQ level is about the
> same as the typical Disney Channel show.)- Hide quoted text -
>
I'll answer your seemingly rhetorical question, tho...
"How can people love
Voyager and be sad it ended???"
People have different tastes, likes and dislikes. What you like, I may
not like. Because someone may like something you don't doesn't give
you license to judge said likes/dislikes.
Tom
PV
>Second, Not answering a seemingly rhetorical question is not rude.
>Jeeze, what are you, three?
Stop insulting three year olds by comparing them to Troy Heagy.
>People have different tastes, likes and dislikes. What you like, I may
>not like. Because someone may like something you don't doesn't give
>you license to judge said likes/dislikes.
Not only that, but tastes change too. In first run, I loathed voyager
beyond belief, and didn't watch three years of it.
A couple of years ago I started watching the reruns, and ... I still think
it's an incredibly dumb show, but it was dumb in an often very entertaining
way. I ended up not exactly *liking* it, but I was a little unhappy that
the reruns ran out. Compare and contrast with "Enterprise", which I can
still not watch most of without wanting to throw something through the
screen.
TNG went the exact opposite way - I was a big fan in first run, but I can't
stand a minute of it now. *
--
* PV something like badgers--something like lizards--and something
like corkscrews.
SFTV_troy
> On Jul 9, 6:43 am, SFTV_troy <SFTV_t...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > I like Babylon 5 even though a lot of people don't. The reason I like
> > B5 is because the creator/writer took time to develop multiple layers
> > - references to modern-day politics, references to classic mythology,
> > references to religion's influence on people's decisions. He didn't
> > just put random words into characters ("Go here; Do that; move quick")
> > but took time to give the speeches depth. i.e. I like the
> > monologues. It's almost shakespearean.
>
> Are you deliberately trying to be dense? You still haven't answered
> my question. I suppose this is the best I'm going to get, tho.
Actually, yes I did answer the question "why you like something
someone else doesn't" and I answered it with lots of detail. You
simply did not like the answer I gave. (Why? Who knows?)
> So you like B5 for the reasons stated above. Why isn't it ok for
> someone to like Voyager for their own reasons?
Well I guess I'm going to have to be blunt, just as you were blunt
when you called me "dense". Because it's like watching Days of Our
Lives, As the World Turns, and other soap operas. It's bad. Which is
why I said it is "incomprehensible" why someone would want to watch
it.
Unless they're doing it like a Mystery Science Theater routine -
watching just so they can laugh at it.
> As far as I'm concerned, JMS is about as far from Shakespear as a
> writer can get, but I'm not insulting you or questioning your I.Q.
You called me "dense". I consider that an insutl, expecically since
I'm a college grad with two degrees in engineers, and therefore FAR
from being a dense minded person.
Oh and one more thing. It is valid to question why or why not a work
of art is good. It's called literary analysis, and if you've ever
been to college or taken AP English then you've done that.
PV
>i would have had an episode near the beginning of the run showing someone
>building a larger scale replicator in a storage bay, to create new
>torpedoes
They actually have that already, I believe. I never had a problem with them
not running out of stuff like that - the only dumb shortage stuff was when
they're desperately looking for the most abundant chemical element in the
universe. *
SFTV_troy
> Elzee36 <elze...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > Dont take it sooooooooo seriously. Are you one
> > of the regulars on "The Big Bang Theory"?
Whatever that is. I don't have cable, and I suspect I'm not missing
much by missing that show.
> > Have a good day sir.
> >
>
> The fact that YOU put a 'low standards zone' sign on your
> front lawn doesn't mean the rest of us have to.
(clap) (clap) (clap) Well said. Everybody has SOME kind of standard,
otherwise they'd just watch whatever streams across the television
screen. Some people may have low standards, but not me.
My standards (and I suspect Anim's too) are high. Voyager didn't pass
the muster, and I can understand people watching it if there was
nothing else on. I simply cannot understand people "loving" it. Or
"missing" it. Or "wishing it was revived".
What's there to love? Almost nothing.
Mac Breck
> In article
> <9e9c4d0c-19e2-4ae9...@x5g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> Elzee36 <elz...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> On Jul 8, 8:38 pm, SFTV troy <SFTV t...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Well I'll start by saying I don't like shows which make stupid
>>> mistakes and/or insult my intelligence.<
>>
>> Which basically is every TV show or movie out there.
>> Its a TV show.
>> Its FICTION.
>> SCIENCE FICTION.
>> Entertainment.
>
> Nonsense. Voyager wasn't entertainment.
Voyager and DS9 were slow torture.
>> Dont take it sooooooooo seriously.
>> Are you one of the regulars on "The Big Bang Theory"?
>> Have a good day sir.
>>
> The fact that YOU put a 'low standards zone' sign on your front lawn
> doesn't mean the rest of us have to.
Exactly.
--
Mac Breck (KoshN)
-------------------------------
"Babylon 5: Crusade" (1999)
Durkani: It doesn't matter if they believe us. Sooner or later the
truth's going to come out. The truth is....
Kendarr: ....out of fashion.
Mac Breck
<snip>
> TNG went the exact opposite way - I was a big fan in first run, but I
> can't stand a minute of it now. *
I feel that way, but not to the same degree that you do. I was a big
fan of TNG during its first run, but after having watched B5, ....well,
I can still watch TNG, but it is rather simplistic. Ditto for a lot of
TOS, as well. Regarding DS9 and VOY, I have the same reaction that I
have to a type of food or drink that made me *sick* in the past. Some
people can't stand the smell of tequila because it made then sick in the
past. I'm the same way with DS9 and almost all of VOY.
Beowulf Bolt
>
> On Jul 9, 10:20 am, Tom <drso...@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> > So you like B5 for the reasons stated above. Why isn't it ok for
> > someone to like Voyager for their own reasons?
>
> Well I guess I'm going to have to be blunt, just as you were blunt
> when you called me "dense". Because it's like watching Days of Our
> Lives, As the World Turns, and other soap operas. It's bad. Which is
> why I said it is "incomprehensible" why someone would want to watch
> it.
See, Tom? Here is the fundamental problem with your response. Troy
Heagy is incapable of distinguishing between "facts" and "opinions".
Thus, in his mind, Voyager was *objectively* bad, and no-one could
possibly like it for any reason.
(Disclaimer: I also loathed Voyager, but although I can argue that it
was a crappy incarnation of Star Trek, and abandoned its very premise
with startling haste, such does not mean that I find it impossible that
someone liked it for what it was.)
> You called me "dense". I consider that an insutl, expecically since
> I'm a college grad with two degrees in engineers, and therefore FAR
> from being a dense minded person.
Oh, the irony.
Perhaps with mangled grammer like that, you should consider giving
your college back your "two degrees in engineers".
Allow me to point out another logical flaw in your "argument": having
"two degrees in engineers" is not an argument against you being a
complete dumbass (aka dense) when it comes to other fields, such as
arguing about shitty teevee shows on the internet.
> Oh and one more thing. It is valid to question why or why not a work
> of art is good. It's called literary analysis, and if you've ever
> been to college or taken AP English then you've done that.
So discussion about the merits of Voyager is now *literary* analysis?
Fascinating. Please do go on...
Biff
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------
"All around me darkness gathers, fading is the sun that shone,
we must speak of other matters, you can be me when I'm gone..."
