DS9's Ratings: All 7 Years
troy_...@hotmail.com
premiere to the present. I included other Roddenberry shows such as The
Next Generation, Voyager, and Earth: Final Conflict for comparison.
(If this table looks scrambled, see
http://www.geocities.com/~videonovels/ratings.html )
>>-<< TNG DS9
Nov92 13.5 ---
Feb93 13.1 12.4
May93 10.8 9.4
________________________
>>-<< TNG DS9
Nov93 12.0 9.3
Feb94 11.0? 8.8?
May94 11.0 8.5
_________________________
>>-<< VOY DS9
Nov94 --- 8.0
Feb95 8.2 8.0
May95 6.2 6.9
_________________________
>>-<< VOY DS9
Nov95 5.8? 6.5?
Feb96 5.6? 6.7?
May96 4.8 5.9
_________________________
>>-<< VOY DS9
Nov96 5.2 6.6?
Feb97 4.7 6.3?
May97 4.7 5.2?
_________________________
>>-<< VOY DS9 EFC
Nov97 4.7 6.0 4.1
Feb98 4.0 4.8 3.8
May98 3.9 4.2 3.7
_________________________
>>-<< VOY DS9 EFC
Nov98 4.0 4.6 3.0
Feb99 4.1 4.3 2.8
May99 --- --- ---
Troy
--== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--
---Share what you know. Learn what you don't.---
tad_o...@my-dejanews.com
DS9's have continued to drop over the last two years, while Voyager's
have steadied some.
Still and all, clearly now is the time to retire DS9. If its ratings
continued to drop as they have been, in three or four years there'd be
as little viewer interest in it as in Babylon 5.
In article <7hbtra$vla$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
troy_...@hotmail.com
tad_o...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> It's interesting that Voyager's ratings are now comparable to DS9's --
> DS9's have continued to drop over the last two years, while Voyager's
> have steadied some.
It will be interesting to see what rating DS9 gets for its finale. Will
it get a whopping 17% like TNG's finale??? Not bloody likely.
> Still and all, clearly now is the time to retire DS9. If its ratings
> continued to drop as they have been, in three or four years there'd be
> as little viewer interest in it as in Babylon 5.
Well, even B5 did better (about 3.3 in syndication) as compared to that
other Roddenberry show Earth: Final Conflict:
> > >>-<< VOY DS9 EFC
> > Nov98 4.0 4.6 3.0
> > Feb99 4.1 4.3 2.8
> > May99 --- --- ---
http://www.geocities.com/~videonovels
Dan Tropea
> Nov98 4.0 4.6 3.0
> Feb99 4.1 4.3 2.8
> May99 --- --- ---
>
>
Troy i have few questions if you don't mind.
1) I noticed that the DS9 has shrunk from 12.4 in Feb 1993 to 4.3 in
Feb 1999. This is about a 60 percent drop. The thing is that during
this time period the number of syndicated shows has increased greatly.
So basically the slices of the syndicated pie are much smaller. Xena,
Hercules are 2 good examples. Also cable viewership has gone up.
Can you really compare 1993 results to 1999?
2) Voyager Vs DS9 aren't Primetime ratings figured differently then
syndicated. According to this EFC and Voyager were close in the
ratings last Feb and May of 98. You also have DS9 whipping Voyager
every year. Is this a valid comparasion.
3) In Boston DS9 is followed by EFC i am not sure if other markets
are the same. How much of a drop is it in those markets that do have
it back-to-back. The drop shown is about 1/3 do back-to-back showings
hold true.
Also in the Boston market how is the Herc-EFC 4 hour block doing in
the ratings? Is it usually a ratings winner? Troy i don't know if you
know but maybe someone does.
Robert Outlaw
It is very important to note a few things when dealing with "raw"
ratings:
1) DS9 is in syndication, and does not have a network slot like
Voyager does[1]. It also is _no_ TNG, in the sense that TNG had much
more broad-market appeal during its time. TNG is the most widely
successful syndicated series ever ( methinks, certainly in this genre
). It's a lot easier to get higher ratings in a good time slot than a
bad time slot.
2) If I recall, ratings count numbers, not market share. If there are
X people watching VOY, and only .7*X watching DS9, then having
depressed ratings would certainly make sense.
Regardless, DS9 is at a good ending point, and, with many novels ahead
for it, I know that whoever is still standing after "What We Leave
Behind" will certainly entertain me many more times. As for DS9
movies-we're getting them now.
I just hope we can start getting eps in mass quantities ( 6 per DVD )
on DVD soon. Then I can watch all the eps again and again in digtal
without degredation ( hint, hint ).
[1] - Although on UPN, which certainly isn't everywhere _yet_, it
still has a very nice time slot compared to DS9, which is at the mercy
of the station running it ( In Tallahassee, FL it comes on at fscking
11:30 PM on Sat. night! ).
Cheers,
R.O.
>It's interesting that Voyager's ratings are now comparable to DS9's --
>DS9's have continued to drop over the last two years, while Voyager's
>have steadied some.
>
>Still and all, clearly now is the time to retire DS9. If its ratings
>continued to drop as they have been, in three or four years there'd be
>as little viewer interest in it as in Babylon 5.
>
>In article <7hbtra$vla$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
troy_...@hotmail.com
> It is very important to note a few things when dealing with "raw"
> ratings:
>
> 1) DS9 is in syndication, and does not have a network slot like
Very true... on the flip side, Voyager on UPN only reaches about 70% of
the nation while DS9 reaches 97%. (this is called coverage) So DS9 has
a slight advantage because ~30% of the nation can't even see VOY!
> It also is _no_ TNG...
Obviously. TNG had little competition from 1987 to 1994.
> 2) If I recall, ratings count numbers, not market share. If there are
> X people watching VOY, and only .7*X watching DS9, then having
> depressed ratings would certainly make sense.
I don't know what you are talking about??? The ratings are PERCENTAGES
of all homes. So a 4.0 for VOY is the same as a 4.0 for DS9: 4.0% of
the US watched each show.
http://www.geocities.com/~videonovels/ratings.html
Possible SPOILERS!!!
> Regardless, DS9 is at a good ending point, and, with many novels ahead
> for it, I know that whoever is still standing after "What We Leave
> Behind" will certainly entertain me many more times. As for DS9
> movies-we're getting them now.
I wonder how DS9 Novels will continue when several key "components"
are... well... missing. ;)
Troy
http://www.geocities.com/~videonovels/ratings.html
conANDave
:I don't know what you are talking about??? The ratings are PERCENTAGES
:of all homes. So a 4.0 for VOY is the same as a 4.0 for DS9: 4.0% of
:the US watched each show.
There is a difference between ratings points and percentage points. usually
both are given, with emphasis on ratings points over percentage points.
Since you were the original poster, I'll trust that you're sure about the
percentage points, but I have doubts that Syndicated shows are graded on
percentage of viewers since they are aired at different times.
The whole concept of ratings/percentage is for network or cable shows that
all air at around the same time (either nationwide or in their respective
locales on a consistant basis)
So a show with a 13.6/25 would have a 13.6 ratings share (usually 1 ratings
point is 990,000 homes), with a 25% of all TV sets turned on at that time
tuned into the show. A 13.6/25 in primetime would obviously be different
from a 2.6/25 in latenight, where it would have the same % of TV's on at
that time tuned in to that show, with a 2.6 (or approx 2.57M people
watching) That's why I find it's odd that syndicated shows would use
percentage points. They don't use percentages in the Nielson data for
syndies that I recieve, and I'm curious where you get your information.
troy_...@hotmail.com
> > >>-<< VOY DS9 EFC
> > Nov98 4.0 4.6 3.0
> > Feb99 4.1 4.3 2.8
> > May99 --- --- ---
>
> Can you really compare 1993 results to 1999?
I'm not comparing them... I'm simply saying what they were. You can
make your own judgements about DS9's huge drop. :)
In my opinion, the drop is to be expected. ALL syndicated series have
made significant drops over the last 5 years. The reason is because
FOX, UPN, and WB all gobbled up the empty timeslots and so syndicated
programming got shoved out of the way to late-night or weekend slots.
> 2) Voyager Vs DS9 aren't Primetime ratings figured differently then
> syndicated...
No. All the ratings I post are "nationalized." A 1.0 for VOY is the
same as a 1.0 for DS9. Both represent 1.0% of the nation or
approximately 980,000 homes.
> According to this EFC and Voyager were close in the
> ratings last Feb and May of 98. You also have DS9 whipping Voyager
> every year. Is this a valid comparasion.
Yep. DS9 had more viewers than VOY so naturally its rating is higher.
> 3) In Boston DS9 is followed by EFC i am not sure if other markets
> are the same. How much of a drop is it in those markets that do have
> it back-to-back. The drop shown is about 1/3 do back-to-back showings
> hold true.
I have no idea. I am only interested in the national ratings. :) (In
my market, DS9, VOY, and EFC are all on competing stations.)
I recommend asking your Boston station via their website.
Troy
http://www.geocities.com/~videonovels
troy_...@hotmail.com
its premiere to the finale. I included other syndicated shows such as
Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, Action Pack (predecessor to Hercules/Xena),
and Babylon 5 for comparison. (If this table looks scrambled, see
http://www.geocities.com/~videonovels/ratings.html )
SWEEPS RATINGS:
>>-<< TNG
Nov87 11.5
_______________________________________________________________________
>>-<< TNG
Nov88 10.6
_______________________________________________________________________
>>-<< TNG
Nov89 9.9
_______________________________________________________________________
>>-<< TNG
Nov90 11.8?
_______________________________________________________________________
>>-<< TNG
Nov91 14.1
_______________________________________________________________________
>>-<< TNG DS9 B 5
Nov92 13.5 ---
Feb93 13.1 12.4 pilot
May93 10.8 9.4
_______________________________________________________________________
>>-<< TNG DS9 ActionPac B 5
Nov93 12.0 9.3 --- ---
Feb94 11.0? 8.8? 6.2? 6.9?
May94 11.0 8.5 7.1? ????
TNG Finale 17.4%
Star Trek 6: The Undiscovered Country 13.5%
theave...@my-dejanews.com
to the present. I included other syndicated shows such as Star Trek:
Deep Space Nine, Babylon 5, and Earth: Final Conflict for comparison.
>>-<< VOY DS9 B 5
Nov94 --- 8.0 4.6?
Feb95 8.2 8.0 4.5?
May95 6.2 6.9 3.8?
_________________________
>>-<< VOY DS9 B 5
Nov95 5.8? 6.5 2.9
Feb96 5.6? 6.7 3.1
May96 4.8 5.9 3.3
_________________________
>>-<< VOY DS9 B 5
Nov96 5.2 6.6 3.6
Feb97 4.7 6.3 3.5
May97 4.7 5.2 3.2
_________________________
>>-<< VOY DS9 EFC
Nov97 4.7 6.0 4.1
Feb98 4.0 4.8 3.8
May98 3.9 4.2 3.7
_________________________
>>-<< VOY DS9 EFC
Nov98 4.0 4.6 3.0
Feb99 4.1 4.3 2.8
May99 --- --- ---
--== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--
Joan Wolschleger
>>-<< VOY DS9 EFC
Nov97 4.7 6.0 4.1
Feb98 4.0 4.8 3.8
May98 3.9 4.2 3.7
Without quoting the whole message, it occurred to me that Voyager
suffers greatly from the long holiday hiatus & the start of the
maddeningly irritating habit of 2 new 2 old shows when it comes
back. I would have thought the suits would have figured this hurts
the shows ratings, but maybe they don't think beyond a month or 2.
I know after the holiday hiatus I usually start losing interest
when after viewing the entire beginning of season a 2nd time, I
get to see some of them a THIRD time. It gets hard to know when
a new episode is going to aire because they don't always use the
same promo footage or even change the focus to a different character.
--
Now operating a Compaq Deskpro 5/60M. Pentium 1 60 mhz.
Don't block a handicapped ramp with your car.
troy_...@hotmail.com
> There is a difference between ratings points and percentage points.
usually
> both are given, with emphasis on ratings points over percentage
points.
> Since you were the original poster, I'll trust that you're sure about
the
> percentage points, but I have doubts that Syndicated shows are graded
on
> percentage of viewers since they are aired at different times.
Sorry you're wrong. The ratings are *percentages* of the total number
of television homes. Each 1.0% of a rating is 980,000 homes out of 98
million total.
As for syndication, there are two different types of ratings: AA and
GAA. AA is the non-duplicated viewings. GAA is the Gross Average
Audience and includes every viewing including people who watch twice.
The ratings I use are AA.
> So a show with a 13.6/25 would have a 13.6 ratings share (usually 1
ratings
> point is 990,000 homes), with a 25% of all TV sets turned on at that
time
> tuned into the show. A 13.6/25 in primetime would obviously be
different
> from a 2.6/25 in latenight, where it would have the same % of TV's on
at
> that time tuned in to that show, with a 2.6 (or approx 2.57M people
> watching)
The numbers you use above are 13.6 and 2.6 ratings. Those are
consistently 980,000 homes per 1.0 rating. So, one show had 980000*13.6
homes watching while the other show had 980000*2.6 homes watching. The
first show had more homes watching than the later show.
The 25 shares are variable depending on how many TVs are turned on. If
you want to compare various shows across various times (as I did in my
original posting) you have to use a number that is based upon a
consistent number: Ratings provide that. Ratings are the percentage of
98 million homes.
> That's why I find it's odd that syndicated shows would use
> percentage points. They don't use percentages in the Nielson data for
> syndies that I recieve, and I'm curious where you get your
information.
Of course they do. I've seen the Nielsen Pocketpieces and the ratings
numbers ARE percentages.
Where do I get my information? Many sources. Nielsen. Broadcast &
Cable. USA Today. UltimateTV. Sci-Fi Wire.
Troy
tad_o...@my-dejanews.com
B5 did. EFC has been scheduled around the country at much weirder
times than the old PTEN shows ever were, and aside from a few drones at
ST conventions I've never met anyone who watched EFC because
Roddenberry's name was attached to it.
In article <7hd6c7$5t5$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
theave...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> Listed below are Star Trek: Voyager's sweeps ratings from its premiere
> to the present. I included other syndicated shows such as Star Trek:
> Deep Space Nine, Babylon 5, and Earth: Final Conflict for comparison.
> (If this table looks scrambled, see
> http://www.geocities.com/~videonovels/ratings.html )
>
> >>-<< VOY DS9 B 5
> Nov94 --- 8.0 4.6?
> Feb95 8.2 8.0 4.5?
> May95 6.2 6.9 3.8?
> _________________________
> >>-<< VOY DS9 B 5
> Nov95 5.8? 6.5 2.9
> Feb96 5.6? 6.7 3.1
> May96 4.8 5.9 3.3
> _________________________
> >>-<< VOY DS9 B 5
> Nov96 5.2 6.6 3.6
> Feb97 4.7 6.3 3.5
> May97 4.7 5.2 3.2
> _________________________
> >>-<< VOY DS9 EFC
> Nov97 4.7 6.0 4.1
> Feb98 4.0 4.8 3.8
> May98 3.9 4.2 3.7
> _________________________
> >>-<< VOY DS9 EFC
> Nov98 4.0 4.6 3.0
> Feb99 4.1 4.3 2.8
> May99 --- --- ---
>
troy_...@hotmail.com
> It's interesting that EFC came that much closer to Trek's ratings than
> B5 did. EFC has been scheduled around the country at much weirder
> times than the old PTEN shows ever were, and aside from a few drones
at
> ST conventions I've never met anyone who watched EFC because
> Roddenberry's name was attached to it.