- SANDMAN #67, Neil Gaiman
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Space Cowboy
albeit, some were good, the early Borg,though a high tech ripoff of
the Cybermen...both a Colin Baker arc and David Tennant ep showed
the Cybermen are made much in the same way. Where no one...... liked
that......warp drive is not slow...it doesn't take 78 years to cross
the Milky Way, unless you're retarted, as I suspect Berman and Braga
are. See "The Star Trek Maps" booklet 'Introduction to Navigation'
for the real warp scale...and even in Where no one hgb4..Geordi remarks
that at max warp it would take the D just 50 years to return to the MW
from that first jump they took, faster that the Kelvan mod to the E-nil
of 300 years to Andromeda.
Thank you JJ for putting in that scene where when the big "E" drops out
of warp at Vulcan we see that wrecked primary hull scrape the nacell
without the big "E" blowing up.
Unlike that godawful excuse for a Kelsey Grammer paycheque where the
Bozeman barely gives the "D" a love tap and it blows up, over and over
until the let the main hanger deck blow a fart.
I could go on but in short......Voyager sucked, even "Enterprise"
was crap until the fourth season but then it was too late,
UPN was folding and merging with another to become CW.
With the outcome that now I have a low tolerance for Berman era fans.
Even with the flubs and cost-cutting I applaud Abrams for thinking big,
which Paramount never did with the TOS movies, ST:TMP suffered though
from the 'too many cooks syndrome' but was the only attempt at thinking
big for TOS. Going from a 'Phase Two" TV effort to the silver screen,
unions, writers, egos and all that......see the various "Making of..."
books.
As for scientific blunders, even TOS had those but for me as a kid it
was a natural progression from "Hop-a-long Cassidy"...to Rocky Jones to
'Trek in '66.
--
Origin: "Battle Beyond The Stars"[1980,George Peppard,actor.Roger
Corman,producer,low budget but fun to watch] Must See: "The
Magnificent Seven" & "The Seven Samurai" Starfleet in both
Prime(TOS) & Abrams`verses & Browncoat in another `verse!
trag
> infinite amount of torpedoes and antimatter fuel.)
Infinite supply of shuttle craft.
Janeway's method of combat. Ignore the aliens attacking us. Ignore
the aliens attacking us. "Uh, captain, shields are down to only
23%." Oh, okay, now you can return fire.
David Johnston
Which was pretty similar to Picard's method, only without the
returning fire.
Captain Infinity
Troy "Bucktoothed Moron" Heagy wrote:
>You called me "dense". I consider that an insutl
And another gem goes into the .sig file.
**
Captain Infinity
trag
> In first run, I loathed voyager
> beyond belief, and didn't watch three years of it.
>
> A couple of years ago I started watching the reruns, and ... I still think
> it's an incredibly dumb show, but it was dumb in an often very entertaining
> way.
Yes, but had you watched any of "Andromeda" or "Earth: Final Conflict"
in the meant time? Those two shows made Voyager watchable.
trag
Picard was actually competent at talking aliens out of wanting to
fight...
Elzee36
>
> The fact that YOU put a 'low standards zone' sign on your front lawn
> doesn't mean the rest of us have to.
>
Elzee36
>
> You called me "dense". I consider that an insutl, expecically since
> I'm a college grad with two degrees in engineers, and therefore FAR
> from being a dense minded person.
> > Oh and one more thing. It is valid to question why or why not a work
> of art is good. It's called literary analysis, and if you've ever
> been to college or taken AP English then you've done that.
Oh yeah Sheldon from "The Big Bang Theory" must be your clone,
LOLOLOLL!!!!
Elzee36
> On Jul 9, 9:35 am, Anim8rFSK <ANIM8R...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > Elzee36 <elze...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > Dont take it sooooooooo seriously. Are you one
> > > of the regulars on "The Big Bang Theory"?
>
> Whatever that is. I don't have cable, and I suspect I'm not missing
> much by missing that show.
>
Actually pretty funny with lots of SciFi references.
I suspect you would hang with the main characters.
:O)
Captain Infinity
Elzee36 wrote:
The Big Bang characters would find Troy "Cousins Shouldn't Breed" Heagy
so annoyingly insipid that they would murder him within hours and
dissolve his flesh and bones with chemicals from the chem lab to get rid
of the evidence.
**
Captain Infinity
..."You called me "dense". I consider that an insutl,
expecically since I'm a college grad with two degrees in engineers"
--Troy Heagy
Podkayne Fries
>
> You called me "dense". I consider that an insutl, expecically since
> I'm a college grad with two degrees in engineers, and therefore FAR
> from being a dense minded person.
I'm claiming .sig .rights. :)
--
"You know what I do when I feel really down?
I get up, I get dressed. I go out and I do something
really vile to someone." - Diana Trent, WAITING FOR GOD
Tom
> On Jul 9, 10:20 am, Tom <drso...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 9, 6:43 am, SFTV_troy <SFTV_t...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > I like Babylon 5 even though a lot of people don't. The reason I like
> > > B5 is because the creator/writer took time to develop multiple layers
> > > - references to modern-day politics, references to classic mythology,
> > > references to religion's influence on people's decisions. He didn't
> > > just put random words into characters ("Go here; Do that; move quick")
> > > but took time to give the speeches depth. i.e. I like the
> > > monologues. It's almost shakespearean.
>
> > Are you deliberately trying to be dense? You still haven't answered
> > my question. I suppose this is the best I'm going to get, tho.
>
> Actually, yes I did answer the question "why you like something
> someone else doesn't" and I answered it with lots of detail. You
> simply did not like the answer I gave. (Why? Who knows?)
Well, I suppose you did answer why you like B5. I was looking for a
comparison and contrast, tho. Perhaps I didn't make that clear.
You're assuming an awful lot by saying I didn't like your answer. You
seem to be a very judgmental person.
>
> > So you like B5 for the reasons stated above. Why isn't it ok for
> > someone to like Voyager for their own reasons?
>
> Well I guess I'm going to have to be blunt, just as you were blunt
> when you called me "dense".
I didn't call you dense. I asked if you being deliberately dense. For
someone who professes to like good writing, the nuance of words seems
lost on you.
> Because it's like watching Days of Our
> Lives, As the World Turns, and other soap operas. It's bad.
In your opinion it's bad. You are the arbiter of what is good and bad
TV.
> Which is
> why I said it is "incomprehensible" why someone would want to watch
> it.
More's the pity for you. Just because you dislike something doesn't
make it bad. Your inability to understand, or make an effort to
understand why different people like different things is
incomprehensible.
>
> Unless they're doing it like a Mystery Science Theater routine -
> watching just so they can laugh at it.
>
> > As far as I'm concerned, JMS is about as far from Shakespear as a
> > writer can get, but I'm not insulting you or questioning your I.Q.
>
> You called me "dense". I consider that an insutl, expecically since
> I'm a college grad with two degrees in engineers, and therefore FAR
> from being a dense minded person.
Once again, I did not call you dense. Go back and reread what I wrote.
Congratulations on your education.
>
> Oh and one more thing. It is valid to question why or why not a work
> of art is good. It's called literary analysis, and if you've ever
> been to college or taken AP English then you've done that.
However, you did not analyze anything. You stated you can't understand
why some people like something you don't and you were quite judgmental
about it.
Art and its critique, are very subjective. It would serve you well to
keep that in mind before you insult someone who likes something you do
not.
Tom
Tom
> SFTV_troy wrote:
>
> > On Jul 9, 10:20 am, Tom <drso...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > So you like B5 for the reasons stated above. Why isn't it ok for
> > > someone to like Voyager for their own reasons?
>
> > Well I guess I'm going to have to be blunt, just as you were blunt
> > when you called me "dense". Because it's like watching Days of Our
> > Lives, As the World Turns, and other soap operas. It's bad. Which is
> > why I said it is "incomprehensible" why someone would want to watch
> > it.
>
> See, Tom? Here is the fundamental problem with your response. Troy
> Heagy is incapable of distinguishing between "facts" and "opinions".
> Thus, in his mind, Voyager was *objectively* bad, and no-one could
> possibly like it for any reason.
My bad. I've read Troy's posts on usenet for years and years. I
should've known having a rational conversation was out of the
question.
>
> (Disclaimer: I also loathed Voyager, but although I can argue that it
> was a crappy incarnation of Star Trek, and abandoned its very premise
> with startling haste, such does not mean that I find it impossible that
> someone liked it for what it was.)
>
> > You called me "dense". I consider that an insutl, expecically since
> > I'm a college grad with two degrees in engineers, and therefore FAR
> > from being a dense minded person.
>
> Oh, the irony.
Especially since I didn't call him dense! LOL!
>
> Perhaps with mangled grammer like that, you should consider giving
> your college back your "two degrees in engineers".
Perhaps he went to train school.
>
> Allow me to point out another logical flaw in your "argument": having
> "two degrees in engineers" is not an argument against you being a
> complete dumbass (aka dense) when it comes to other fields, such as
> arguing about shitty teevee shows on the internet.
>
> > Oh and one more thing. It is valid to question why or why not a work
> > of art is good. It's called literary analysis, and if you've ever
> > been to college or taken AP English then you've done that.
>
> So discussion about the merits of Voyager is now *literary* analysis?
>
> Fascinating. Please do go on...
>
> Biff
>
Hoo boy! Literary analysis... I kinda threw up in my mouth a little
when I first read that.
Tom
Tom
But would they hang with Troy?
Tom
Mac Breck
> On Thu, 9 Jul 2009 08:46:31 -0700 (PDT), SFTV_troy wrote:
>
>>
>> You called me "dense". I consider that an insutl, expecically since
>> I'm a college grad with two degrees in engineers, and therefore FAR
>> from being a dense minded person.
>
> I'm claiming .sig .rights. :)
Damn! :)
Mac Breck
No way!
Anim8rFSK
<805df5c6-6acd-4443...@v20g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
Elzee36 <elz...@aol.com> wrote:
Why am I quoted in there? I didn't say any of that. :\
Anim8rFSK
SFTV_troy
Beowulf Bolt wrote:
> SFTV_troy wrote:
> >
>
> > Well I guess I'm going to have to be blunt, just as you were blunt
> > when you called me "dense". Because it's like watching Days of Our
> > Lives, As the World Turns, and other soap operas. It's bad.
>
> Heagy is incapable of distinguishing between "facts" and "opinions".
> Thus, in his mind, Voyager was *objectively* bad, and no-one could
> possibly like it for any reason.
I'm sure people DO have reasons for liking it, but so far nobody's
answered the original question "Why do you like it?" A response like,
"It's so bad it's funny" would work.
And yeah something can be objectively bad.
If for example CSI Miami shows Horatio get shot, and the hot blonde
uses a leech to crawl inside his chest and eat the bullet, thereby
saving his life, that is an objectively bad story. (Because leeches
don't eat bullets.)
> > Oh and one more thing. It is valid to question why or why not a work
> > of art is good. It's called literary analysis, and if you've ever
> > been to college or taken AP English then you've done that.
>
> So discussion about the merits of Voyager is now *literary* analysis?
Sure. It's basically a filmed play, and we studied tons of plays in
AP English and later in College Literature 201. The most obvious
examples are Shakespeare's plays, but also Death of a Salesman, Glass
Menagerie, and Grapes of Wrath. Still not convinced? We also studied
Apocalypse Now... in a literature class.
SFTV_troy
>
> Well I suppose you did answer why you like B5. I was looking for
> a comparison and contrast, tho. Perhaps I didn't make that clear
> your answer. You seem to be a very judgmental person.
As you pointed-out - this is Usenet. You have to always be on the
defensive from attack by folks like Ford Thaxton, Cappy, Podkayne, and
so on. From my point-of-view your style of post resembles them.
SFTV_troy
> Actually pretty funny with lots of SciFi references.
> I suspect you would hang with the main characters.
> :O)
Thanks. I'll go check it out on CBS.com.
SFTV_troy
>
> The Big Bang characters would find Troy "Cousins Shouldn't Breed" Heagy
> so annoyingly insipid that they would murder him within hours and
> dissolve his flesh and bones with chemicals from the chem lab
> to get rid of the evidence.
Probably true, but they would take care of you first. Every time I
picture you, I imagine Comic Shop guy from the Simpsons. You're far
more annoying than I. (wink) :-)
SFTV_troy
> Anim8rFSK wrote:
> > Elzee36 <elze...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> On Jul 8, 8:38 pm, SFTV troy <SFTV t...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >>> Well I'll start by saying I don't like shows which make
> >>> stupid mistakes and/or insult my intelligence.<
>
> >>Which basically is every TV show or movie out there.
> >>Its a TV show.
> >>Its FICTION.
> >>SCIENCE FICTION.
> >>Entertainment.
>
> > front lawn doesn't mean the rest of us have to.
>
(clap) (clap) (clap). Wait a minute. DS9 was the best scifi show
ever made for television (tied with B5). It had deeply-developed
characters, intricate plotting, political maneuvering, and on and on.
I agree with the Voyager part though. As Anim said: "The fact that
YOU put a 'low standards zone' sign on your front lawn doesn't mean
the rest of us have to." Voyager was like a kiddie show.
Hmmm... maybe that is its true value. Keeps the kiddies entertained.
Tom
So, in other words, your position and beliefs aren't worth defending?
I love it when usenet posters snip the stuff they won't address, only
citing what conveniently suits them.
I haven't attacked you or otherwise flamed you in any way, shape or
form, so be a man and address all of the points I wrote to you.
Tom
SFTV_troy
>
> > >Infinite supply of shuttle craft.
> > >Janeway's method of combat. Ignore the aliens attacking us. Ignore
> > >the aliens attacking us. "Uh, captain, shields are down
> > >to only 23%." Oh, okay, now you can return fire.
>
> > Which was pretty similar to Picard's method, only without the
> > returning fire.
>
> Picard was actually competent at talking aliens out
> of wanting to fight...
Also I don't recall Picard just sitting there and taking punishment.
Most times once the enemy fired Picard ordered Worf to fire back. He
rarely just sat there and went "duh", whereas Janeway did it almost
every encounter.
And then sometimes Janeway would fire when it wasn't necessary. "We
are the Aliens with Purple Noses. We come in peace." JANEWAY: "I
don't trust you. Fire phasers and disable their engines." - "But
we're peaceful. Ahhh!"
Of course this is the fault of the writers not Kate Mulgrew who I
thought did a good job with the shit she was given. Ditto Robert
Picardo.