Well, I think you're mistaken in your last sentence. Speaking for
myself, if EFC didn't have Roddenberry's name on it, I probably wouldn't
have tried it. But I was curious to see what else Roddenberry could
produce besides Star Trek.
And then, there's the publicity factor. Many magazines such as TV Guide
had special articles about the EFC simply because it was a Gene
Roddenberry product. Other sci-fi shows (like B5, Farscape, Outer
Limits, Stargate) didn't even get noticed.
So, yes, I think the Roddenberry name had a lot to do with EFC's
initially high ratings (4.1%).
Now, notice also that EFC's ratings have dipped lower than B5 ever
dipped on syndication. (2.8%) Not good... In fact, it's downright sad.
EFC was a such a good show in its first year.
Troy
no_...@my-dejanews.com
"Earth Final Conflict" is a fairly good show, even now, but who in
ghu's name believes that Gene Roddenberry had anything to do with it?
He'd been dead for years when it was developed. At best he'd left
behind notes and a script draft for what was a pretty generic alien-
invasion show (although it's possible that he did his work prior to a
lot of the other similar projects like "V") when stripped of the very
contemporary elements like the story-arc and characters like Augur.
Majel Roddenberry and the real creators of E:FC basically emphasized
GR's contribution by utilizing minor elements (like character surnames)
that would be familiar to Roddenberry's true believers and thus suggest
his involvement while developing the series major elements in whatever
direction made commercial and dramatic sense to them.
In article <7hendt$99d$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
troy_...@hotmail.com
> "Earth Final Conflict" is a fairly good show, even now, but who in
> ghu's name believes that Gene Roddenberry had anything to do with it?
Yes, even so his name was on it and people were curious to see what it
was about. Perhaps that's why it had an initially high rating (4.9%)
but then fell rather low (3.1%)? People just wanted to satisfy their
curiousity?
As for Gene's involvement, he wrote the first episode and established
the characters. That's a pretty crucial step. And of course his wife
Majel is a producer, so she's trying to keep his "vision" in the series.
Of course, Majel doesn't have total control. The 5-year arc for example
was not her choice. She'd prefer to do the show the way Gene did it: No
Arc with a fresh story every week (like TOS and TNG).
troy_...@hotmail.com
>
> >>-<< VOY DS9 EFC
> Nov97 4.7 6.0 4.1
> Feb98 4.0 4.8 3.8
> May98 3.9 4.2 3.7
> suffers greatly from the long holiday hiatus & the start of the
> maddeningly irritating habit of 2 new 2 old shows when it comes
Agreed. DS9 used to do the same thing too... Usually they'd show 2 new
shows in January, show 2 reruns, and then 4 or 5 new show for February
sweeps. And yes, it was stupid.
Prolix68
>>Joan Wolschleger wrote:
>>
>> >>-<< VOY DS9 EFC
>> Nov97 4.7 6.0 4.1
>> Feb98 4.0 4.8 3.8
>> May98 3.9 4.2 3.7
>> Without quoting the whole message, it occurred to me
>> that Voyager suffers greatly from the long holiday hiatus
>> & the start of the maddeningly irritating habit of 2 new 2
>> old shows when it comes back. ...
>Agreed. DS9 used to do the same thing too... Usually
>they'd show 2 new shows in January, show 2 reruns,
>and then 4 or 5 new show for February sweeps. And
>yes, it was stupid.
And TNG did it as well, starting in it's 3rd season.
And so do *most* shows on tv. Or do you not pay
attention to anything but sci-fi shows?
And what's so stupid about it? They have to stretch
26 new episodes over approx. 8 months/36 weeks.
How would you propose that they do it and still
fit in with the sweeps periods?
------------------------------------------------
whatever...
conANDave
:Sorry you're wrong.
Thanks for being so polite.
Anyway, if they are all just percentages, define the difference between a
2.5/25 and 25.5/25. Wouldn't the ratings POINT be the 2.5 and 25.5 and the
percentage of all TV's turned on at the time watching that partciular show
be 25% for both?
troy_...@hotmail.com
prol...@aol.com (Prolix68) wrote:
> >Troy Heagy wrote:
> >Agreed. DS9 used to do the same thing too... Usually
> >they'd show 2 new shows in January, show 2 reruns,
> >and then 4 or 5 new show for February sweeps. And
> >yes, it was stupid.
>
> And TNG did it as well, starting in it's 3rd season.
> And so do *most* shows on tv. Or do you not pay
> attention to anything but sci-fi shows?
>
> And what's so stupid about it? They have to stretch
> 26 new episodes over approx. 8 months/36 weeks.
> How would you propose that they do it and still
> fit in with the sweeps periods?
Wow, such a venomous reply! Having a bad day?
I think it's stupid to show 1 or 2 new episodes surrounded by rerun
episodes. Those new episodes usually get depressed ratings, because
most people don't know new episodes are showing.
Instead, I'd schedule new episodes in blocks: October/November/December,
February, April/May.
troy_...@hotmail.com
> Anyway, if they are all just percentages, define the difference
between a
> 2.5/25 and 25.5/25. Wouldn't the ratings POINT be the 2.5 and 25.5 and
the
> percentage of all TV's turned on at the time watching that partciular
show
> be 25% for both?
The 2.5 and 25.5 are the ratings. Ratings are the percentage of ALL
television homes... whether the tv is turned on or not.
The 25 and 25 are the shares. Shares are the percentages of only those
televisions currently turned on.
That's it in a nutshell. The nice thing about ratings is that they are
always constant. Each 1.0 rating equals 980000 homes. A 100.0 rating
(or 100.0%) is every tv home: 98 million. When advertisers compare
different television shows across different timeslots, they use the
nationalized rating.
troy_...@hotmail.com
dev...@aol.com (Dev2323) wrote:
> because people have realized its really a terrible show. :]
So... you think that DS9's ratings are dropping because of variable
timeslots, but VOY's ratings are dropping because it's terrible?
Isn't it possible that BOTH DS9 and VOY are terrible? (in the opinion of
the average viewer)
How do you explain the success of TNG which had variable timeslots like
DS9? Or the success of the X-Files' reruns which have the same problem?
A rerun of X-Files' (in syndication) regularly scores almost double
DS9's syndication rating.
Just curious... :)
Prolix68
>> prol...@aol.com (Prolix68) wrote:
>>>Troy Heagy wrote:
>>>Agreed. DS9 used to do the same thing too... Usually
>>>they'd show 2 new shows in January, show 2 reruns,
>>>and then 4 or 5 new show for February sweeps. And
>>>yes, it was stupid.
>>
>>And TNG did it as well, starting in it's 3rd season.
>>And so do *most* shows on tv. Or do you not pay
>>attention to anything but sci-fi shows?
>>
>>And what's so stupid about it? They have to stretch
>>26 new episodes over approx. 8 months/36 weeks.
>>How would you propose that they do it and still
>>fit in with the sweeps periods?
>
>
>Wow, such a venomous reply! Having a bad day?
(1) Nope. I was having a really good day actually. :)
(2) If you think that was venomous, you're either
(a) an idiot or (b) clueless. Venomous would have
been something more like "How would you propose
that they do it, you frickin' moron, and still fit in with
the sweeps period?" Now *that* would have been
venomous. :) Otherwise it was all casual conversation
with some words emphasized. Any interpretation was
all on your own with no help from my words.
>I think it's stupid to show 1 or 2 new episodes surrounded
>by rerun episodes. Those new episodes usually get
>depressed ratings, because most people don't know new
>episodes are showing.
Unless they either read tv guide or catch it on commercials
or ask friends they know who know about such things...
And if new episodes usually get depressed ratings, how
do you explain the continuing success of E.R.? They've
literally done the 1 new episode, rerun of 3, 1 or 2 new,
then rerun (including having shown at least one rerun of an
episode from last season this late into the year), and still
come out at #1 in the ratings? I'd recently read in a news-
paper about how E.R. was a loser for having it's lowest
ratings since it's premiere year in the U.S., yet it was
still rated #1 for that week (this is based on first run
episodes, not reruns). What does this say to you
about the lowering of ratings? Either fewer people
are watching tv... or it's that there's more to watch
out there.
>Instead, I'd schedule new episodes in blocks: October/
>November/December, February, April/May.
And that might be a good thing to do. Makes pure
and plain sense, Troy. But how do you get production
companies to schedule around that set-up? Do they
begin production work earlier in the year? Do they
reschedule when the holiday breaks would be? Why
not just start airing new episodes in August like UPN
used to do with Voyager? Isn't that technically a
"sweeps" month as well? It's one of the quarters
where they set advertising rates, right?
And I'm only just talking about shows that have 26
episodes. And just how many of those are there?
Not a whole lot, especially in one hour shows.
So for the most part you have to stretch 22 to 24
shows over that 36 weeks. Even most sitcoms
stick to that number of shows.
Let's work on your premise here.
Let's say a show takes a 7 day production week for filming
and say 3 weeks post-production. If I recall correctly, most
networks like to have the episodes in the can and on their
desk for air about 2 to 3 weeks prior to airing. (We'll go with
2 weeks for our purposes). So that's 1 week production
(filming), 3 weeks post-production, and 2 weeks before airing.
6 weeks. So for an episode to be ready to air on say the
first Monday of October (we'll use this calander year for our
purposes), October 4. That means production would have
to start on August 23.
Into December with, say, an eleven week run, half a season,
ending on December 13. Then 8 weeks of reruns until
February 12. 3 new eps in February (8 episodes remaining.)
Then 5 weeks of reruns. April 6 to May 25, the last 8 episodes.
Then about 17 weeks of reruns.
So... for production purposes, with that August 23 start date,
they'd be shooting for 11 weeks straight (say November 15),
with post-production up until December 1. Then production
would start back up on January 3 to make the February 12
airing. But then do you shoot the remaining 11 eps straight
through? Say you do... then that's January 3 to March 16
for production, and until April 6 for post.
Now this all works out fine for when you'd like to see
the shows aired. But what about Networks that want
them 3 weeks in advance? Or about the pre-production
time needed. What about those Dramas that are shot
on 14 to 18 hour days nearly 6 to 7 days a week? Have
you ever worked 11 weeks straight like that? It's not
fun. It's physically draining and emotionally tiring. (Sure,
the schedule I worked out above gives like a month,
month and a half between those 11 week shoots.) What
about the post-production people?
What about shows that have 24 or 26 episode
seasons? I merely pointed out a schedule for a
22 episode show.
And now for the rerun part. I, for one, would not want
to go 8 weeks with reruns. Mid-season replacement
shows or not. Even 5 weeks would be bad. You talk
about people not knowing when a new episode would
be on. You think that just having them show in certain
months would be helpful? Then you must have an
extremely low opinion of people. Do you think that
most people are that clueless? Or that they won't
tune in to an episode and then change the channel
if they've seen it before? Or watch the rerun because
they actually like either the show or that particular
episode of it?
------------------------------------------------
whatever...
Timothy
>timeslots, but VOY's ratings are dropping because it's terrible?
>Isn't it possible that BOTH DS9 and VOY are terrible? (in the opinion of
>the average viewer)
1.
The syndicated market isn't what it used to be. Besides Wheel of Fortune and
Jeopardy,
no syndicated show or program got a rating higher than 7.
>How do you explain the success of TNG which had variable timeslots like
>DS9? Or the success of the X-Files' reruns which have the same problem?
> A rerun of X-Files' (in syndication) regularly scores almost double
>DS9's syndication rating.
*almost double* ?
Strange Bedfellows scored a 4.2. The X-Files episode of that week a 4.9.
2.
The fact that a *rerun* gets a higher rating than a new episode clearly
shows that DS9 has lost a fair amount of TNG's audience. But since TPTB
chose to make the show different from TNG, that's to be expected.
Timothy
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Looking for up-to-date news and rumours for Voyager? Visit WebTrek:
http://gallery.uunet.be/Timothy.Verheecke/WebTrek/Voy/Update/update.html
David B.
> In article <19990513222102...@ng123.aol.com>,
> dev...@aol.com (Dev2323) wrote:
> > because people have realized its really a terrible show. :]
>
> So... you think that DS9's ratings are dropping because of variable
> timeslots, but VOY's ratings are dropping because it's terrible?
>
> Isn't it possible that BOTH DS9 and VOY are terrible? (in the opinion of
> the average viewer)
>
The average viewer is an idiot. How else do you explain all those Fox
reality specials?
troy_...@hotmail.com
> >I think it's stupid to show 1 or 2 new episodes surrounded
> >by rerun episodes. Those new episodes usually get
> >depressed ratings, because most people don't know new
> >episodes are showing.
>
> Unless they either read tv guide or catch it on commercials
> or ask friends they know who know about such things...
Most people don't do that.
> And if new episodes usually get depressed ratings, how
> do you explain the continuing success of E.R.? They've
> literally done the 1 new episode, rerun of 3, 1 or 2 new,
> then rerun (including having shown at least one rerun of an
> episode from last season this late into the year), and still
> come out at #1 in the ratings?...
When I said "depressed ratings" I was only referring to those 1 or 2
episodes.
Also, as you pointed out inserting 1/2 new episodes between reruns is
common practice... so most of the shows ER competes against would get
depressed ratings as well. It all comes out in the wash. :)
> What does this say to you
> about the lowering of ratings? Either fewer people
> are watching tv... or it's that there's more to watch
> out there.
There's more to watch. A study published in TV Guide last year showed
that during reruns (you know, between the sweeps months) people flip the
channel over to the cable programs. Hence, network TV is shrinking and
cable is growing.
> >Instead, I'd schedule new episodes in blocks: October/
> >November/December, February, April/May.
>
> And that might be a good thing to do. Makes pure
> and plain sense, Troy. But how do you get production
> companies to schedule around that set-up? Do they
> begin production work earlier in the year?
Maybe... I don't know, but I don't see why it's a problem. I remember
when TV shows used to begin with new episodes in September and run
almost continuously through March. So, if they could meet the demand in
the past, why can't they meet the demand now?
Another alternative to my schedule is: November/December,
February/March, May That's almost the same schedule X-Files followed
the last two years. Basically, they moved October episodes to March.
> Why
> not just start airing new episodes in August like UPN
> used to do with Voyager? Isn't that technically a
> "sweeps" month as well?
No, it's July. For whatever reason, networks seem to ignore that Sweeps
Month? Sometimes they introduce mid-summer series, but not as common
practice as far as I can tell.
> So for the most part you have to stretch 22 to 24
> shows over that 36 weeks. Even most sitcoms
> stick to that number of shows.
So that's about 3 months worth of reruns. Yep, my schedule would need
some re-working, but I still believe it's better to schedule new
episodes in blocks rather than 1/2 episodes in the middle of reruns.
> Let's say a show takes a 7 day production week for filming
> and say 3 weeks post-production. If I recall correctly, most
> networks like to have the episodes in the can and on their
> desk for air about 2 to 3 weeks prior to airing. (We'll go with
> 2 weeks for our purposes). So that's 1 week production
> (filming), 3 weeks post-production, and 2 weeks before airing.
> 6 weeks.
Ack! That's getting too complicated! I'll just let it rest.
> purposes), October 4. That means production would have
> to start on August 23.
Yes... and I know of at least one series that started mid-August:
Babylon 5. (when it was still in production)
> And now for the rerun part. I, for one, would not want
> to go 8 weeks with reruns. ...
How about 7 weeks? Between November and February, Earth: Final Conflict
had roughly 7 weeks of reruns and 1 new episode (which I almost missed).