Plus:
Most of the good writers who had worked on TNG got fed-up with Voyager
and left the show to do other stuff (like transitioning to DS9 or
creating their own shows), so what was left behind were lesser, not-so-
intelligent persons creating illogical plots/solutions.
BTW several of the people who used to write Voyager is now doing 24.
That explains why that show went downhill. (I'm just joking.) (Or am
I?)
Pete B
97a056...@d4g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, SFTV...@yahoo.com says...
> On Jul 8, 7:05�pm, Tom <drso...@aol.com> wrote:
> > On Jul 8, 4:45�pm, SFTV_troy <SFTV_t...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I stumbled across the video (below) regarding Voyager's final episode,
> > > and there's comment after comment from people who LOVE Voyager. �I
> > > simply cannot comprehend. �
> > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nAPY4Vwtpy8
> >
> > Why do you like some of the things you like, while others do not?
> > Please explain how and why you like something someone else doesn't.
>
>
>
> Well I'll start by saying I don't like shows which make stupid
> started okay, building on the talented staff from TNG, but it didn't
> take long for it to devolve. (Example: The ability to have an
> infinite amount of torpedoes and antimatter fuel.)
They should be able to recpliate new torpedoes, and pick up antimatter
if they need it
SFTV_troy
<spacecow...@nospam.HephaestusStation.com> wrote:
> I had high hopes for TNG until that godawful ep. "Force of Nature"
> albeit, some were good, the early Borg,though a high tech ripoff of
> the Cybermen...
And the Cybermen were a high-tech ripoff from clasic 1930s/40s/50s
written science fiction.
> that......warp drive is not slow...it doesn't take 78 years to
> cross the Milky Way, unless you're retarted, as I suspect
> Berman and Braga are.
Well let's look back at Gene Roddenberry's and Gene Coon's original
estimates from the original show. Spock said it would take at least
1000 years to reach the next galaxy (Andromeda). That's 2.5 million
LYs away, and the Borg Space was determined to be 70,000 LYs away on
the opposite side of our galaxy, so using Roddenberry/Coon's numbers:
...it would require 175 years for the original Enterprise to reach
Borg Space. The new Enterprise-D is faster, but still takes a long
time.
Seamus MacRae
> In article
> <805df5c6-6acd-4443...@v20g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
> Elzee36 <elz...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> On Jul 9, 11:50 am, SFTV troy <SFTV t...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> On Jul 9, 9:35 am, Anim8rFSK <ANIM8R...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Elzee36 <elze...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>> Dont take it sooooooooo seriously. Are you one
>>>>> of the regulars on "The Big Bang Theory"?
>>> Whatever that is. I don't have cable, and I suspect I'm not missing
>>> much by missing that show.
>>>
>> Not cable, CBS Mondays at 9:30PM.
>> Actually pretty funny with lots of SciFi references.
>> I suspect you would hang with the main characters.
>> :O)
>
> Why am I quoted in there? I didn't say any of that. :\
Sure you did. You said that Elzee36 said a bunch of stuff. :)
David Johnston
<SFTV...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Jul 9, 3:25�pm, trag <t...@io.com> wrote:
>>
>> > >Infinite supply of shuttle craft.
>> > >Janeway's method of combat. � �Ignore the aliens attacking us. �Ignore
>> > >the aliens attacking us. � �"Uh, captain, shields are down
>> > >to only 23%." � Oh, okay, now you can return fire.
>>
>> > Which was pretty similar to Picard's method, only without the
>> > returning fire.
>>
>> Picard was actually competent at talking aliens out
>> of wanting to fight...
>
>
>
>Also I don't recall Picard just sitting there and taking punishment.
>Most times once the enemy fired Picard ordered Worf to fire back.
Only once the shields were entirely down. But then it always turned
out that the starboard power coupling had been damaged.
krp
"SFTV_troy" <SFTV...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c1aa6720-9d4d-4fff...@l5g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 9, 2:47 pm, Space Cowboy
<spacecow...@nospam.HephaestusStation.com> wrote:
> I had high hopes for TNG until that godawful ep. "Force of Nature"
> albeit, some were good, the early Borg,though a high tech ripoff of
> the Cybermen...
S> And the Cybermen were a high-tech ripoff from clasic 1930s/40s/50s
S> written science fiction.
Did you ever see those Gene Autry series from the 30's? (Phantom Empire
etc). Damn if the Cybermen in the old Autry flicks don't look damn much like
the ones in Dr. What.
krp
"SFTV_troy" <SFTV...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c1aa6720-9d4d-4fff...@l5g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
<spacecow...@nospam.HephaestusStation.com> wrote:
> I had high hopes for TNG until that godawful ep. "Force of Nature"
> albeit, some were good, the early Borg,though a high tech ripoff of
> the Cybermen...
And the Cybermen were a high-tech ripoff from clasic 1930s/40s/50s
written science fiction.
LOOK HERE
http://mediatheek.thinkquest.nl/~ll106/Reference/Entertainment/Movies/phantom.jpg
krp
From Gene Autry's Phantom Empire
PV
>Yes, but had you watched any of "Andromeda" or "Earth: Final Conflict"
>in the meant time? Those two shows made Voyager watchable.
I stopped watching Andromeda on the very episode where the last of the
original writers was axed, and, in a rare bout of extreme good fortune, EFC
never grabbed me so I never watched more than the first couple episodes,
and thus was spared the horror everyone describes.
If there's any reason for why I hated voyager less the second time around,
it's probably because I was enough distanced from the heights of the
previous series (DS9), that the sow's ear they turned the franchise into
didn't hurt as much. *
--
* PV something like badgers--something like lizards--and something
like corkscrews.
Beowulf Bolt
>
> And yeah something can be objectively bad.
Fine. Please detail the objective standards upon which we can compare
the "badness" of, say, Voyager vs TNG.
> If for example CSI Miami shows Horatio get shot, and the hot blonde
> uses a leech to crawl inside his chest and eat the bullet, thereby
> saving his life, that is an objectively bad story. (Because leeches
> don't eat bullets.)
No, even ignoring your attempt to conflate the fantasy science of Trek
with the supposedly more realistic science of the CSI shows, that is
merely a ridiculous story *element* which does not necessarily reflect
on the rest of the story. And one which many of the viewing audience
might not even catch, besides.
The CSI shows are noted for stretching the science, often past the
breaking point [*1], and yet quite often this goes unnoticed by the
viewing audience, and therefore does not impact upon the quality of the
story itself. One can use flawed or outright false elements and yet
still assemble a good tale. The Superman origin story remains IMNSHO a
good tale, regardless how impossible the explanation about the red sun
vs yellow sun, etc.
[*1] a personal peeve is the number of times they take what should be
grainy, pixelated footage and magically enhance it to see subtle clues,
read licence plates, etc.
> > > Oh and one more thing. It is valid to question why or why not a
> > > work of art is good. It's called literary analysis, and if you've
> > > ever been to college or taken AP English then you've done that.
> >
> > So discussion about the merits of Voyager is now *literary*
> > analysis?
>
> Sure. It's basically a filmed play, and we studied tons of plays in
> AP English and later in College Literature 201. The most obvious
> examples are Shakespeare's plays, but also Death of a Salesman, Glass
> Menagerie, and Grapes of Wrath. Still not convinced? We also studied
> Apocalypse Now... in a literature class.