> You think that just having them show in certain
> months would be helpful? Then you must have an
> extremely low opinion of people. Do you think that
> most people are that clueless?
Well, in a word: YES. Not "clueless" though. Casual. They turn on the
TV to see what's on... Few people religiously follow a program and track
its schedule on the net. If they miss a new episode because they're
watching the History Channel instead, what do they care?
The network on the other hand DOES care. It's not good for new episodes
to get low ratings.
> if they've seen it before? Or watch the rerun because
> they actually like either the show or that particular
> episode of it?
You watch reruns? I certainly don't! I watch something else. Or read
a book. Or go see a movie.
Reruns are about 60% of the new episode ratings. So, yeah, many people
don't rewatch the rerun and watch something else
troy_...@hotmail.com
> troy_...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > So... you think that DS9's ratings are dropping because of variable
> > timeslots, but VOY's ratings are dropping because it's terrible?
> >
> > Isn't it possible that BOTH DS9 and VOY are terrible? (in the
opinion of
> > the average viewer)
> >
>
> The average viewer is an idiot. How else do you explain all those Fox
> reality specials?
Yes, watching idiots hurt themselves on TV is fun. :)
troy_...@hotmail.com
> 1.
> The syndicated market isn't what it used to be. Besides Wheel of
Fortune and
> Jeopardy,
> no syndicated show or program got a rating higher than 7.
True. Of course, the same is true of network. Network ratings are
falling. So, maybe VOY is *not* terrible but merely the victim of
shrinking audience... just like DS9?
> > A rerun of X-Files' (in syndication) regularly scores almost double
> >DS9's syndication rating.
>
> *almost double* ?
> Strange Bedfellows scored a 4.2. The X-Files episode of that week a
4.9.
OK, I exaggerated a bit. ~1.5 times... May98: X:6.1% vs. DS9:4.2%
> The fact that a *rerun* gets a higher rating than a new episode
clearly
> shows that DS9 has lost a fair amount of TNG's audience. But since
TPTB
> chose to make the show different from TNG, that's to be expected.
Well, if DS9 is as good as you claim, then it should be able to draw new
audience. Right?
Prolix68
>>>I think it's stupid to show 1 or 2 new episodes surrounded
>>>by rerun episodes. Those new episodes usually get
>>>depressed ratings, because most people don't know new
>>>episodes are showing.
>>
>>Unless they either read tv guide or catch it on commercials
>>or ask friends they know who know about such things...
>
>Most people don't do that.
Can you prove that most people don't?
(and yes, I know that I can't prove that
they do. I only have my own experiences
to go by, which is why I listed them to
begin with.)
Now while you may be able to dig up TV guide's
country-wide distribution numbers, can you add
up all the newspapers that carry a weekly television
guide supplement, or the daily tv listings in said
papers? Can you tell me honestly that you
know people don't catch things on commercials?
I spoke about people asking people who know
because at my work that's what my buddies
would do ('cause they happen to know I'm up
on these kinds of things).
>>And if new episodes usually get depressed ratings, how
>>do you explain the continuing success of E.R.? They've
>>literally done the 1 new episode, rerun of 3, 1 or 2 new,
>>then rerun (including having shown at least one rerun of an
>>episode from last season this late into the year), and still
>>come out at #1 in the ratings?...
>
>When I said "depressed ratings" I was only referring to those
>1 or 2 episodes.
I know. And so was I.
>Also, as you pointed out inserting 1/2 new episodes between
>reruns is common practice... so most of the shows ER
>competes against would get depressed ratings as well. It
>all comes out in the wash. :)
>>What does this say to you about the lowering of
>>ratings? Either fewer people are watching tv... or
>>it's that there's more to watch out there.
>
>There's more to watch. A study published in TV Guide
>last year showed that during reruns (you know, between
>the sweeps months) people flip the channel over to the
>cable programs. Hence, network TV is shrinking and
>cable is growing.
Now there's a big, fat "Duh", Troy. All you have to do
is look *in* a TV Guide and tell. (And just to let you
know, I am in Canada, so referencing articles in
the U.S. TV Guide doesn't help me. They don't have
the same articles in Canada's TV Guide.) Or even
that channel that cable companies love to show
what programming is on what channel at what
time that always seems to have really bad
radio stations. :)
>>>Instead, I'd schedule new episodes in blocks:
>>>October/November/December, February, April/May.
>>
>>And that might be a good thing to do. Makes pure
>>and plain sense, Troy. But how do you get production
>>companies to schedule around that set-up? Do they
>>begin production work earlier in the year?
>Maybe... I don't know, but I don't see why it's a problem.
>I remember when TV shows used to begin with new episodes
>in September and run almost continuously through March.
>So, if they could meet the demand in the past, why can't
>they meet the demand now?
Maybe because the demands aren't the same. You see
how critical it is for Networks now with the Sweeps thing.
The competition has increased over the last several years,
going along with the growth of cable. You've also got
an increase in production costs. Why there used to be
a time when Network TV used to produce up to 30 shows
a season.
>Another alternative to my schedule is: November/December,
>February/March, May That's almost the same schedule
>X-Files followed the last two years. Basically, they moved
>October episodes to March.
And that started because they filmed the X-F movie.
It pushed the start date of the season back to November
for Season 5, as well as having only 20 eps that season.
(As for Season 6's beginning, I don't know the reason for
that.) But they had the film in between to keep attention
on the show between season 5 & 6. Otherwise, it was
a six month break in between new episodes.
>>Why not just start airing new episodes in August like
>>UPN used to do with Voyager? Isn't that technically
>>a "sweeps" month as well?
>
>No, it's July. For whatever reason, networks seem to
>ignore that Sweeps >Month? Sometimes they introduce
>mid-summer series, but not as common practice as far
>as I can tell.
July?
So let me understand this. Every three months is a sweeps
month (November, February, May) except for the summer
when it's July? (Why does that not seem correct?) Arent'
they split up into quarters?
>> So for the most part you have to stretch 22 to 24
>> shows over that 36 weeks. Even most sitcoms
>> stick to that number of shows.
>
>So that's about 3 months worth of reruns. Yep, my
>schedule would need some re-working, but I still
>believe it's better to schedule new episodes in blocks
>rather than 1/2 episodes in the middle of reruns.
But two episodes do make a block, don't they?
>> Let's say a show takes a 7 day production week for filming
>> and say 3 weeks post-production. If I recall correctly, most
>> networks like to have the episodes in the can and on their
>> desk for air about 2 to 3 weeks prior to airing. (We'll go with
>> 2 weeks for our purposes). So that's 1 week production
>> (filming), 3 weeks post-production, and 2 weeks before airing.
>> 6 weeks.
>
>Ack! That's getting too complicated! I'll just let it rest.
I'm sorry. Did I almost explode your brain?
>> purposes), October 4. That means production would have
>> to start on August 23.
>
>Yes... and I know of at least one series that started
>mid-August: Babylon 5. (when it was still in production)
I'm sorry. I thought there quite a few shows that started
production in August, since they do start up in September.
I wasn't aware that B5 was the only you were aware of.
>>And now for the rerun part. I, for one, would not want
>> to go 8 weeks with reruns. ...
>
>How about 7 weeks? Between November and February,
>Earth: Final Conflict had roughly 7 weeks of reruns and
>1 new episode (which I almost missed).
Yeah. And that doesn't mean a much to me seeing as
how it's syndicated. I don't see the same eps at the same
time you might. Comes from being in a different country.
As for the long gap, I do recall that, and I lost most interest
in the show (and not because of the quality), and started
watching Nash Bridges again.
>> You think that just having them show in certain
>> months would be helpful? Then you must have an
>> extremely low opinion of people. Do you think that
>> most people are that clueless?
>
>Well, in a word: YES. Not "clueless" though. Casual.
>They turn on the TV to see what's on... Few people
>religiously follow a program and track its schedule on the
>net.
Who does that? Not me. I read the TV Guide. As for
few people religiously follow a program, explain the
shows that remain consitently in the top 20.
>If they miss a new episode because they're watching
>the History Channel instead, what do they care?
Probably not much. They may catch it in rerun.
>The network on the other hand DOES care. It's not
>good for new episodes to get low ratings.
Well, yeah. Stating the obvious again?
>>if they've seen it before? Or watch the rerun because
>>they actually like either the show or that particular
>>episode of it?
>
>You watch reruns? I certainly don't! I watch something
>else. Or read a book. Or go see a movie.
What you do is your own business. I do a lot of
different things myself... read for pleasure, homework,
my own writing, go out to the movies. I also like to
have background noise so I leave the tv on.
>Reruns are about 60% of the new episode ratings.
Eh?
>So, yeah, many people don't rewatch the rerun
>and watch something else
Tell that to the people I work with. They stick to
their shows and bitch if it's a rerun. But they'll
still watch it the next week, too.
------------------------------------------------
whatever...
Prolix68
(Prolix68) writes:
>Maybe because the demands aren't the same. You see
>how critical it is for Networks now with the Sweeps thing.
>The competition has increased over the last several years,
>going along with the growth of cable. You've also got
>an increase in production costs. Why there used to be
>a time when Network TV used to produce up to 30 shows
>a season.
What I actually meant by this was that a network used
to produce up to 30 episodes of a show. My mistake. :)
------------------------------------------------
whatever...
Timothy
>falling. So, maybe VOY is *not* terrible but merely the victim of
>shrinking audience... just like DS9?
The point I was trying to make was, that there's more than one reason for
the falling ratings. It's more complicated than simply saying the show
*sucks*, so the audience left. You can't say because TNG got X number of
viewers and DS9/VOY get Y number of viewers, X-Y viewers think that DS9/VOY
*sucks*.
>Well, if DS9 is as good as you claim, then it should be able to draw new
>audience. Right?
I don't remember making any claims about DS9. In fact, I've somewhat lost
interest in the show ever since it's main focus became the Dominion War.
Why are DS9 and Voyager unable to get higher ratings? I think there are
several reasons, such as:
1. When TNG started, there was no competition. It wasn't until the show's
seventh season that several other Sci-Fi/Fantasy shows started appearing.
Despite it's weak initial two years, it had the time and opportunity to grow
without losing it's audience. DS9 and Voyager never had that chance, they
had to be ready from day one.
2. TNG didn't have to rely on TOS's viewers for an audience. DS9 and
Voyager's viewers for the most part are the same people that watched TNG and
those shows still have to live up to those people's expectations but will
never do that. It's not that surprising that people who never saw TNG and
became fans with Voyager, think the latter is a much better show. That's
also why people are not that forgiving when Voyager does shows that resemble
something TNG has done before.
3. When DS9 premiered with record ratings and TNG was having it's best year
ever (in terms of ratings) the theory started forming that the concept of
Star Trek was so strong that we could go on forever making hit series by
simply giving a new spin on the concept. That's bulshit. And the sooner
everyone realises this, the better of we'll be.
4. The most important reason (in my opinion) is that DS9/VOY's characters
have simply not produced that "magic spark" with the audience. The reason
why shows like TNG and the X-Files proved popular with the non sci-fi
audience is its characters: Picard & Data and Mulders & Scully. I mean, both
TNG and VOY have their flaws and number of bad episodes, but the difference
is that with TNG, the audience was willing to follow their favorite
characters' journey even when the episode in question wasn't good.
Why hasn't this "spark" happened on DS9/VOY? I'm sure the writing has had
something to do with it, but creating *that kind* of chemistry among
characters is more often than not simply a matter of luck.
Well, that's just my opinion.
Timothy
Chris Whitehead
: 4. The most important reason (in my opinion) is that DS9/VOY's characters
: have simply not produced that "magic spark" with the audience. The reason
: why shows like TNG and the X-Files proved popular with the non sci-fi
: audience is its characters: Picard & Data and Mulders & Scully. I mean, both
: TNG and VOY have their flaws and number of bad episodes, but the difference
: is that with TNG, the audience was willing to follow their favorite
: characters' journey even when the episode in question wasn't good.
: Why hasn't this "spark" happened on DS9/VOY? I'm sure the writing has had
: something to do with it, but creating *that kind* of chemistry among
: characters is more often than not simply a matter of luck.
I'm going to have to disagree with you on this one. I'd say DS9's
characters *do* have that spark, though it took them a lot longer to get
it than the TNG crew. TNG's spark started forming in season 2. DS9 in
sason 2 still had Kira and Sisko at odds with each other, Bashir and
Quark at odds with most everyone, and Odo with no real friends (or
enemies besides Quark and maybe Bashir). I think Sisko is still not as
close to his crew as he could be, but Picard was a bit stand-offish too.
As for Voyager, they have no real spark yet, but the potential is
definately there. In fact, Voyager has more spark potential than TNG or
DS9, IMO.
Chris W.
troy_...@hotmail.com
> > Troy Heagy wrote:
> >>prol...@aol.com (Prolix68) wrote:
> >>>Troy Heagy wrote:
> >>>I think it's stupid to show 1 or 2 new episodes surrounded
> >>>by rerun episodes.
> >>
> >>or ask friends they know who know about such things...
> >
> >Most people don't do that.
>
> Can you prove that most people don't?
Yes, because the ratings for 1 or 2 new episodes sandwiched between
reruns are lower than normal. Apparently, people are unaware about the
1 or 2 new episodes.
> >There's more to watch. A study published in TV Guide
> >last year showed that during reruns (you know, between
> >the sweeps months) people flip the channel over to the
> >cable programs. Hence, network TV is shrinking and
> >cable is growing.
>
> Now there's a big, fat "Duh", Troy.
:) Well, the point of a study is to prove what you think you already
"know." Sometimes, the study will reveal surprising results. In this
case, it didn't.
> All you have to do
> is look *in* a TV Guide and tell. ... Or even
> that channel that cable companies love to show
> what programming is on what channel at what
> time that always seems to have really bad
> radio stations. :)
I don't understand your point. Look in the TV Guide and tell what?
That viewers are jumping from network to cable? No, you need to study
the Nielsen reports to see that.
> Maybe because the demands aren't the same. You see
> how critical it is for Networks now with the Sweeps thing.
> The competition has increased over the last several years,
> going along with the growth of cable. You've also got
> an increase in production costs. Why there used to be
> a time when Network TV used to produce up to 30 shows
> a season.
Maybe you're right. Maybe you're wrong. I don't know. In my schedule,
I gave the network several "breaks" to catch up with new episodes:
September, October, January, March, and April.
> >Another alternative to my schedule is: November/December,
> >February/March, May That's almost the same schedule
> >X-Files followed the last two years. Basically, they moved
> >October episodes to March.
>
> And that started because they filmed the X-F movie.
No, it started because of football, including the Super Bowl. FOX could
not run X-Files episodes when they were showing football games.
> on the show between season 5 & 6. Otherwise, it was
> a six month break in between new episodes.
Yes and since people are outside enjoying the warm weather, it doesn't
really matter if there are reruns during that time. As long as the
networks have new shows during the peak viewing times (November,
December) and sweeps (Nov, Feb, May) then everything should be cool.
BTW, you did not address my main point: If the X-Files can meet the
production demands for a schedule of November/December, February/March,
May then other series should be able to as well.
> July?
>
> So let me understand this. Every three months is a sweeps
> month (November, February, May) except for the summer
> when it's July? (Why does that not seem correct?) Arent'
> they split up into quarters?
I was as confused as you, but the July sweeps month was confirmed by a
television advertiser.
> >So that's about 3 months worth of reruns. Yep, my
> >schedule would need some re-working, but I still
> >believe it's better to schedule new episodes in blocks
> >rather than 1/2 episodes in the middle of reruns.