Well I think we already established (in the material you snipped) that
you have received a second-rate education (at best).
What and where you "studied" such material is irrelevant to the simple
fact that what you are doing here in no way relates to real "literary
analysis".
HTH,
Biff
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------
"All around me darkness gathers, fading is the sun that shone,
we must speak of other matters, you can be me when I'm gone..."
- SANDMAN #67, Neil Gaiman
-------------------------------------------------------------------
OhioGuy
and all that.
Podkayne Fries
> Podkayne Fries wrote:
>> On Thu, 9 Jul 2009 08:46:31 -0700 (PDT), SFTV_troy wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> You called me "dense". I consider that an insutl, expecically since
>>> I'm a college grad with two degrees in engineers, and therefore FAR
>>> from being a dense minded person.
>>
>> I'm claiming .sig .rights. :)
>
> Damn! :)
Ca[ptain Infinity used it first, so we're out of luck. OTOH, Troy is an
endless source of lowbrow .sigs, so we're assured of ample opportunities
in the future. ;)
Anim8rFSK
> I never understood the ending, with them bursting out of the Borg ship,
> and all that.
After Janeway murdered everyone in the Federation, did it really matter
what else happened?
Dan Dassow
> In article <h37qgu$11...@aioe.org>, "OhioGuy" <n...@none.net> wrote:
> > I never understood the ending, with them bursting out of the Borg ship,
> > and all that.
>
> After Janeway murdered everyone in the Federation, did it really matter
> what else happened?
>
After Mudpuppies in Love, did it really matter what else happened?
I actively promoted Voyager when it was first announced with Geneviève
Bujold as Elizabeth Janeway. The character, Elizabeth Janeway, was
originally based in part on the author and critic Elizabeth Janeway
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Janeway ). I became
disenchanted with Voyager when Geneviève Bujold suddenly quit,
declaring her part was trite and poorly written. The magnitude of
script problems became clear when Kate Mulgrew blithefully commented
that she was trying to learn the technobabble for her part, but had no
idea what she was talking about. Voyager quickly devolved into a
pointless, convoluted television series with little or no internal
consistency and which appeared more like a parody of a daytime soap
opera, than a science fiction series. Mudpuppies in Love, AKA
Threshold, simply completed the slide into mediocrity. The series
finale was an arrogant slap in the face against fans of the series.
Both Kate Mulgrew and Robert Picardo are competent actors. It was a
shame to see them have act with such poorly constructed scripts.
Dan Dassow
krp
"Dan Dassow" <dan_d...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:16f7e46b-c9ad-4a39...@k19g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
DD> I actively promoted Voyager when it was first announced with Genevi�ve
DD> Bujold as Elizabeth Janeway.
After Bujold quit they tried Kate Jackson who also wasn't a good fit.
Jackson has a well deserved reputation for being a very difficult "star."
Mulgrew was a near desperation selection, nobody else wanted the gig. When
you have two actors dump the role the word gets out. Casting on the series
was a problem. Jeri Ryan and Roxann Dawson did much for the series. Robert
Picardo was the backbone of it. Other than that, Voyager pretty well STUNK
up the airwaves.
trag
> On Jul 9, 11:50 am, SFTV_troy <SFTV_t...@yahoo.com> wrote:> On Jul 9, 9:35 am, Anim8rFSK <ANIM8R...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > > Elzee36 <elze...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Dont take it sooooooooo seriously. Are you one
> > > > of the regulars on "The Big Bang Theory"?
>
> > Whatever that is. I don't have cable, and I suspect I'm not missing
> > much by missing that show.
>
> Not cable, CBS Mondays at 9:30PM.
> Actually pretty funny with lots of SciFi references.
> I suspect you would hang with the main characters.
Not just scifi references. Real science references too. They got
the description of Gravity Probe B right in the college bowl episode,
which I only know about because a buddy of mine from undergrad days
worked on GPB when he was in graduate school. It was cool to see a
real but obscure satellite be the correct answer to a contest
question.
Captain Infinity
SFTV_troy wrote:
Wink? What, are you coming on to me? 'Cuz I don't swing that way.
Sex with retards, I mean. Just to be clear.
**
Captain Infinity
..."You called me "dense". I consider that an insutl,
expecically since I'm a college grad with two degrees in engineers"
--Troy Heagy
PV
> What and where you "studied" such material is irrelevant to the simple
>fact that what you are doing here in no way relates to real "literary
>analysis".
Also note: You can't get any bullshittier bullshit than you get from
Contemporary Literary Criticism as taught in Universities. *
PV
>After Mudpuppies in Love, did it really matter what else happened?
Yes, because one stupid episode means there can be nothing entertaining
there ever again. Oh, wait.
>I actively promoted Voyager when it was first announced with Genevi�ve
>Bujold as Elizabeth Janeway. The character, Elizabeth Janeway, was
>originally based in part on the author and critic Elizabeth Janeway
>( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Janeway ).
Who the hell cares?
>I became disenchanted with Voyager when Genevi�ve Bujold suddenly quit,
>declaring her part was trite and poorly written. The magnitude of
If I remember correctly, she quit very early in production of the first
episode, or possibly even before shooting started - how can you "become
disenchanted" with something you never saw?
I won't dispute that voyager was crap, but how about finding a reason for
disliking it that doesn't make people think you have a stick surgically
implanted up your ass, ok? *
Dan Dassow
> Dan Dassow <dan_das...@yahoo.com> writes:
> >I became disenchanted with Voyager when Geneviève Bujold suddenly quit,
> >declaring her part was trite and poorly written. The magnitude of
>
> If I remember correctly, she quit very early in production of the first
> episode, or possibly even before shooting started - how can you "become
> disenchanted" with something you never saw?
I became disenchanted that Voyager would not have Geneviève Bujold in
the lead role. However, I still continued to hope that Voyager was
worth watching and watched Voyager on a regular basis until Threshold.
Unfortunately, I discovered that Bujold's assessment was essentially
correct and stopped watching Voyager on a regular basis after
Threshold.
>
> I won't dispute that voyager was crap, ...
On the whole Voyager was a disappointment, although there were 3 or 4
episodes that I actually enjoyed.
Dan Dassow
Podkayne Fries
> As you pointed-out - this is Usenet. You have to always be on the
> defensive from attack by folks like Ford Thaxton,
Thaxton stopped posting in rec.arts.sf.tv *years* ago.
>Cappy, Podkayne, and
> so on. From my point-of-view your style of post resembles them.
We few, we happy few ...
Troy, you've been rec.arts.sf.tv's favorite chew toy for years because
you're an idiot and a whiner. I have no dount that you will continue
your idiocy as long as you draw breath. Please do not breed; one
ignorant Heagy is more than the world needs.
Mac Breck
> Dan Dassow <dan_d...@yahoo.com> writes:
<snip>
>> I became disenchanted with Voyager when Genevi�ve Bujold suddenly
>> quit, declaring her part was trite and poorly written. The magnitude
>> of
>
> If I remember correctly, she quit very early in production of the
> first episode, or possibly even before shooting started - how can you
> "become disenchanted" with something you never saw?
>
> I won't dispute that voyager was crap, but how about finding a reason
> for disliking it that doesn't make people think you have a stick
> surgically implanted up your ass, ok? *
Man are you getting CRANKY. Sheesh!