>
> But two episodes do make a block, don't they?
No, it makes a pair. ;) You KNOW what I meant, so please don't act
dumb. I will re-phrase: It's better to schedule new episodes in 4+
episode blocks rather than 1 or 2 episodes sandwiched between reruns.
> >Ack! That's getting too complicated! I'll just let it rest.
>
> I'm sorry. Did I almost explode your brain?
Nope... I design missile launchers, so I can handle the details, but I
just don't *feel* like discussing such details. After all, it's only
television. ;)
> >> purposes), October 4. That means production would have
> >> to start on August 23.
> >
> >Yes... and I know of at least one series that started
> >mid-August: Babylon 5. (when it was still in production)
>
> I'm sorry. I thought there quite a few shows that started
> production in August, since they do start up in September.
> I wasn't aware that B5 was the only you were aware of.
In your previous message, it sounded like you were unaware of any
television shows that began in August. Which leads me to ask: What
exactly was your point when you said, "That means production would have
to start on August 23."? As you pointed out, may shows probably begin
in August or even July, so I don't think meeting the schedule should be
a problem.
> Yeah. And that doesn't mean a much to me seeing as
> how it's syndicated. I don't see the same eps at the same
> time you might. Comes from being in a different country.
> As for the long gap, I do recall that, and I lost most interest
> in the show (and not because of the quality), and started
> watching Nash Bridges again.
I see. Well, that is a risk with long rerun breaks, but I think that's
better than having viewers miss that 1 new episode.
Personal tidbit: I only watch tv October/November, February, and
April/May, because I know it's all new stuff. Other times, I don't even
bother to watch, because mostly just reruns are shown. I don't like to
re-watch the same stuff again.
> >Well, in a word: YES. Not "clueless" though. Casual.
> >They turn on the TV to see what's on... Few people
> >religiously follow a program and track its schedule on the
> >net.
>
> Who does that? Not me. I read the TV Guide. ...
...or track programs in the TV Guide. :)
> few people religiously follow a program, explain the
> shows that remain consitently in the top 20.
...except the X-Files which during reruns dips very, very low into the
30s or 40s. Even top 20 shows get lower ratings during reruns.
> >If they miss a new episode because they're watching
> >the History Channel instead, what do they care?
>
> Probably not much. They may catch it in rerun.
Or not, because they may be at the beach or summer vacation.
> >The network on the other hand DOES care. It's not
> >good for new episodes to get low ratings.
>
> Well, yeah. Stating the obvious again?
It seems that I have to, because you aren't understanding my point:
Sandwiching 1 or 2 new episodes between reruns is bad business. That
practice reduces the ratings for those episodes.
> >Reruns are about [70%] of the new episode ratings.
>
> Eh?
[Made an error above.] Take a new episode. Say it gets a 10.0% rating.
In rerun it will likely get only a 7.0% rating.
> >So, yeah, many people don't rewatch the rerun
> >and watch something else
>
> Tell that to the people I work with....
The Nielsen monitoring boxes say otherwise. (see above)
troy_...@hotmail.com
"Timothy" <Timothy....@village.spam.no.way.uunet.be> wrote:
> >True. Of course, the same is true of network. Network ratings are
> >falling. So, maybe VOY is *not* terrible but merely the victim of
> >shrinking audience... just like DS9?
>
> The point I was trying to make was, that there's more than one reason
for
> the falling ratings. It's more complicated than simply saying the show
Agreed. That's why I disagreed with Dev2323's statement: "because
people have realized [VOY's] really a terrible show." We have no idea
why VOY's ratings dropped. *Maybe* it's a terrible show... and maybe
not. Maybe both DS9 and VOY are terrible shows... and maybe there are
other reasons for their losing audience..
> 1. When TNG started, there was no competition. It wasn't until the
show's
> seventh season that several other Sci-Fi/Fantasy shows started
Agreed. In part. TNG had some competition from shows like Quantum
Leap, War of the Worlds, Something Is Out There...
> 2. TNG didn't have to rely on TOS's viewers for an audience. ...
No, but it helped.
>DS9 and
> Voyager's viewers for the most part are the same people that watched
TNG and
> those shows still have to live up to those people's expectations but
will
> never do that.
It's funny you say that, because I was on rec.arts.startrek in 1988 and
there were a lot of complaints about how TNG was not TOS and hence no
good.
> became fans with Voyager, think the latter is a much better show.
That's
> also why people are not that forgiving when Voyager does shows that
resemble
> something TNG has done before.
All VOY does is tell either predictable stories or stories about (yawn)
escaping spatial anomalies.
> 3. When DS9 premiered with record ratings and TNG was having it's best
year
> ever (in terms of ratings) the theory started forming that the concept
of
> Star Trek was so strong that we could go on forever making hit series
by
> simply giving a new spin on the concept. That's bulshit.
Agreed.
> 4. The most important reason (in my opinion) is that DS9/VOY's
characters
> have simply not produced that "magic spark" with the audience.
Agreed.
Timothy
>> Voyager's viewers for the most part are the same people that watched
>TNG and
>> those shows still have to live up to those people's expectations but
>will
>> never do that.
>
>It's funny you say that, because I was on rec.arts.startrek in 1988 and
>there were a lot of complaints about how TNG was not TOS and hence no
>good.
Interesting. But who made those statements? Probably fans of the original
show. As I said, TNG had the chance to build an entirly new fanbase.
>> became fans with Voyager, think the latter is a much better show.
>That's
>> also why people are not that forgiving when Voyager does shows that
>resemble
>> something TNG has done before.
>
>All VOY does is tell either predictable stories or stories about (yawn)
>escaping spatial anomalies.
One of the problems with Voyager is that series was created while 1) TNG was
ending; 2) DS9 was undergoing changes for its third season 3) They were
making a movie (Generations).
The concept of the series was never developed as it should have been.
Voyager got off to a great start with Caretaker, but after that it went
downhill because nobody had ever written down what the impact of "being lost
in the DQ" would have on this series. They had no idea what stories to tell
(hence all those boring space battles and anomalies) and they didn't know
what to do with their characters either.
That's why we've had so many Seven stories in the past two seasons: that
character was created for a *reason* and with specific story *ideas* in
mind. That never happened with the other characters and, sadly, it shows. So
it also shouldn't come as a surprise that the characters of Neelix and Tuvok
may, according to Bryan Fuller, be "redefined" somewhat next season.
Timothy
Timothy
believe, however, that it's not the kind of chemistry that will appeal to a
larger audience, people who are not necessarily into science-fiction. The
kind of audience that will make a show have ratings like TNG had and the
X-Files currently has.
What particulary hurt DS9 in it's initial years was weak presence of its
lead character: Sisko. It wasn't until they gave him a ship and made him a
captain that he became the character he should have been from the beginning.
A basic rule, I believe, is that the audience has to be able to identify
itself with the characters. It's like William Shatner said: Kirk is the
heroic person he dreams he could be, but isn't. How many people would wish
they were in Sisko's position? Not that many, I think.
>I'm going to have to disagree with you on this one. I'd say DS9's
>characters *do* have that spark, though it took them a lot longer to get
>it than the TNG crew. TNG's spark started forming in season 2. DS9 in
>sason 2 still had Kira and Sisko at odds with each other, Bashir and
>Quark at odds with most everyone, and Odo with no real friends (or
>enemies besides Quark and maybe Bashir). I think Sisko is still not as
>close to his crew as he could be, but Picard was a bit stand-offish too.
>
>As for Voyager, they have no real spark yet, but the potential is
>definately there. In fact, Voyager has more spark potential than TNG or
>DS9, IMO.
Caretaker clearly shows that Voyager had great potential, possibly the most
of all Trek series. The problem is, Voyager was created in rush. See my
other post.
Timothy
troy_...@hotmail.com
> >>DS9 and
> >> Voyager's viewers for the most part are the same people that
watched
> >TNG and
> >> those shows still have to live up to those people's expectations
but
> >will
> >> never do that.
> >
> >It's funny you say that, because I was on rec.arts.startrek in 1988
and
> >there were a lot of complaints about how TNG was not TOS and hence no
> >good.
>
> Interesting. But who made those statements? Probably fans of the
original
> show. As I said, TNG had the chance to build an entirly new fanbase.
And so I ask again... Why can't DS9 and VOY build new fanbases?
Timothy
>And so I ask again... Why can't DS9 and VOY build new fanbases?
I'm sure they have done that to some degree, but I don't believe that the
Sci-Fi audience is big enough to build new fanbases to rival the popularity
of TNG.
In order to achieve the ratings of TNG you have to appeal to the casual
sci-fi viewer and after 7 years of TNG it appears that that audience felt it
was ready for something new, The X-Files.
We've had new Star Trek episodes on TV for 12 years now since TNG started in
1987 and during 7 of those 12 years there've been 2 Trek shows at the same
time. It's been overkill. In my opinion, Voyager was launched 3 years to
soon.
troy_...@hotmail.com
"Timothy" <Timothy....@village.spam.no.way.uunet.be> wrote:
>
> >And so I ask again... Why can't DS9 and VOY build new fanbases?
>
casual
> sci-fi viewer and after 7 years of TNG it appears that that audience
felt it
> was ready for something new, The X-Files.
That's a very good theory. There is a small gap though. TNG's last
sweeps average was 11.0% in May94. X-Files' did not reach that same
size audience until Nov96 (11.6%). So, both DS9 and VOY had about two
years time to hold onto TNG's audience... but failed.
If you compare Nov94 to Nov96, you'll see that X-Files grew about 2.0%.
In that same period, DS9 and VOY shrunk 1.5% and 3.0% respectively.
Collene Pearce
>>
>> >>-<< VOY DS9 EFC
>> Nov97 4.7 6.0 4.1
>> Feb98 4.0 4.8 3.8
>> May98 3.9 4.2 3.7
>> Without quoting the whole message, it occurred to me that Voyager
>> suffers greatly from the long holiday hiatus & the start of the
>> maddeningly irritating habit of 2 new 2 old shows when it comes
>> back. ...
Actually, IMHO, Voyager suffers from Brannon Braga
and Rick Berman.
Voyager stopped being StarTrek when BB started adding the
war and gore, the T&A Borgita and reverend mother Janeway.
I haven't watched since the dreaded Borg episode, and
I was a 30 year startrek fan!
Startrek used to be an uplifting, positive look
at the future that made you think humanity really
could resolve it's petty problems and go forward.
It was a future you longed to experience.
No more.
The current Startrek makes it clear
there's no hope for mankind -- they're all just
a bunch of sleezey, petty politicians who enjoy
war and gore. :-(
acp
------
Chris Whitehead
: Voyager stopped being StarTrek when BB started adding the
: war and gore, the T&A Borgita and reverend mother Janeway.
War and gore?? On Voyager??
Methinks you don't watch it enough...
Chris W.
Collene Pearce
Are you forgetting those boring Kazon (sp?), the Vidiians?,
the Borg?, the species with tthe number, the countless
others during the past 2 years who have tried to destroy
Voyager and/or crew?
Maybe I just paid more attention when I did watch it. ;-)
acp
------
Chris Whitehead
: Are you forgetting those boring Kazon (sp?), the Vidiians?,
: the Borg?, the species with tthe number, the countless
: others during the past 2 years who have tried to destroy
: Voyager and/or crew?
1) Voyager has never been at war with anybody. The Federation is
currently at war with the Dominion. The Borg are at war with species
8472. Voyager was involved in several skirmishes with the Kazon (who were
left behind in season 3 - a full season before Braga took over). Ditto
for the Vidiians. Besides, the Vidiians may have sounded gory (harvesting
organs and such) but we never saw any gore. Besides, everyone knows that
the Vidiians never wanted to live the lifestyle the Phage brought
upon them. Now that it's been cured, I'm sure they're a much nicer
people. Species 8472 now has somewhat peaceful relations with the Voyager crew.
As for the Borg, they're learning slowly that humanity does not make a
good enemy.
: Maybe I just paid more attention when I did watch it. ;-)
Not likely. The series with the most war and gore is DS9. Next would
probably be TOS. The Federation was at war with the Klingons, and the
Romulans too to some degree. Remember the assassination scene in ST6? How
about the exploding head scene in TNG's Conspiracy? Voyager gets into
fewer fights than the Enterprise-D did.
Simply put, Voyager has the *least* war and gore out of all the Star Trek
series. And the little it does have was established well before Brannon
Braga took over.
As I said before, you just haven't watched it enough.
Chris W.
Reverend Sean O'Hara
>
> In article <7ieqg2$63d$4...@nntp.ucs.ubc.ca>,
> Chris Whitehead <chr...@unixg.ubc.ca> wrote:
> >Collene Pearce (col...@jump.net) wrote:
> >
> >: Voyager stopped being StarTrek when BB started adding the
> >: war and gore, the T&A Borgita and reverend mother Janeway.
> >
> >War and gore?? On Voyager??
> >Methinks you don't watch it enough...
> >Chris W.
>
> the Borg?, the species with tthe number, the countless
> others during the past 2 years who have tried to destroy
> Voyager and/or crew?
>
>
knows there was nothing like that In Star Trek II, III, or VI, any
of the TNG episodes, like Redemption I & II, or any TOS episodes
like Balance of Terror, Day of the Dove, &c.
I will blame Braga for many things wrong with the current state of
Trek. But adding violence isn't one of them. That's been part and
parcel with Trek since "Where No Man Has Gone Before".
--
Reverend Sean O'Hara
You two can be an ordained minister: http://ulc.org/ulc
"Drinking when you aren't thirsty and making love out of
season, Madame, that's all that makes us and different
from animals." --Beaumarchais "The Marriage of Figaro"
Collene Pearce
>: the Borg?, the species with tthe number, the countless
>: others during the past 2 years who have tried to destroy
>: Voyager and/or crew?
>
>currently at war with the Dominion.
Duh. I suppose some people want an "official declaration
of war"? When two ships and crews are trying to kill
each other, it's a war. ;-)
>The Borg are at war with species
>8472. Voyager was involved in several skirmishes with the Kazon (who were
>left behind in season 3 - a full season before Braga took over). Ditto
>for the Vidiians. Besides, the Vidiians may have sounded gory (harvesting
>organs and such) but we never saw any gore. Besides, everyone knows that
>the Vidiians never wanted to live the lifestyle the Phage brought
>upon them. Now that it's been cured, I'm sure they're a much nicer
>people. Species 8472 now has somewhat peaceful relations with the Voyager
>crew.
>As for the Borg, they're learning slowly that humanity does not make a
>good enemy.
And all this doesn't equal "war and gore" for you??
I think part of the problem with the violence of
this society is what we actually term "violent".
>: Maybe I just paid more attention when I did watch it. ;-)
>
>Not likely. The series with the most war and gore is DS9. Next would
>probably be TOS. The Federation was at war with the Klingons, and the
>Romulans too to some degree. Remember the assassination scene in ST6? How
>about the exploding head scene in TNG's Conspiracy? Voyager gets into
>fewer fights than the Enterprise-D did.
I'd say DS9 and Voyager have ended up about equal w/
the war and gore. Voyager started out a little milder,
but then DS9 was milder before Ridge Boy and Ron Moore
arrived.
>Simply put, Voyager has the *least* war and gore out of all the Star Trek
>series. And the little it does have was established well before Brannon
>Braga took over.
I'd hate to see what you what you consider to be a
really gorey movie. ;-)
>
>As I said before, you just haven't watched it enough.
>Chris W.
I watched for 3 years. The war and gore in that was
bad enough, because Braga had quite a bit of influence
during those first few years. When he was allowed a
free hand, it became unwatchable.