--
Mac Breck (KoshN)
-------------------------------
"Babylon 5: Crusade" (1999)
Durkani: It doesn't matter if they believe us. Sooner or later the
truth's going to come out. The truth is....
Kendarr: ....out of fashion.
Mac Breck
> On Jul 10, 12:23 pm, Anim8rFSK <ANIM8R...@cox.net> wrote:
>> In article <h37qgu$11...@aioe.org>, "OhioGuy" <n...@none.net> wrote:
>>> I never understood the ending, with them bursting out of the Borg
>>> ship, and all that.
>>
>> After Janeway murdered everyone in the Federation, did it really
>> matter what else happened?
>>
>
> After Mudpuppies in Love, did it really matter what else happened?
Didn't they reset everything after "Year of Hell" Parts 1 & 2? That's a
helluva RESET BUTTON. You do that enough times and it's a case of well,
anything can pretty much be undone, so where's the suspense?
Mac Breck
> On Thu, 9 Jul 2009 20:28:22 -0400, Mac Breck wrote:
>
>> Podkayne Fries wrote:
>>> On Thu, 9 Jul 2009 08:46:31 -0700 (PDT), SFTV_troy wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> You called me "dense". I consider that an insutl, expecically
>>>> since I'm a college grad with two degrees in engineers, and
>>>> therefore FAR from being a dense minded person.
>>>
>>> I'm claiming .sig .rights. :)
>>
>> Damn! :)
>
> Ca[ptain Infinity used it first, so we're out of luck. OTOH, Troy is
> an endless source of lowbrow .sigs, so we're assured of ample
> opportunities in the future. ;)
Yeah, but that was a beaut.!
Mac Breck
That depth is part of what makes it fun. :-)
Arthur Lipscomb
"Beowulf Bolt" <abd.al...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:4A5768...@shaw.ca...
> SFTV_troy wrote:
>>
>> And yeah something can be objectively bad.
>
> Fine. Please detail the objective standards upon which we can compare
> the "badness" of, say, Voyager vs TNG.
>
>
>> If for example CSI Miami shows Horatio get shot, and the hot blonde
>> uses a leech to crawl inside his chest and eat the bullet, thereby
>> saving his life, that is an objectively bad story. (Because leeches
>> don't eat bullets.)
>
> No, even ignoring your attempt to conflate the fantasy science of Trek
> with the supposedly more realistic science of the CSI shows, that is
> merely a ridiculous story *element* which does not necessarily reflect
> on the rest of the story. And one which many of the viewing audience
> might not even catch, besides.
>
> The CSI shows are noted for stretching the science, often past the
> breaking point [*1], and yet quite often this goes unnoticed by the
> viewing audience, and therefore does not impact upon the quality of the
> story itself. One can use flawed or outright false elements and yet
> still assemble a good tale. The Superman origin story remains IMNSHO a
> good tale, regardless how impossible the explanation about the red sun
> vs yellow sun, etc.
>
> [*1] a personal peeve is the number of times they take what should be
> grainy, pixelated footage and magically enhance it to see subtle clues,
> read licence plates, etc.
>
>
I think for the most part it comes down to if somebody happens to know an
element of a show is incorrect it will bug them while for the rest of the
audience it's not a problem. Sci Fi in general and Star Trek in particular
has a high volume of tech savvy viewers who notice (and then complain about)
the errors. The tech errors don't bug me as much because I tend not to
notice them. If I *do* notice it, then has to be something obvious (to me)
like gravity/sound in space but could care less about how much how long it
takes to get from point a to point b traveling at warp 6 vs. warp 7. On the
other hand when I watch shows that are within my field of knowledge it bugs
me to no end when the get easy stuff wrong for the sake of entertainment.
But I concede most of the viewing public probably doesn't notice nor cares.
Seamus MacRae
> I think for the most part it comes down to if somebody happens to know
> an element of a show is incorrect it will bug them while for the rest of
> the audience it's not a problem. Sci Fi in general and Star Trek in
> particular has a high volume of tech savvy viewers who notice (and then
> complain about) the errors. The tech errors don't bug me as much
> because I tend not to notice them. If I *do* notice it, then has to be
> something obvious (to me) like gravity/sound in space
Eh, if there weren't gravity in space, the moon would promptly fly off
in a straight line at a tangent to its present orbit. :)
Anim8rFSK
"Mac Breck" <macthe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Dan Dassow wrote:
> > On Jul 10, 12:23 pm, Anim8rFSK <ANIM8R...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> In article <h37qgu$11...@aioe.org>, "OhioGuy" <n...@none.net> wrote:
> >>> I never understood the ending, with them bursting out of the Borg
> >>> ship, and all that.
> >>
> >> After Janeway murdered everyone in the Federation, did it really
> >> matter what else happened?
> >>
> >
> > After Mudpuppies in Love, did it really matter what else happened?
>
> Didn't they reset everything after "Year of Hell" Parts 1 & 2? That's a
> helluva RESET BUTTON. You do that enough times and it's a case of well,
> anything can pretty much be undone, so where's the suspense?
Originally Year of Hell was supposed to last a whole season, and they'd
reboot the whole thing.
I lost track of how many times Voyager rebooted, but it was a *lot*
Kes unstuck in time and gets a new hairdo was a reset of some sort; she
ended up in a different reality than she started in, and we went with
her.
Harry Kim comes back in time and saves everyone from Janeway was a redo.
Anim8rFSK
"Mac Breck" <macthe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> PV wrote:
> > Dan Dassow <dan_d...@yahoo.com> writes:
> <snip>
> >> I became disenchanted with Voyager when Genevi�ve Bujold suddenly
> >> quit, declaring her part was trite and poorly written. The magnitude
> >> of
> >
> > If I remember correctly, she quit very early in production of the
> > first episode, or possibly even before shooting started - how can you
> > "become disenchanted" with something you never saw?
> >
> > I won't dispute that voyager was crap, but how about finding a reason
> > for disliking it that doesn't make people think you have a stick
> > surgically implanted up your ass, ok? *
>
> Man are you getting CRANKY. Sheesh!
Bujold didn't quit before shooting started; the footage of her as
Janeway exists.
And it's easily possible to become disenchanted with VOYAGER by just
reading the script. I mean, Caretaker? She gets them all stuck on the
other side of the galaxy why again?
Space Cowboy
news:ptI5m.1816$P5....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net:
>
> "SFTV_troy" <SFTV...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:c1aa6720-9d4d-4fff...@l5g2000vbp.googlegroups.c
Well, if you're going to pick apart that portion of my post, the first
part in in Who and TNG was to remove the humanity first.
Killer Kane did that quite well in Universal's 1930s Buck Rogers,
serial starring "Buster" Crabbe.
--
Origin: "Battle Beyond The Stars"[1980,George Peppard,actor.Roger
Corman,producer,low budget but fun to watch]
Must See: "The Magnificent Seven" & "The Seven Samurai"
Starfleet in both Prime(TOS) & Abrams`verses & Browncoat in another
`verse!
Dimensional Traveler
> In article <CrKdnQ8dgalrZMrX...@supernews.com>,
> "Mac Breck" <macthe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> PV wrote:
>>> Dan Dassow <dan_d...@yahoo.com> writes:
>> <snip>
>>>> I became disenchanted with Voyager when Genevi�ve Bujold suddenly
>>>> quit, declaring her part was trite and poorly written. The magnitude
>>>> of
>>> If I remember correctly, she quit very early in production of the
>>> first episode, or possibly even before shooting started - how can you
>>> "become disenchanted" with something you never saw?
>>>
>>> I won't dispute that voyager was crap, but how about finding a reason
>>> for disliking it that doesn't make people think you have a stick
>>> surgically implanted up your ass, ok? *
>> Man are you getting CRANKY. Sheesh!
>
> Bujold didn't quit before shooting started; the footage of her as
> Janeway exists.
>
> And it's easily possible to become disenchanted with VOYAGER by just
> reading the script. I mean, Caretaker? She gets them all stuck on the
> other side of the galaxy why again?
>
accustomed to the more leisurely pace of work on movie sets and didn't
like the more frantic pace of TV work.
--
Things I learned from MythBusters #57: Never leave a loaded gun in an
exploding room.
krp
"Space Cowboy" <space...@nospam.HephaestusStation.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9C45272BA14CD...@85.214.113.135...
> Well, if you're going to pick apart that portion of my post, the first
> part in in Who and TNG was to remove the humanity first.
> Killer Kane did that quite well in Universal's 1930s Buck Rogers,
> serial starring "Buster" Crabbe.
Oh the cigarette cans on the heads of dissidents was a neat touch. The
gravity belts were neat too. Although not too stealthy with that loud
crackling sound.
SFTV_troy
Podkayne Fries wrote:
..
>
> Troy, you've been rec.arts.sf.tv's favorite chew toy for years because
> you're an idiot and a whiner. I have no dount that you will continue
> your idiocy as long as you draw breath. ...
Yeah but the sad thing is, if I died and another "Troy" came along
with the genius of a Hawking, you'd still label his posts idiotic just
for fun. You know no other method than to insult, attack, and
belittle.
SFTV_troy
Beowulf Bolt wrote:
> SFTV_troy wrote:
>
>
> > If for example CSI Miami shows Horatio get shot, and the hot
> > blonde uses a leech to crawl inside his chest and eat the bullet
> > thereby saving his life, that is an objectively bad story.
>
> No, even ignoring your attempt to conflate the fantasy science of Trek
No such animal. There's science and there's not science. If there's
no science then it becomes pure fantasy. I think that's ultimately
the best label for Voyager: "fantasy fiction" not scifi.
> with the supposedly more realistic science of the CSI shows, that is
> merely a ridiculous story *element* which does not necessarily reflect
> on the rest of the story. And one which many of the viewing audience
> might not even catch, besides.
Well as Anim8r said (paraphrasing): "Just because they put s "low
standards welcome" sign in their front yard, does not mean I have
to." CSI is very popular but that doesn't mean I'm going to watch
riduculous science like leeches eating bullets. Same applies to Star
Trek or Stargate or any other science-based show.
Now I can forgive one or two bad episodes per season, so that if the
bullet-eating leech is just a fluke but the rest of the show is good,
I'll keep watching CSI. But Voyager had bad science (and just plain
bad logic) episode-after-episode.
Voyager had the same flaw(s) that many say Asimov's I Robot suffered
during its transition to the screen. Asimov wrote solid, logical
stories whereas Hollywood turned it into an unbelievable mess (they
say).
> The Superman origin story remains IMNSHO a good tale,
> regardless how impossible the explanation about the red
> sun vs yellow sun, etc.
Superman is fantasy fiction, not science fiction. That's why even
though I've watch bits-and-pieces over the years, I've never been a
big fan because I don't believe what I'm seeing on the screen.
> [*1] a personal peeve is the number of times they take what
> should be grainy, pixelated footage and magically enhance it
> to see subtle clues, read licence plates, etc.
Ditto. And it's not just CSI - this seems to be a problem across
nearly-all television shows. Oh well. It's just a case of people not
understanding how computers work. Similar to how the politicians
thought, "We'll just computerize all the voting machines and the
problems will disappear like magic." To them that's what technology
is to most people - magic.
Hence bad science where enhanced images magically show details that
never existed in the original.
Maybe I ought to give-up on television and just stick to reading my
Science fiction in books. The authors of books seem much more
knowledgeable about science, and what can or can not be done, then the
people writing television.
Anim8rFSK
Dimensional Traveler <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
I've heard 3 versions of it (all of which could be true)
1) She was used to having rehearsals and a movie pace as you said
(although this wasn't her first TV experience)
B) She wanted to play the character with her own personality, not
Janeways (which makes no sense to me; when did Janeway ever have a
personality, especially at the script level?)
Third) The show sucked. That much we know for a fact.
SFTV_troy
> >Yes, but had you watched any of "Andromeda" or "Earth: Final Conflict"
> >in the meant time? Those two shows made Voyager watchable.
Crap with whipcream on top (voyager) is better than plain crap (A and
EFC), but at the end of the day you still have a pile of poop.
PV wrote:
> I stopped watching Andromeda on the very episode where the last of the
> original writers was axed, and, in a rare bout of extreme good fortune, EFC
> never grabbed me so I never watched more than the first couple episodes,
> and thus was spared the horror everyone describes.
EFC wasn't horrible. It was just dull. They had an intelligent,
ongoing, adult plot similar to Babylon 5's ongoing plot, but then
ruined it. They fired most of the writers after episode 122, and
turned it into something resembling the A-Team (i.e. same plot week-
after-week-after week). It was well-written, just horribly dull to
watch since you already knew the outcome. The star would discover a
secret plot, he'd try to reveal it to the world, and ultimately fail.
(Reset.)
Basically it suffered Gilligan's Island Syndrome for two years
(seasons two and three). If you only watch seasons 1 and 4, then it's
a decent show.
Androme-duh was horrible.
> If there's any reason for why I hated voyager less the second time around,
> it's probably because I was enough distanced from the heights of the
> previous series (DS9), that the sow's ear didn't hurt as much.
DS9 and VOY actually ran concurrently. Which I also think made
Voyager worse. You would see an awesome DS9 story on Saturday, and it
was followed by Voyager turd on Wednesday.
I eventually quit Voyager completely, and just pretended DS9 was the
only Trek on television.
Elzee36
>
> Superman is fantasy fiction, not science fiction. That's why even
> though I've watch bits-and-pieces over the years, I've never been a
> big fan because I don't believe what I'm seeing on the screen.
>
superhuman powers? Why? :O)
BTW I dont believe half the stuff I see on the screen but doesnt
mean I cant be
entertained by it.
> Maybe I ought to give-up on television and just stick to reading my
> Science fiction in books. The authors of books seem much more
> knowledgeable about science, and what can or can not be done, then the
> people writing television.
Authors of books for the most part arent under pressure to put out
their product. They have
longer periods of time to do research and get everything correct.
TV writers are under
brutal schedules to get out their show (13 episodes? 23 episodes?)
and crank out scripts
with less quality control than a book writer. Just the nature of
the business.
And if you give up on TV who would you bitch and moan to about
inaccuracies?
:O)
Seamus MacRae
> Androme-duh was horrible.
Except for Lisa Ryder's wardrobe. Er, rather Lisa Ryder *in* her varied
costumes.
Seamus MacRae
> Ditto. And it's not just CSI - this seems to be a problem across
> nearly-all television shows. Oh well. It's just a case of people not
> understanding how computers work. Similar to how the politicians
> thought, "We'll just computerize all the voting machines and the
> problems will disappear like magic." To them that's what technology
> is to most people - magic.