I notice you didn't dispute my comments about Janeway
becoming the "ironmaiden" or "reverend mother" or the
addition of the sleezy T&A Borgita.
And don't get me started on the first BB/RM movie.
I had to edit it before I'd let my nephew watch it.
Waaaaaay too much violence.
RIP StarTrek
acp
----------
Chris Whitehead
: >
: >1) Voyager has never been at war with anybody. The Federation is
: Duh. I suppose some people want an "official declaration
: of war"? When two ships and crews are trying to kill
: each other, it's a war. ;-)
No it's not. War is a very precise term. Besides, although the Kazon may
have wanted to destroy Voyager, the Voyager crew never wanted to destroy
the Kazon.
: And all this doesn't equal "war and gore" for you??
: I think part of the problem with the violence of
: this society is what we actually term "violent".
I don't see ship-to-ship battles as particularly violent, especially when
80% of all shots are absorbed by the shields. Although space battles can
be violent (see DS9's "The Changing Face of Evil" or "Valiant"), I don't
recall any memorable ones on Voyager. Maybe if you gave me some specific
examples, I could understand your position better.
: I'd say DS9 and Voyager have ended up about equal w/
: the war and gore. Voyager started out a little milder,
: but then DS9 was milder before Ridge Boy and Ron Moore
: arrived.
DS9 has *way* more violence and gore than Voyager ever will. When was the
last time we saw vicious fighting on Voyager? "Juggernaut"? That pales in
comparison to "The Siege of AR-558". Or "Way of the Warrior".
: >Simply put, Voyager has the *least* war and gore out of all the Star Trek
: >series. And the little it does have was established well before Brannon
: >Braga took over.
: I'd hate to see what you what you consider to be a
: really gorey movie. ;-)
Hmm... I don't really watch gory movies. I can't think of anything really
gory that I've seen. There were a few gory scenes in "Aliens", and that
guy did get ripped apart by two T-rexes in "The Lost World". What kind of
movies do you consider gory? I'd say anything involving copious amounts
of blood flowing would be gory.
: I watched for 3 years. The war and gore in that was
: bad enough, because Braga had quite a bit of influence
: during those first few years. When he was allowed a
: free hand, it became unwatchable.
I've been watching ever since Day 1 of TNG. Probably the goriest moment
in Voyager ever would be in "Faces", when the Vidiian shows B'Elanna his
new face. Back then, Jeri Taylor had *way* more influence than Braga.
: I notice you didn't dispute my comments about Janeway
: becoming the "ironmaiden" or "reverend mother" or the
: addition of the sleezy T&A Borgita.
Janeway is definately the mother figure of Voyager. As such, she is
usually portrayed as being correct. Is she an "ironmaiden"? Maybe...
She's tough and she knows it. She has to be tough. The crew look to her
for support. Did you see "Night"? When the captain's depressed,
everyone's depressed. Is she a "reverend mother"? Not really. She doesn't
seem preachy to me.
As for the "sleezy T&A Borgita" comment, you obviously haven't watched
much of the last two seasons. Jeri Ryan may have been hired for T&A, but
*Damn!* she can act. She's easily one of the best actors on the show. Her
costume may be sexy, but she is not even slightly sleezy.
: And don't get me started on the first BB/RM movie.
: I had to edit it before I'd let my nephew watch it.
: Waaaaaay too much violence.
Wasn't "Generations" the first BB/RM movie? What violence and gore did
you see there? Let me guess: You found the destruction of the Enterprise
to be too gory? Or do you mean "First Contact"? Hell, "Insurection" had
more gore than FC. Borg assimilation is a very clean process. Do you let
you nephew watch any TV? Sheesh...
Chris W.
Collene Pearce
Chris Whitehead <chr...@unixg.ubc.ca> wrote:
>Collene Pearce (col...@jump.net) wrote:
>: >
>: >1) Voyager has never been at war with anybody. The Federation is
>: >currently at war with the Dominion.
>
>: Duh. I suppose some people want an "official declaration
>: of war"? When two ships and crews are trying to kill
>: each other, it's a war. ;-)
>
>No it's not. War is a very precise term.
Well, so is "war and gore" it's a slang term for violence
on TV. So, deal with it. ;-)
> Besides, although the Kazon may
>have wanted to destroy Voyager, the Voyager crew never wanted to destroy
>the Kazon.
I'm glad you're able to read the minds of TV characters.
I've never tried. Never wanted to. ;-)
>: And all this doesn't equal "war and gore" for you??
>: I think part of the problem with the violence of
>: this society is what we actually term "violent".
>
>I don't see ship-to-ship battles as particularly violent, especially when
....snipping....
Ah, that's my point -- my violence threshold is much lower
than yours. I'm glad of that.
>: I'd say DS9 and Voyager have ended up about equal w/
>: the war and gore. Voyager started out a little milder,
>: but then DS9 was milder before Ridge Boy and Ron Moore
>: arrived.
>
>DS9 has *way* more violence and gore than Voyager ever will. When was the
...snipping....
Ah, that's tempting fate. Now that the depraved
BB and "'ol Worf lover" RM are back together, Voyager
doesn't have a prayer.
However, I agree DS9 has excessive violence.
I am watching/recording DS9 thru to the end, but
I'll admit most of my pleasure in it was lost when
Ridge Boy arrived.
>: >Simply put, Voyager has the *least* war and gore out of all the Star Trek
>: >series. And the little it does have was established well before Brannon
>: >Braga took over.
>
>: I'd hate to see what you what you consider to be a
>: really gorey movie. ;-)
>
>Hmm... I don't really watch gory movies. I can't think of anything really
>gory that I've seen. There were a few gory scenes in "Aliens", and that
...snipping....
Ah, I thoguht so. I wouldn't touch aliens with a.....
If Alien not gorey to you, then that proves my suspicions.
I don't approve of "war and gore". It doesn't bother you,
in fact, you don't even recognize it.
That's not all that unusual today. Most people tolerate and
even enjoy violence. So, I suppose you're "normal" and I"m
in the minority.
I don't watch war and gore, usually. I rented Air Force One
a few months ago, because I wanted to see Harrison Ford, but
had to FF thru much of it.
As movies go, I try to stick to comedys and romances.
If it says "action-adventure" on the box, I pick it
up gingerly and read the description on the back, carefully.
>: I watched for 3 years. The war and gore in that was
>: bad enough, because Braga had quite a bit of influence
>: during those first few years. When he was allowed a
>: free hand, it became unwatchable.
>
>I've been watching ever since Day 1 of TNG. Probably the goriest moment
>in Voyager ever would be in "Faces", when the Vidiian shows B'Elanna his
>new face. Back then, Jeri Taylor had *way* more influence than Braga.
Well, I was a 30year ST fan, until BB took over Voyager.
I tolerated it until then, hoping it would improve and
that Janeway and Chakotay would finally get together.
When BB took the reigns, it was clear ST was dead.
>: I notice you didn't dispute my comments about Janeway
>: becoming the "ironmaiden" or "reverend mother" or the
>: addition of the sleezy T&A Borgita.
>
>Janeway is definately the mother figure of Voyager. As such, she is
...snipping...
She's way too catholic for my taste. As I've said before,
Janeway is a lousy role model for young girls. She teaches
them you can't have it all. Her example is, if you're near
the top of your field, you have to be a cold, emotionally
and sexually repressed, sanctimonious bitc_.
>As for the "sleezy T&A Borgita" comment, you obviously haven't watched
>much of the last two seasons. Jeri Ryan may have been hired for T&A, but
>*Damn!* she can act. She's easily one of the best actors on the show. Her
>costume may be sexy, but she is not even slightly sleezy.
....snipping...
Well, that's another point we'll have to disagree on.
I just don't see that her acting ability is anything
special or even good.
The actress is rather sleezy and the character is so
obviously there for one reason only.
She gets waaaay too much air time. And in truth, I
could have handled the stupid attempt at war and gore
if they hadn't added such an obvious, offensive T&A factor.
It was TPTB's way of saying -- all you long time female
fans who kept this ship afloat back in the 70's, get lost.
We don't want you -- we want those mindless, 25 year old
white males. ;-)
Well, it worked. The ST demographic has definitely
changed. I just wish someone would create a non
"war and gore", ST style series, where the characters
are not afraid to experience real human emotions, for us. ;-)
Yes, I know -- it will never happen. ;-)
>: And don't get me started on the first BB/RM movie.
>: I had to edit it before I'd let my nephew watch it.
>: Waaaaaay too much violence.
>Wasn't "Generations" the first BB/RM movie? What violence and gore did
No, though they were involved in it.
>you see there? Let me guess: You found the destruction of the Enterprise
>to be too gory? Or do you mean "First Contact"? Hell, "Insurection" had
>more gore than FC. Borg assimilation is a very clean process. Do you let
Drilling someone's eye out is a clean process????
Yep, we definitely see things defferently. ;-)
>you nephew watch any TV? Sheesh...
>Chris W.
I can't speak for "Insurrection".
I've not seen the last ST movie and don't ever plan to.
Startrek is dead. The stuff BB and RM create is just
commercial "war and gore" under the ST label.
I really can't change your mind about this and don't care
to. You can't change my mind, because I've understand what
real trek meant to a lot of us, who wanted to create a
better world. So, rather than trying to look for your
reply, I will be going on to other, more productive
tasks.
:-)
acp
-----
Chris Whitehead
: > Besides, although the Kazon may
: >have wanted to destroy Voyager, the Voyager crew never wanted to destroy
: >the Kazon.
: I'm glad you're able to read the minds of TV characters.
: I've never tried. Never wanted to. ;-)
You don't have to be a mind-reader to know that Janeway didn't want to
exterminate the Kazon. Why else would she try to negotiate an alliance
between Voyager, the Trabe, and the Kazon-Nistrom??
Besides, the only advantage the Kazon had over Voyager was numbers. If
Janeway was at war with the Kazon, she'd destroy every lone ship Voyager
encountered. Given that she didn't...
: >DS9 has *way* more violence and gore than Voyager ever will. When was the
: ...snipping....
: Ah, that's tempting fate. Now that the depraved
: BB and "'ol Worf lover" RM are back together, Voyager
: doesn't have a prayer.
Actually, I see Ron Moore doing nothing but good for Voyager. And Braga's
been doing OK so far.
: However, I agree DS9 has excessive violence.
: I am watching/recording DS9 thru to the end, but
: I'll admit most of my pleasure in it was lost when
: Ridge Boy arrived.
Hmm... I only really started getting into DS9 after the Dominion. That's
when the "Big Story" concept started.
: >Hmm... I don't really watch gory movies. I can't think of anything really
: >gory that I've seen. There were a few gory scenes in "Aliens", and that
: ...snipping....
: Ah, I thoguht so. I wouldn't touch aliens with a.....
: If Alien not gorey to you, then that proves my suspicions.
: I don't approve of "war and gore". It doesn't bother you,
: in fact, you don't even recognize it.
I recognize it as violent, and I can tell the difference between TV
violence (where things usually work out okey-dokey for the good guys) and
real life violence.
: That's not all that unusual today. Most people tolerate and
: even enjoy violence. So, I suppose you're "normal" and I"m
: in the minority.
You don't enjoy the classic struggle between good and bad?? Sounds pretty
boring...
: I don't watch war and gore, usually. I rented Air Force One
: a few months ago, because I wanted to see Harrison Ford, but
: had to FF thru much of it.
Actually, I don't think it was the violence causing that... :)
: As movies go, I try to stick to comedys and romances.
: If it says "action-adventure" on the box, I pick it
: up gingerly and read the description on the back, carefully.
Comedies are usually great fun, provided they're original and actually
funny. I tend to find romantic movies quite boring. But that's just me. I
don't think there's anything wrong with romantic movies, I just don't
enjoy them.
: Well, I was a 30year ST fan, until BB took over Voyager.
: I tolerated it until then, hoping it would improve and
: that Janeway and Chakotay would finally get together.
: When BB took the reigns, it was clear ST was dead.
You do know the whole Janeway/Chakotay thing was stopped because Kate
Mulgrew didn't want it to continue, don't you? I think Robert Beltran was
more-or-less neutral on the issue.
: She's way too catholic for my taste. As I've said before,
: Janeway is a lousy role model for young girls. She teaches
: them you can't have it all. Her example is, if you're near
: the top of your field, you have to be a cold, emotionally
: and sexually repressed, sanctimonious bitc_.
She does, however, teach people that women are just as good as men in
terms of being able to lead people. I really don't see her as "cold and
emotionally repressed". Watch "11:59" and tell me she doesn't have a
strong emotional connection to her crew. There's a great scene where
a bunch of the senior staff get together and just chat about their
ancestors.
And so what if she teaches kids that "you can't have it all"? That's the
way life is.
: Well, that's another point we'll have to disagree on.
: I just don't see that her acting ability is anything
: special or even good.
Really? I'd say she's second only to Picardo.
: The actress is rather sleezy and the character is so
: obviously there for one reason only.
That's probably why she was brought on, but ask anyone and they'll tell
you she's so much more than that. I still don't see anything sleazy about
her. Maybe if you could offer me some proof? When has she flaunted her
body? Seven, quite simply, doesn't care about sex. Or her sexiness.
: She gets waaaay too much air time.
In season 4, yes. In season 5, she gets just as much as anyone else.
Well, except Tuvok. And Neelix. And B'Elanna. But that's a completely
different issue.
: And in truth, I
: could have handled the stupid attempt at war and gore
: if they hadn't added such an obvious, offensive T&A factor.
Maybe if you did a little more research before completely writing her off...
: It was TPTB's way of saying -- all you long time female
: fans who kept this ship afloat back in the 70's, get lost.
: We don't want you -- we want those mindless, 25 year old
: white males. ;-)
No, I think it was UPN's way of saying "Well, if we don't do something
desperate to boost the ratings, we'll have to cancel Voyager, dismantle
UPN since all our other shows are crap, and basically lose a ton of money".
: Well, it worked. The ST demographic has definitely
: changed. I just wish someone would create a non
: "war and gore", ST style series, where the characters
: are not afraid to experience real human emotions, for us. ;-)
: Yes, I know -- it will never happen. ;-)
It is happening. You want war and gore? Go watch DS9. You want
pleasantness and fluff with a bunch of eye-candy and the occaisional
moral issue? Go watch Voyager.
: Drilling someone's eye out is a clean process????
: Yep, we definitely see things defferently. ;-)
I suppose it would be if they showed some noisy drill approaching some
panicky guy's eye followed by lots of screaming as the camera gives us a
close-up of all the blood and other eye fluids comes gushing out as the
drill penetrates. Instead, we get the traditional bloodless Borg
assimilation. And 90% of it happens off-screen. I think you'd actually
have to see it for it to qualify as gore.
: I can't speak for "Insurrection".
: I've not seen the last ST movie and don't ever plan to.
: Startrek is dead. The stuff BB and RM create is just
: commercial "war and gore" under the ST label.
Aside from one particularly gory moment, it was pretty much a "feel-good"
romantic action/adventure comedy. Something for everyone.
: I really can't change your mind about this and don't care
: to. You can't change my mind, because I've understand what
: real trek meant to a lot of us, who wanted to create a
: better world. So, rather than trying to look for your
: reply, I will be going on to other, more productive
: tasks.
Suit yourself. It's your loss...
Chris W.
Eric Lukoff
But I can understand some of your perspective.
Eric
Collene Pearce <col...@jump.net> wrote in message
news:7iepu7$r...@serv1.jump.net...