>
> Hence bad science where enhanced images magically show details that
> never existed in the original.
One recent movie twisted this. The guy was recruited by a secret agency,
saw them magically enhancing images and getting "satellite" and other
images from impossible angles, and realized something was hinky. Turns
out they had a time-viewer.
Arthur Lipscomb
"Seamus MacRae" <smacr...@live.ca.invalid> wrote in message
news:h393rf$lhh$2...@news.eternal-september.org...
I guess I should have said artificial gravity on spaceships that shouldn't
have artificial gravity. You never know what word or words someone is going
to parse...;-)
PV
>Man are you getting CRANKY. Sheesh!
Pompous asses make me that way. *
PV
>Didn't they reset everything after "Year of Hell" Parts 1 & 2? That's a
>helluva RESET BUTTON.
There was never a "year of hell" on the show itself, other than what was
depicted in those two episodes. *
Mac Breck
> "Mac Breck" <macthe...@yahoo.com> writes:
>> Didn't they reset everything after "Year of Hell" Parts 1 & 2?
>> That's a helluva RESET BUTTON.
>
> There was never a "year of hell" on the show itself, other than what
> was depicted in those two episodes. *
I know that. I was specifically referring only to those two episodes,
all the stuff that went on in them, that was miraculously reset.
Captain Infinity
PV wrote:
>"Mac Breck" <macthe...@yahoo.com> writes:
>>Didn't they reset everything after "Year of Hell" Parts 1 & 2? That's a
>>helluva RESET BUTTON.
>
>There was never a "year of hell" on the show itself, other than what was
>depicted in those two episodes. *
Watching *any* episode was like spending a year in hell.
**
Captain Infinity
..."I'd rather send my nuts in an individual envelope, straight to
the head of CBS." --Troy Heagy, nuttiest nut in all of Usenet
Dan Dassow
> In article <4a584940$0$1634$742ec...@news.sonic.net>,> > > In article <CrKdnQ8dgalrZMrXnZ2dnUVZ_gcAA...@supernews.com>,> > >>>> I became disenchanted with Voyager when Geneviève Bujold suddenly
> > >>>> quit, declaring her part was trite and poorly written. The magnitude
> > >>>> of
> > >>> If I remember correctly, she quit very early in production of the
> > >>> first episode, or possibly even before shooting started - how can you
> > >>> "become disenchanted" with something you never saw?
>
> > >>> I won't dispute that voyager was crap, but how about finding a reason
> > >>> for disliking it that doesn't make people think you have a stick
> > >>> surgically implanted up your ass, ok? *
> > >> Man are you getting CRANKY. Sheesh!
>
> > > Bujold didn't quit before shooting started; the footage of her as
> > > Janeway exists.
>
> > > And it's easily possible to become disenchanted with VOYAGER by just
> > > reading the script. I mean, Caretaker? She gets them all stuck on the
> > > other side of the galaxy why again?
>
> > The rumors that I recall are that Ms. Bujold quit because she was
> > accustomed to the more leisurely pace of work on movie sets and didn't
> > like the more frantic pace of TV work.
>
> I've heard 3 versions of it (all of which could be true)
>
> 1) She was used to having rehearsals and a movie pace as you said
> (although this wasn't her first TV experience)
> B) She wanted to play the character with her own personality, not
> Janeways (which makes no sense to me; when did Janeway ever have a
> personality, especially at the script level?)
> Third) The show sucked. That much we know for a fact.
>
= = =
According to http://www.vidiot.com/st-voy/articles/tvguide03.html
TV Guide - October 8-14, 1994
BON 'VOYAGER'
Genevieve Bujold bolts from the bridge, leaving behind a captain
crunch
She tried to Bujold-ly go where no previous Trek captain had gone
before--but the actress who played "Ann of the Thousand Days" on-
screen lasted only two days in space.
"Genevieve Bujold is a lovely lady, but I don't think she had a clue
what committing to a TV series meant," says Voyager executive producer
Rick Berman. The Oscar-nominated actress--cast as Capt. Janeway
without an audition--has been painted by most Voyager production
personnel as a royal princess who reportedly hated the pace, the
script, the costumes, the lighting, and the director. "Midway through
her second day, she walked off the set," says one source, "and no one
went running after her."
While avoiding specific dish, Berman does say Bujold is "used to
making movies where you shoot two pages of script a day. She's used to
discussing dialogue and character with writers and directors. TV is an
entirely different world." So why wasn't this explained to her before
she took the part? Berman claims that he did. "That's the odd part.
Before Genevieve came aboard, I had a long conversation with her and
purposely painted a grim picture. We discussed the pace, the long
hours, the messengers who ring your doorbell at 9 o'clock at night
with rewrites, the directors who change with every episode. I gave her
a week to think it over. But the reality did not sink in until she got
to the set. It was immediately obvious it was not a good fit." Bujold
could not be reached for comment. Says her agent, Merrit Blake: "She's
about as likely to address this issue as Clinton is to pick Dole as
his next running mate."
= = =
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SIZcDWKyw
The completed edit from Star Trek Voyager showing Geneviève Bujold as
Captain Nicole Janeway with added VFX and sound to give a full idea of
how this scene would have looked if edited into Caretaker.
= = =
The may be elements of true in what Rick Berman, but it sounds more
like Paramount spin than the true story. If Geneviève Bujold had
stayed in the role, the show looks like it would be different,
probably not better, but at least different.
Dan Dassow
Greg Goss
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SIZcDWKyw
>The completed edit from Star Trek Voyager showing Genevi�ve Bujold as
>Captain Nicole Janeway with added VFX and sound to give a full idea of
>how this scene would have looked if edited into Caretaker.
try
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SIZcDWKyw0
Your paste chopped the last character off the URL
--
Tomorrow is today already.
Greg Goss, 1989-01-27
Anim8rFSK
<49b212e1-5dc2-4e45...@f33g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>,
Dan Dassow <dan_d...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jul 11, 8:03�am, Anim8rFSK <ANIM8R...@cox.net> wrote:
> > In article <4a584940$0$1634$742ec...@news.sonic.net>,
> > �Dimensional Traveler <dtra...@sonic.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > Anim8rFSK wrote:
> > > > In article <CrKdnQ8dgalrZMrXnZ2dnUVZ gcAA...@supernews.com>,
> > > > �"Mac Breck" <macthevor...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > >> PV wrote:
> > > >>> Dan Dassow <dan das...@yahoo.com> writes:
> > > >> <snip>
> > > >>>> I became disenchanted with Voyager when Genevi�ve Bujold suddenly
> The completed edit from Star Trek Voyager showing Genevi�ve Bujold as
> Captain Nicole Janeway with added VFX and sound to give a full idea of
> how this scene would have looked if edited into Caretaker.
>
> = = =
>
> The may be elements of true in what Rick Berman, but it sounds more
> like Paramount spin than the true story. If Genevi�ve Bujold had
> stayed in the role, the show looks like it would be different,
> probably not better, but at least different.
>
> Dan Dassow
Thanks for the facts and links. It's ironic that Rick Berman, of all
people, accuses someone else of not understanding television.
Dimensional Traveler
> people, accuses someone else of not understanding television.
>
getting is from Berman makes me suspicious. My first thought is to
wonder "who cast her?"