> In article <7hf13k$hcc$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
> >>
> >> >>-<< VOY DS9 EFC
> >> Nov97 4.7 6.0 4.1
> >> Feb98 4.0 4.8 3.8
> >> May98 3.9 4.2 3.7
> >> Without quoting the whole message, it occurred to me that Voyager
> >> suffers greatly from the long holiday hiatus & the start of the
> >> maddeningly irritating habit of 2 new 2 old shows when it comes
> >> back. ...
>
> Actually, IMHO, Voyager suffers from Brannon Braga
> and Rick Berman.
>
> Voyager stopped being StarTrek when BB started adding the
> war and gore, the T&A Borgita and reverend mother Janeway.
William December Starr
col...@jump.net (Collene Pearce) said:
> I notice you didn't dispute my comments about Janeway
> becoming the "ironmaiden" or "reverend mother" or the
> addition of the sleezy T&A Borgita.
What "sleezy T&A Borgita" would that be?
-- William December Starr <wds...@crl.com>
Starfish
Collene Pearce schrieb:
> In article <7if0kn$63d$9...@nntp.ucs.ubc.ca>,
> Chris Whitehead <chr...@unixg.ubc.ca> wrote:
> >Collene Pearce (col...@jump.net) wrote:
> ><SNIP>
> >No it's not. War is a very precise term.
>
> Well, so is "war and gore" it's a slang term for violence
> on TV. So, deal with it. ;-)
Well, I didn't know that for example... I thought you'd coined it...
> > Besides, although the Kazon may
> >have wanted to destroy Voyager, the Voyager crew never wanted to destroy
> >the Kazon.
>
> I'm glad you're able to read the minds of TV characters.
> I've never tried. Never wanted to. ;-)
Since the first episode it has been established that the Voyager crew is out to
get home, not to destroy what gets in their way.
I can't remember one episode where they picked a fight on their own (even in
"Living Witness" we find out that the "bad Voyager" was a piece of revisionist
history, not the truth), usually they are forced into the conflicts they get in.
> >: And all this doesn't equal "war and gore" for you??
> >: I think part of the problem with the violence of
> >: this society is what we actually term "violent".
> >
> >I don't see ship-to-ship battles as particularly violent, especially when
> ....snipping....
>
> Ah, that's my point -- my violence threshold is much lower
> than yours. I'm glad of that.
How did you manage to watch TOS? Quite a bit of violence there...e.g.
salt-sucking alien, "Pon Farr", "Triskelion Games", the one with the empath (Kirk
and McCoy being tortured), "Spock's Brain", "Where no man has gone before",
people being disintegrated by phaser fire, and so on and so forth. It was all
there, from physical torture to mind control and death. And I don't think I need
to elaborate on TNG (e.g. young Picard being stabbed through the heart in a
close-up) or DS9 (as you admit yourself further down).
> >: I'd say DS9 and Voyager have ended up about equal w/
> >: the war and gore. Voyager started out a little milder,
> >: but then DS9 was milder before Ridge Boy and Ron Moore
> >: arrived.
> >
> >DS9 has *way* more violence and gore than Voyager ever will. When was the
> ...snipping....
>
> Ah, that's tempting fate. Now that the depraved
> BB and "'ol Worf lover" RM are back together, Voyager
> doesn't have a prayer.
>
> However, I agree DS9 has excessive violence.
> I am watching/recording DS9 thru to the end, but
> I'll admit most of my pleasure in it was lost when
> Ridge Boy arrived.
Ok, but you still watch it, despite the violence.
> <SNIP>
> >: I watched for 3 years. The war and gore in that was
> >: bad enough, because Braga had quite a bit of influence
> >: during those first few years. When he was allowed a
> >: free hand, it became unwatchable.
> >
> >I've been watching ever since Day 1 of TNG. Probably the goriest moment
> >in Voyager ever would be in "Faces", when the Vidiian shows B'Elanna his
> >new face. Back then, Jeri Taylor had *way* more influence than Braga.
>
> Well, I was a 30year ST fan, until BB took over Voyager.
> I tolerated it until then, hoping it would improve and
> that Janeway and Chakotay would finally get together.
> When BB took the reigns, it was clear ST was dead.
Because J and C didn't get together? What a reason...BTW, in none of the 4 Star
Trek series have we seen long-term relationships with two main characters (no
Spock/Chapel, no Picard/Crusher, Jadzia died, Paris/Torres currently, but who
knows, and no Janeway/Chakotay)
> >: I notice you didn't dispute my comments about Janeway
> >: becoming the "ironmaiden" or "reverend mother" or the
> >: addition of the sleezy T&A Borgita.
> >
> >Janeway is definately the mother figure of Voyager. As such, she is
> ...snipping...
>
> She's way too catholic for my taste. As I've said before,
Please, no 'battle of religions'!! Janeway is being portrayed as a very
scientific, non-religious person (see Sacred Ground), the most 'religious'
gesture I've seen her perform was tying Chakotay's watch to her belt in "Year of
Hell part 2".
> Janeway is a lousy role model for young girls. She teaches
> them you can't have it all. Her example is, if you're near
> the top of your field, you have to be a cold, emotionally
> and sexually repressed, sanctimonious bitc_.
Well, if there are young girls who plan to become Captain of a starship that'll
get lost in the Delta Quadrant, then they probably won't 'have it all'. I don't
think you can transfer Janeway one-to-one into today's society, IMO it's her
character traits that should be transferred like compassion, loyalty, courage to
make hard but hopefully right choices, etc. She makes mistakes, she is not
perfect, but then who ever is?
> >As for the "sleezy T&A Borgita" comment, you obviously haven't watched
> >much of the last two seasons. Jeri Ryan may have been hired for T&A, but
> >*Damn!* she can act. She's easily one of the best actors on the show. Her
> >costume may be sexy, but she is not even slightly sleezy.
> ....snipping...
>
> Well, that's another point we'll have to disagree on.
> I just don't see that her acting ability is anything
> special or even good.
> The actress is rather sleezy and the character is so
> obviously there for one reason only.
> She gets waaaay too much air time. And in truth, I
> could have handled the stupid attempt at war and gore
> if they hadn't added such an obvious, offensive T&A factor.
So, in truth, it's not the violence that really bothers you, but Jeri Ryan's
curves and how they are presented... BTW, how do you know all of the above,
according to your previous posts you stopped watching Voyager after BB took
over!? Or do you 'just know' JR can't possibly act, because of her T&A factor?
I agree, she gets too much airtime, on expense of the other characters, and I
have to admit to casting numerous envious glances to the screen when I see her in
her tight outfits (I mean, she has an excellently toned body AND great curves!),
but that's my problem, not her fault.
> It was TPTB's way of saying -- all you long time female
> fans who kept this ship afloat back in the 70's, get lost.
> We don't want you -- we want those mindless, 25 year old
> white males. ;-)
Why, let them drool and adore, why not? We girls have more 'material' to go on
anyway (6 men vs. 3 women), and I'm quite happy with Tom Paris (only we need to
see more of him!! The man's a great actor, so let him act, give him challenging
scripts!).
On a sideline, during Fed Con 7 in Germany a couple of weeks ago, there were many
female fans of Jeri Ryan attending, and both the eye-piece ($650) and glove
($850) she auctioned for her charity were purchased by women! I saw one girl
break into tears (of joy) when she was able to take a picture with Jeri.
> Well, it worked. The ST demographic has definitely
> changed. I just wish someone would create a non
I don't know about that, in Germany female Star Trek fans have always been the
minority, so...
> "war and gore", ST style series, where the characters
> are not afraid to experience real human emotions, for us. ;-)
> Yes, I know -- it will never happen. ;-)
Who is 'us'? Please elaborate.
> <SNIP>
> :-)
> acp
> -----
Starfish:)
Anita
wrote in part to Collene Pearce:
>Sorry to interrupt this discussion, but I'd like to drop in my two cents...
Heavens, the very nature of this ng is to jump in! At least that's
true on the Voyager ng, where I'm reading this. Maybe those other
ng's are crankier. <g, d&r>
>> I'm glad you're able to read the minds of TV characters.
>> I've never tried. Never wanted to. ;-)
>
>Since the first episode it has been established that the Voyager crew is out to
>get home, not to destroy what gets in their way.
>I can't remember one episode where they picked a fight on their own (even in
>"Living Witness" we find out that the "bad Voyager" was a piece of revisionist
>history, not the truth), usually they are forced into the conflicts they get in.
That's how it has seemed to me as well.
>
>> >: And all this doesn't equal "war and gore" for you??
>> >: I think part of the problem with the violence of
>> >: this society is what we actually term "violent".
>> >
>> >I don't see ship-to-ship battles as particularly violent, especially when
>> ....snipping....
>>
>> Ah, that's my point -- my violence threshold is much lower
>> than yours. I'm glad of that.
>
>How did you manage to watch TOS? Quite a bit of violence there...e.g.
>salt-sucking alien, "Pon Farr", "Triskelion Games", the one with the empath (Kirk
>and McCoy being tortured), "Spock's Brain", "Where no man has gone before",
>people being disintegrated by phaser fire, and so on and so forth. It was all
>there, from physical torture to mind control and death. And I don't think I need
>to elaborate on TNG (e.g. young Picard being stabbed through the heart in a
>close-up) or DS9 (as you admit yourself further down).
Excellent point and examples. That really was quite gruesome when the
young Picard was stabbed.
[snip]
>> >Janeway is definately the mother figure of Voyager. As such, she is
>> ...snipping...
>>
>> She's way too catholic for my taste. As I've said before,
>
>Please, no 'battle of religions'!! Janeway is being portrayed as a very
>scientific, non-religious person (see Sacred Ground), the most 'religious'
>gesture I've seen her perform was tying Chakotay's watch to her belt in "Year of
>Hell part 2".
Whoa, she wrote "catholic", lower case, not "Catholic." Big
difference. From WWWebster: "2 : COMPREHENSIVE, UNIVERSAL; especially
: broad in sympathies, tastes, or interests"
Though I'm at a loss to see what's objectionable about that. I mean,
being catholic tends to make one less likely to engage in war and
gore. <g>
>
>> Janeway is a lousy role model for young girls. She teaches
>> them you can't have it all. Her example is, if you're near
>> the top of your field, you have to be a cold, emotionally
>> and sexually repressed, sanctimonious bitc_.
>
>Well, if there are young girls who plan to become Captain of a starship that'll
>get lost in the Delta Quadrant, then they probably won't 'have it all'. I don't
>think you can transfer Janeway one-to-one into today's society, IMO it's her
>character traits that should be transferred like compassion, loyalty, courage to
>make hard but hopefully right choices, etc. She makes mistakes, she is not
>perfect, but then who ever is?
Not to mention that, as Chris pointed out, she hasn't been depicted as
a cold, emotionally and sexually repressed etc. Well, sanctimonious,
maybe; all Trek captains have been. <g> "Bitch"? She gives orders,
sternly and even harshly sometimes. Part of command. To label that
being a "bitch" (the only aspect of the Janeway character to which I
can imagine the term being applied) sounds like sexism, since it is
applied to Janeway but not to the male Trek captains, who have been
similarly sharp in giving orders.
>> >As for the "sleezy T&A Borgita" comment, you obviously haven't watched
>> >much of the last two seasons. Jeri Ryan may have been hired for T&A, but
>> >*Damn!* she can act. She's easily one of the best actors on the show. Her
>> >costume may be sexy, but she is not even slightly sleezy.
>> ....snipping...
>>
>> Well, that's another point we'll have to disagree on.
>> I just don't see that her acting ability is anything
>> special or even good.
>> The actress is rather sleezy and the character is so
>> obviously there for one reason only.
>> She gets waaaay too much air time. And in truth, I
>> could have handled the stupid attempt at war and gore
>> if they hadn't added such an obvious, offensive T&A factor.
>
>So, in truth, it's not the violence that really bothers you, but Jeri Ryan's
>curves and how they are presented... BTW, how do you know all of the above,
>according to your previous posts you stopped watching Voyager after BB took
>over!? Or do you 'just know' JR can't possibly act, because of her T&A factor?
Explains why she thinks Janeway is cold etc. How could one think that
(or that Seven is only T&A) after the ep in which personalities
assimilated by the Borg take over Seven? (Drawing a blank on the ep's
name.) Janeway was so obviously touched, nearly to the point of
tears, by the mother asking what had happened to her child.
And what really gripes me is that if Janeway cried more, there'd be
folks moaning about how the one starring woman captain is being
depicted as a stereotypically weepy female...
[snip -- interesting about the con]
>
>> Well, it worked. The ST demographic has definitely
>> changed. I just wish someone would create a non
>
>I don't know about that, in Germany female Star Trek fans have always been the
>minority, so...
>
>> "war and gore", ST style series, where the characters
>> are not afraid to experience real human emotions, for us. ;-)
>> Yes, I know -- it will never happen. ;-)
>
>Who is 'us'? Please elaborate.
She means those more refined souls whose threshold for "war and gore"
is higher than ours, I suppose. Though not of a very refined
sensibility, apparently, since she (sorry, "they") haven't noticed the
depiction of real human emotions in Voyager.
- Vegas Annie
Anita
Starr) wrote:
>In article <7iev3u$9...@serv1.jump.net>,
>col...@jump.net (Collene Pearce) said:
>
>> I notice you didn't dispute my comments about Janeway
>> becoming the "ironmaiden" or "reverend mother" or the
>> addition of the sleezy T&A Borgita.
>
>What "sleezy T&A Borgita" would that be?
Siete de Nueve, pienso... Which makes me wonder, what would an
assimilated chihuahua be like?
- Vegas Annie
La resistencia de (a?) Taco Bell es futilidad!
Chris Engelke
without her.
Collene Pearce <col...@jump.net> wrote in message
news:7iepu7$r...@serv1.jump.net...
> Voyager stopped being StarTrek when BB started adding the
Jean Dupree
Collene Pearce wrote:
> > Besides, although the Kazon may
> >have wanted to destroy Voyager, the Voyager crew never wanted to destroy
> >the Kazon.
>
> I'm glad you're able to read the minds of TV characters.
> I've never tried. Never wanted to. ;-)
I think it was pretty clear Voyager never wanted to wipe the Kazon out. They
just wanted to get away. These were a people who got all excited over seeing a
little water! All she had to do was beam a bathtub in there with a torpedo in
the base. While the Kazon were fighting over who gets the rubber ducky first,
BANG! The end. The Kazon had numbers but without Seska they wouldn't have had
anything.
> >: And all this doesn't equal "war and gore" for you??
> >: I think part of the problem with the violence of
> >: this society is what we actually term "violent".
> >
> >I don't see ship-to-ship battles as particularly violent, especially when
> ....snipping....
>
> Ah, that's my point -- my violence threshold is much lower
> than yours. I'm glad of that.
As long as you're not trying to lower anyone else's. If you can't distinguish
television violence from reality, well then that's a problem. And if you can't
handle it, then I'm sorry, but you have to toughen up a bit. The real world aint
april showers and may flowers all the time.
> >: I'd say DS9 and Voyager have ended up about equal w/
> >: the war and gore. Voyager started out a little milder,
> >: but then DS9 was milder before Ridge Boy and Ron Moore
> >: arrived.
> >
> >DS9 has *way* more violence and gore than Voyager ever will. When was the
> ...snipping....
>
> Ah, that's tempting fate. Now that the depraved
> BB and "'ol Worf lover" RM are back together, Voyager
> doesn't have a prayer.
Oh no, it might have some real writing! Good scripts! Better acting! Oh no,
whatever will we do? It already doesn't have a prayer. I think the real offense
was the terrible dialogue, horrible acting, bad directing, lack of continuity
with the series' that created it, and pathetic use of sex appeal and special
effects as a substitute for substance which Voyager has done since day one.
> However, I agree DS9 has excessive violence.
> I am watching/recording DS9 thru to the end, but
> I'll admit most of my pleasure in it was lost when
> Ridge Boy arrived.
How does DS9 have excessive violence? Its a show about war! Anything less would
make it children's programming. It is a show designed for a more mature
audience... people who understand that life isn't easy, that every action has its
consequences, and that sometimes you have to fight for your lives and for your
freedom. And NO, I don't think it is a show that is appropriate for little
kids. You wouldn't let them watch the spice channel. Why is this any
different? Because there arent people screwing in the hallways?
> >: >Simply put, Voyager has the *least* war and gore out of all the Star Trek
> >: >series. And the little it does have was established well before Brannon
> >: >Braga took over.
> >
> >: I'd hate to see what you what you consider to be a
> >: really gorey movie. ;-)
> >
> >Hmm... I don't really watch gory movies. I can't think of anything really
> >gory that I've seen. There were a few gory scenes in "Aliens", and that
> ...snipping....
>
> Ah, I thoguht so. I wouldn't touch aliens with a.....
> If Alien not gorey to you, then that proves my suspicions.
> I don't approve of "war and gore". It doesn't bother you,
> in fact, you don't even recognize it.
> That's not all that unusual today. Most people tolerate and
> even enjoy violence. So, I suppose you're "normal" and I"m
> in the minority.
I think most people can differentiate between special effects on TV and the guy
on the street corner getting blown away by a handgun.
> I don't watch war and gore, usually. I rented Air Force One
> a few months ago, because I wanted to see Harrison Ford, but
> had to FF thru much of it.
Then why bother? Rent a few episodes of Lamb Chop.
> As movies go, I try to stick to comedys and romances.
> If it says "action-adventure" on the box, I pick it
> up gingerly and read the description on the back, carefully.
This person is really scaring me...
> >: I watched for 3 years. The war and gore in that was
> >: bad enough, because Braga had quite a bit of influence
> >: during those first few years. When he was allowed a
> >: free hand, it became unwatchable.
> >
> >I've been watching ever since Day 1 of TNG. Probably the goriest moment
> >in Voyager ever would be in "Faces", when the Vidiian shows B'Elanna his
> >new face. Back then, Jeri Taylor had *way* more influence than Braga.
That's gore? To me it was a sad moment when the viewers realize what these
people have to deal with on a day to day basis.
> Well, I was a 30year ST fan, until BB took over Voyager.
> I tolerated it until then, hoping it would improve and
> that Janeway and Chakotay would finally get together.
And that would have been the most pathetic, most cheesy moment in all of trek
history. We would have had a little kiddie soap opera. What next? Naomi
wildman's tea party?
> When BB took the reigns, it was clear ST was dead.
Everything changes. Things cannot stay the same way forever. Progress is vital
and essential to every society.
> >Janeway is definately the mother figure of Voyager. As such, she is
> ...snipping...
>
> She's way too catholic for my taste. As I've said before,
> Janeway is a lousy role model for young girls. She teaches
> them you can't have it all. Her example is, if you're near
> the top of your field, you have to be a cold, emotionally
> and sexually repressed, sanctimonious bitc_.
Say it! Say it! Don't hold back! Bitch bitch biiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiitch!
BIATCH!!!
Actually I think she just needs to be directed better.
Besides, when you're stranded and you're trying to maintain protocol it's
necessary to have a stick up your ass from time to time.
As for the catholic comment, you're right. At least she's never quoted the
bible on the show.
> >As for the "sleezy T&A Borgita" comment, you obviously haven't watched
> >much of the last two seasons. Jeri Ryan may have been hired for T&A, but
> >*Damn!* she can act. She's easily one of the best actors on the show. Her
> >costume may be sexy, but she is not even slightly sleezy.
> ....snipping...
>
> Well, that's another point we'll have to disagree on.
> I just don't see that her acting ability is anything
> special or even good.
She is one of the few that can show any range of emotion. She performs her job
well, especially given the childish storylines she has to take part in.
> The actress is rather sleezy and the character is so
> obviously there for one reason only.
Yes she's there for her breasts. Fine. Accept it and move on.
> She gets waaaay too much air time.
Agreed, but I'd rather see her more than have another "Threshold" or Naomi
Wildman episode.
> And in truth, I
> could have handled the stupid attempt at war and gore
> if they hadn't added such an obvious, offensive T&A factor.
But once they did add it, at least give the woman credit for being able to act
well.
> It was TPTB's way of saying -- all you long time female
> fans who kept this ship afloat back in the 70's, get lost.
> We don't want you -- we want those mindless, 25 year old
> white males. ;-)
Did anyone ever consider the fact that Voyager is the way it is because its on a
network and under the gun to appeal to the masses? As such it has to have lots
of sex and effects for the little kiddies. Get the high school boy factor out
and you'll have a good show.
> Well, it worked. The ST demographic has definitely
> changed.
Its because most people in this country think science fiction is for kids, and
the producers make it that way. Think Jar Jar.
> I just wish someone would create a non
> "war and gore", ST style series, where the characters
> are not afraid to experience real human emotions, for us. ;-)
> Yes, I know -- it will never happen. ;-)
It did. DS9.
> >: And don't get me started on the first BB/RM movie.
> >: I had to edit it before I'd let my nephew watch it.
> >: Waaaaaay too much violence.
Where?
> >Wasn't "Generations" the first BB/RM movie? What violence and gore did
exactly my point!!!!!
> No, though they were involved in it.
And it was crap. But remember ST5.
> >you see there? Let me guess: You found the destruction of the Enterprise
> >to be too gory? Or do you mean "First Contact"? Hell, "Insurection" had
> >more gore than FC. Borg assimilation is a very clean process. Do you let
>
> Drilling someone's eye out is a clean process????
> Yep, we definitely see things defferently. ;-)
They didn't show the actual drilling, or the cutting of limbs or anything else.
> >you nephew watch any TV? Sheesh...
Get the kids away! Give them barney or something else!!
> I can't speak for "Insurrection".
> I've not seen the last ST movie and don't ever plan to.
> Startrek is dead. The stuff BB and RM create is just
> commercial "war and gore" under the ST label.
Then you're not paying much attention.
> I really can't change your mind about this and don't care
> to. You can't change my mind, because I've understand what
> real trek meant to a lot of us, who wanted to create a
> better world
Sometimes you have to realize that others might want to take that better world
away and you have to fight to keep it.
Jean Dupree
> Voyager stopped being StarTrek when BB started adding the
> war and gore, the T&A Borgita and reverend mother Janeway.
I don't know, you sound like those people who want to being peace love
and Jesus back to TV.
> Startrek used to be an uplifting, positive look
> at the future that made you think humanity really
> could resolve it's petty problems and go forward.
And for the most part humanity did.
> It was a future you longed to experience.
It isn't?
> No more.
> The current Startrek makes it clear
> there's no hope for mankind -- they're all just
> a bunch of sleezey, petty politicians who enjoy
> war and gore. :-(
I see, so all those who fought and died protecting what they believed
in, those who are fighting for their homes are doing so because they
like it? Its a weekend holiday?
Jean Dupree
> Duh. I suppose some people want an "official declaration
> of war"? When two ships and crews are trying to kill
> each other, it's a war.
No, its an isolated conflict. I'm glad you're not part of our government.
Jean Dupree
> On Wed, 26 May 1999 01:22:15 +0200, Starfish <starf...@gmx.de>
> wrote in part to Collene Pearce:
>
> >> She's way too catholic for my taste. As I've said before,
> Though I'm at a loss to see what's objectionable about that. I mean,
> being catholic tends to make one less likely to engage in war and
> gore.
It would bring religion into the picture. I for one would be somewhat offended by
having the show become a preaching session. Morals are one thing, and to show
morality is fine on TV. The Bajoran religion doesn't bother me because its not real.
Besides, Bajorans don't feel the need to convert anyone, or to go door to door with
pamphlets. Thats left to the Borg.
> >> "war and gore", ST style series, where the characters
> >> are not afraid to experience real human emotions, for us. ;-)
> >> Yes, I know -- it will never happen. ;-)
> >
> >Who is 'us'? Please elaborate.
>
> She means those more refined souls whose threshold for "war and gore"
> is higher than ours, I suppose. Though not of a very refined
> sensibility, apparently, since she (sorry, "they") haven't noticed the
> depiction of real human emotions in Voyager.
Problem with Voyager is that there are a lot of silly fights and excuses to use sex &
violence to sell the show that damage its credibility. If they would stop using lines
like "Lust in Space" then maybe the fans would respect it more.
Collene Pearce
...snipping Whitehead's affection for senseless
violence and T&A....
...snipping my verbage stating that the senseless
violence and T&A was what I most objected to about
Voyager.... It's clear, my view of violence does not
equal Whitehead's view of violence -- IMHO, it appears
he does not consider battles, killing, maiming,
etc. to be violent.
Perhaps a dictionary is in order here. ;-)
>
>Actually, I see Ron Moore doing nothing but good for Voyager. And Braga's
>been doing OK so far.
My point exactly. ;-)
>Hmm... I only really started getting into DS9 after the Dominion. That's
>when the "Big Story" concept started.
Ditto. ;-)
>I recognize it as violent, and I can tell the difference between TV
>violence (where things usually work out okey-dokey for the good guys) and
>real life violence.
IMHO, violence is not any more appropriate in TV and
movies than it is in real life. People who enjoy
seeing violence, real or fantasy need a therapist.
>You don't enjoy the classic struggle between good and bad?? Sounds pretty
>boring...
No, actually I don't.
I find it boring and distasteful.
However, the classic struggle between good and bad
does not have to include violence.
Of course, that would require REAL writing talent
and a bit more intelligence on the part of the
viewers.
>: Well, I was a 30year ST fan, until BB took over Voyager.
>: I tolerated it until then, hoping it would improve and
>: that Janeway and Chakotay would finally get together.
>: When BB took the reigns, it was clear ST was dead.
>
>You do know the whole Janeway/Chakotay thing was stopped because Kate
>Mulgrew didn't want it to continue, don't you? I think Robert Beltran was
>more-or-less neutral on the issue.
Actually, she was just part of the problem.
Rumor has it that Berman and Braga actually nix'd it.
>: She's way too catholic for my taste. As I've said before,
>: Janeway is a lousy role model for young girls. She teaches
>: them you can't have it all. Her example is, if you're near
>: the top of your field, you have to be a cold, emotionally
>: and sexually repressed, sanctimonious bitc_.
>
>She does, however, teach people that women are just as good as men in
>terms of being able to lead people. I really don't see her as "cold and
I haven't seen it yet.
She's made more mistakes than any other ST Captain
I've seen and they were more human (even Picard).
>And so what if she teaches kids that "you can't have it all"? That's the
>way life is.
>
I'm sorry you a) didn't understand what "have it all
means" and b) think people can't "have it all". It's
rather sad, but perhaps that belief relates to an attraction
to violence. That would explain a lot about why certain
people like Voyager.
>: It was TPTB's way of saying -- all you long time female
>: fans who kept this ship afloat back in the 70's, get lost.
>: We don't want you -- we want those mindless, 25 year old
>: white males. ;-)
>
>No, I think it was UPN's way of saying "Well, if we don't do something
>desperate to boost the ratings, we'll have to cancel Voyager, dismantle
>UPN since all our other shows are crap, and basically lose a ton of money".
Ah, they could have increased their percentage of
female viewers by allowing Janeway to "have it all" and
providing a bit more "relationship" between the crew.
And adding more green themes would have brought back the
old activists who left a few years ago.
But hey -- anyone knows 1 25year old mindless male is
worth three 40 year old females to networks. ;-)
In short -- they didn't want us, and the change in
Voyager was proof. It worked, too. ;-)
>: Well, it worked. The ST demographic has definitely
>: changed. I just wish someone would create a non
>: "war and gore", ST style series, where the characters
>: are not afraid to experience real human emotions, for us. ;-)
>: Yes, I know -- it will never happen. ;-)
>
>It is happening. You want war and gore? Go watch DS9. You want
>pleasantness and fluff with a bunch of eye-candy and the occaisional
>moral issue? Go watch Voyager.
This relates to my earlier point that you don't
understand the term violence. Killing, battles,
maiming, torture, fighting, hitting are all forms
of violence. T&A?? Well the sleezette speaks
volumes in this regard. They even picked a female
who oozes "trailor trash" when she's just standing
there.
Sorry, but that's just the real truth. If they'd
chosen an actress w/ a bit more class, the T&A
purpose wouldn't have been quite as apparent. ;-)
...snipping more defense of war and gore and sleeze.....
>: I can't speak for "Insurrection".
>: I've not seen the last ST movie and don't ever plan to.
>: Startrek is dead. The stuff BB and RM create is just
>: commercial "war and gore" under the ST label.
>
>Aside from one particularly gory moment, it was pretty much a "feel-good"
>romantic action/adventure comedy. Something for everyone.
Ha! A recommendation like that coming from someone
w/ your history (see above) isn't much of a recommendation. ;-)
I had a bit of time today -- time enough to reply
to your twisted reality. ;-)
I may or may not have time in the future.
acp
---
Collene Pearce
>Sorry to interrupt this discussion, but I'd like to drop in my two cents...
>
>Collene Pearce schrieb:
>
>> In article <7if0kn$63d$9...@nntp.ucs.ubc.ca>,
>> Chris Whitehead <chr...@unixg.ubc.ca> wrote:
>> >Collene Pearce (col...@jump.net) wrote:
>> ><SNIP>
>
>> > Besides, although the Kazon may
>> >have wanted to destroy Voyager, the Voyager crew never wanted to destroy
>> >the Kazon.
>> I'm glad you're able to read the minds of TV characters.
>> I've never tried. Never wanted to. ;-)
>
>Since the first episode it has been established that the Voyager crew is out to
>get home, not to destroy what gets in their way.
>I can't remember one episode where they picked a fight on their own (even in
>"Living Witness" we find out that the "bad Voyager" was a piece of revisionist
>history, not the truth), usually they are forced into the conflicts they get in.
(Btw -- your lines are too long.)
I'm not sure that the poster read the orignal issue.
The point is. I content that Voyager is a violent show
and that this is due, primarily, to Braga's influence.
It is well known that he enjoys writing horror fiction.
Personally, I wish he'd go do that for a living and
leave ST alone.
Whether or not Voyager has picked the fights is not
relevant. The point is that there's too much violence
and T&A on Voyager.
That's why I stopped watching.
...snipping more defense of violence....
>there, from physical torture to mind control and death. And I don't think I need
>to elaborate on TNG (e.g. young Picard being stabbed through the heart in a
>close-up) or DS9 (as you admit yourself further down).
Ah, is anyone forgetting that Braga first arrived
during one of the later seasons of TNG and was
responsible for quite a bit of violence there?
...snipping...
>> Ah, that's tempting fate. Now that the depraved
>> BB and "'ol Worf lover" RM are back together, Voyager
>> doesn't have a prayer.
>> However, I agree DS9 has excessive violence.
>> I am watching/recording DS9 thru to the end, but
>> I'll admit most of my pleasure in it was lost when
>> Ridge Boy arrived.
>
>Ok, but you still watch it, despite the violence.
The author really needs to read before posting. I stated
in my original post that I no longer watched Voyager
(due primarly to the depraved Braga and the sleezy Borgita).
I'll leave the bit below, which explains that. ;-)
>> <SNIP>
>> >: I watched for 3 years. The war and gore in that was
>> >: bad enough, because Braga had quite a bit of influence
>> >: during those first few years. When he was allowed a
>> >: free hand, it became unwatchable.
...snipping....
>> Well, I was a 30year ST fan, until BB took over Voyager.
>> I tolerated it until then, hoping it would improve and
>> that Janeway and Chakotay would finally get together.
>> When BB took the reigns, it was clear ST was dead.
>
>Because J and C didn't get together? What a reason...BTW, in none of the 4 Star
Perhaps a remedial reading comprehension class would help?? ;-)
>Trek series have we seen long-term relationships with two main characters (no
>Spock/Chapel, no Picard/Crusher, Jadzia died, Paris/Torres currently, but who
>knows, and no Janeway/Chakotay)
Yes. What a shame. It proves those 25 year old males
are more important. ;-)
>> >: I notice you didn't dispute my comments about Janeway
>> >: becoming the "ironmaiden" or "reverend mother" or the
>> >: addition of the sleezy T&A Borgita.
>> >Janeway is definately the mother figure of Voyager. As such, she is
>> ...snipping...
>> She's way too catholic for my taste. As I've said before,
>
>Please, no 'battle of religions'!! Janeway is being portrayed as a very
>scientific, non-religious person (see Sacred Ground), the most 'religious'
>gesture I've seen her perform was tying Chakotay's watch to her belt in "Year of
>Hell part 2".
I wasn't referring to religion, I was referring to the
Reverend Mother (or female "catholic") attitude. It's
disgusting. It is rumored that it comes from the
actress, as well as Braga.
>> Janeway is a lousy role model for young girls. She teaches
>> them you can't have it all. Her example is, if you're near
>> the top of your field, you have to be a cold, emotionally
>> and sexually repressed, sanctimonious bitc_.
>
>Well, if there are young girls who plan to become Captain of a starship that'll
>get lost in the Delta Quadrant, then they probably won't 'have it all'. I don't
>think you can transfer Janeway one-to-one into today's society, IMO it's her
That's true. You can't xfer an ideal Janeway
into today's society. IMHO, that's a good thing.
You could, very easily xfer KM's Janeway to today's
society. She'd fit right in in today's military. ;-)
The violence, sleezy T&A, emotional repression and
ironmaiden mentality are all very depressing ways of
portraying the future. Why not show a postive future,
rather than a depressing one? (because the mindless
25yr. old men want anger, hate and destruction)
In the future, let's hope we'd be evolved enough that
the "Federation" has no fraternizaton laws (it's canon
they don't) and that they allow their "employees" to
"have it all" -- a rewarding career, a loving relationship
with anyone they choose, good friends and family, interesting
work and hobbies, the capacity and opportunity to continue
learning forever, a degree of success, etc. Voyager's
Janeway is too repressed to "have it all", and unfortunately,
she is serving as an example of many young females who are
not able to see how flawed the image is. :-(
>> >As for the "sleezy T&A Borgita" comment, you obviously haven't watched
>> >much of the last two seasons. Jeri Ryan may have been hired for T&A, but
>> >*Damn!* she can act. She's easily one of the best actors on the show. Her
>> >costume may be sexy, but she is not even slightly sleezy.
>> ....snipping...
>> Well, that's another point we'll have to disagree on.
>> I just don't see that her acting ability is anything
>> special or even good.
>> The actress is rather sleezy and the character is so
>> obviously there for one reason only.
>> She gets waaaay too much air time. And in truth, I
>> could have handled the stupid attempt at war and gore
>> if they hadn't added such an obvious, offensive T&A factor.
>
>So, in truth, it's not the violence that really bothers you, but Jeri Ryan's
>curves and how they are presented... BTW, how do you know all of the above,
>according to your previous posts you stopped watching Voyager after BB took
>over!? Or do you 'just know' JR can't possibly act, because of her T&A factor?
Gee, if you know I stopped watching Voyager, then why did
you mke the silly assertion you made above? ;-)
Here's what I said about JR:
A few things are true here --
1) JR is not a good actress.
2) JR has no class,
3) the Borgita was added to pull in more mindless males,
thus making it clear female viewers are not wanted.
(She also drew in a larger lesbian contengent, as
well -- not that that's negative, just thought I'd
point it out.)
4) JR gets too much airtime (I've turned Voyager on
for 15min, a few times in season 5. Haven't seen
anything to change my mind about her or the show.)
5) JR's painted on costumes are so obvious, they
are insulting
6) JR has played a large part in the "demise of Startrek",
as it was orignally conceived
...snipping....
>> "war and gore", ST style series, where the characters
>> are not afraid to experience real human emotions, for us. ;-)
>> Yes, I know -- it will never happen. ;-)
>
>Who is 'us'? Please elaborate.
Viewers. Mature female viewers who have a desire for the
world to be a better, more positive place, by the time the
24th century rolls around.
I don't think you understood the gist of the original
post or you wouldn't have asked. ;-)
:-)
acp
Collene Pearce
Jean Dupree <jdu...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Anita wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 26 May 1999 01:22:15 +0200, Starfish <starf...@gmx.de>
>> wrote in part to Collene Pearce:
>>
>> being catholic tends to make one less likely to engage in war and
>> gore.
>
>having the show become a preaching session. Morals are one thing, and to show
So would I. ;-)
IMHO, Janeway comes across as a Reverend Mother, with
out the "book". ;-)
>morality is fine on TV. The Bajoran religion doesn't bother me because its not real.
>Besides, Bajorans don't feel the need to convert anyone, or to go door to door with
>pamphlets. Thats left to the Borg.
(Will some people learn that posting lines > 76 or so
characters causes garbage like the above??)
As to preaching sessions -- what about Kai Winn??
I love the character because she is soooooo very good
at being evil.
...snipping...
>
>Problem with Voyager is that there are a lot of silly fights and excuses to use sex &
>violence to sell the show that damage its credibility. If they would stop using lines
>like "Lust in Space" then maybe the fans would respect it more.
That was the point of the original post.
I think if you write well and have good stories,
you wouldn't have to revert to cheap, senseless violence
and T&A to get people to watch. Voyager lacks this.
Of course, if you want those mindless 25 year old males,
then your going to have to use the violence and T&A. ;-)
acp
-----
Collene Pearce
William December Starr <wds...@crl.com> wrote:
>In article <7iev3u$9...@serv1.jump.net>,
>col...@jump.net (Collene Pearce) said:
>
>> becoming the "ironmaiden" or "reverend mother" or the
>> addition of the sleezy T&A Borgita.
>
How many sleezy T&A Borgita's are there on
Voyager?? ;-)
I stopped watching awhile back. Have more appeared?
I stop at UPN, when changing channels every once in
awhile to see if Voy's improved and all I ever see is
the "sleezy one who is poured into her clothes". ;-)
I caught most of a non-violent "time paradigm" episode
a few weeks ago and I would have watched the whole thing
if there hadn't been so much of the Borgita and so little
J & C. It was a story that could have been told back in
the days of "Real Trek". You know, back in BB (before
Braga). ;-)
:-)
acp
----
Ta'Teria
stop crossposting!
William December Starr
col...@jump.net (Collene Pearce) said:
> Here's what I said about JR [Jeri Ryan]:
> A few things are true here --
> 1) JR is not a good actress.
At best, that's an opinion. It can be widely shared (or not) but it
can't be "true."
> 2) JR has no class,
At best that's an opinion, etc., and upon what do you base that opinion?
> 3) the Borgita was added to pull in more mindless males,
No, she was, as far as I know, added to pull in more male viewers.
That males who enjoy looking at moving images of a beautiful woman in
skin-tight clothing are "mindless" is your conceit, not fact.
> thus making it clear female viewers are not wanted.
At best that's an opinion, etc., and I cannot see how it follows from
your prior assertion.
> (She also drew in a larger lesbian contengent, as
> well -- not that that's negative, just thought I'd
> point it out.)
> 4) JR gets too much airtime (I've turned Voyager on
> for 15min, a few times in season 5. Haven't seen
> anything to change my mind about her or the show.)
At best that's an opinion, etc. It may be -- probably is -- true that
she is given a disproportionately large amount of airtime, but that,
by itself, is not equivalent to "too much" airtime.
> 5) JR's painted on costumes are so obvious, they
> are insulting
At best that's an opinion, etc.
6) JR has played a large part in the "demise of Startrek",
as it was orignally conceived
At best that's an opinion, etc.
William December Starr
col...@jump.net (Collene Pearce) said:
>> How many sleezy T&A Borgita's are there on Voyager?? ;-)
>> [wdstarr]
>
> I stopped watching awhile back. Have more appeared?
>
> I stop at UPN, when changing channels every once in
> awhile to see if Voy's improved and all I ever see is
> the "sleezy one who is poured into her clothes". ;-)
Perhaps you could share with us what your definition of "sleezy"
is. Assuming that it's the same as "sleazy," I can't see any way
to accurately apply it to Seven of Nine. (Or to Jeri Ryan, for
that matter.)
recook77
>In article <7if0kn$63d$9...@nntp.ucs.ubc.ca>,
>Chris Whitehead <chr...@unixg.ubc.ca> wrote:
>>Collene Pearce (col...@jump.net) wrote:
>
>Ah, that's tempting fate. Now that the depraved
>BB and "'ol Worf lover" RM are back together, Voyager
>doesn't have a prayer.
In your opinion. RM's written some stellar episodes (IMO, he could write
most of the Voyager staff--including BB--clear under the table.)
Reportedly, RM has written a B'Elanna/Klingon episode (something that
Voyager's writers have neglected to do for 5 years now, "Faces"
notwithstanding).
>
>However, I agree DS9 has excessive violence.
>I am watching/recording DS9 thru to the end, but
>I'll admit most of my pleasure in it was lost when
>Ridge Boy arrived.
Worf's screen time has been cut down drastically. Hell, he's only become
truly *likeable* during the 9-episode final arc.
IMO, neither Voyager nor DS9 are as violent or gory as X-Files ("Home,"
anyone?).
(snip)
>>
>>I've been watching ever since Day 1 of TNG. Probably the goriest moment
>>in Voyager ever would be in "Faces", when the Vidiian shows B'Elanna his
>>new face. Back then, Jeri Taylor had *way* more influence than Braga.
>
>Well, I was a 30year ST fan, until BB took over Voyager.
>I tolerated it until then, hoping it would improve and
>that Janeway and Chakotay would finally get together.
>When BB took the reigns, it was clear ST was dead.
Taylor was no shining star, either. I lost hope for Voyager after season 3.
>
>>: I notice you didn't dispute my comments about Janeway
>>: becoming the "ironmaiden" or "reverend mother" or the
>>: addition of the sleezy T&A Borgita.
>>
>>Janeway is definately the mother figure of Voyager. As such, she is
>...snipping...
>
>She's way too catholic for my taste. As I've said before,
>Janeway is a lousy role model for young girls. She teaches
>them you can't have it all. Her example is, if you're near
>the top of your field, you have to be a cold, emotionally
>and sexually repressed, sanctimonious bitc_.
I don't see that. She's clearly distraught when she learns her lover
married someone else.
Also, how does a lousy/troubled/nonexistent love life make one a bad role
model? Do we go ahead and say Sisko is a bad role model for blacks because
of the death of his wife and his reluctance to marry Kasidy Yates?
>
>>As for the "sleezy T&A Borgita" comment, you obviously haven't watched
>>much of the last two seasons. Jeri Ryan may have been hired for T&A, but
>>*Damn!* she can act. She's easily one of the best actors on the show. Her
>>costume may be sexy, but she is not even slightly sleezy.
>....snipping...
>
>Well, that's another point we'll have to disagree on.
>I just don't see that her acting ability is anything
>special or even good.
I find that Jeri Ryan is a very fine actress. She's given her role
considerable dignity and depth.
>The actress is rather sleezy and the character is so
>obviously there for one reason only.
The *actress* is sleazy? What makes you say that?
>She gets waaaay too much air time. And in truth, I
>could have handled the stupid attempt at war and gore
>if they hadn't added such an obvious, offensive T&A factor.
I'll agree with you regarding the air time, though I like Seven. But the
T&A factor was there *long* before Seven, in episodes like "Blood Fever" and
"Favorite Son," not to mention the "Baywatch" holoprogram. Note that the
aforementioned episodes were written by a *woman* (Lisa Klink) under the
supervision of a woman executive producer.
>
>It was TPTB's way of saying -- all you long time female
>fans who kept this ship afloat back in the 70's, get lost.
>We don't want you -- we want those mindless, 25 year old
>white males. ;-)
Again, *women* were responsible for the T&A factor. It still has to compute
with Taylor and Klink's successors that sex doesn't necessarily make for
good, memorable, or successful TV.
Sex on TV doesn't bother me, IF it is handled with class. There's no reason
to reduce B'Elanna to a panting nympho or to transport the ship to a world
of predatory bimbos.
Nonetheless, Ryan spoke of a favorable following among women--particularly
lesbians. And she seemed to appreciate the fan support.
>
>Well, it worked. The ST demographic has definitely
>changed.
Please provide proof for this.
I just wish someone would create a non
>"war and gore", ST style series, where the characters
>are not afraid to experience real human emotions, for us. ;-)
>Yes, I know -- it will never happen. ;-)
DS9, anyone?
>
>>: And don't get me started on the first BB/RM movie.
>>: I had to edit it before I'd let my nephew watch it.
>>: Waaaaaay too much violence.
>>Wasn't "Generations" the first BB/RM movie? What violence and gore did
>
>No, though they were involved in it.
>
>>you see there? Let me guess: You found the destruction of the Enterprise
>>to be too gory? Or do you mean "First Contact"? Hell, "Insurection" had
>>more gore than FC. Borg assimilation is a very clean process. Do you let
>
>Drilling someone's eye out is a clean process????
>Yep, we definitely see things defferently. ;-)
Let me point out that the assimilation process was *meant* to be frightening
and chilling. I have *no* problem with violence provided is a) not
gratuitous and b) within the context of the storyline. I've never had to
fast forward through the violence on Trek. IMO, you'll see more violence on
a routine episode of "Tom and Jerry."
>
>>you nephew watch any TV? Sheesh...
>>Chris W.
>
>I can't speak for "Insurrection".
>I've not seen the last ST movie and don't ever plan to.
>Startrek is dead. The stuff BB and RM create is just
>commercial "war and gore" under the ST label.
Trek ain't dead, but it's overextended in a big way. Taylor admitted as
much at one point (face it, Taylor and Braga are cynical hacks, nothing
more).
Moore's actually a fine writer. I'm sorry that Braga didn't hire Rene
Echevarria, who's excellent with characterization and would've been a fine
addition to the staff.
(snip)
recook77
Collene Pearce wrote in message <7isbsq$k...@serv1.jump.net>...
>In article <374B30A7...@gmx.de>, Starfish <starf...@gmx.de>
wrote:
>>Sorry to interrupt this discussion, but I'd like to drop in my two
cents...
>>
>I'm not sure that the poster read the orignal issue.
>The point is. I content that Voyager is a violent show
>and that this is due, primarily, to Braga's influence.
>It is well known that he enjoys writing horror fiction.
>Personally, I wish he'd go do that for a living and
>leave ST alone.
>
>Whether or not Voyager has picked the fights is not
>relevant. The point is that there's too much violence
>and T&A on Voyager.
>
>That's why I stopped watching.
>
>...snipping more defense of violence....
>
>>there, from physical torture to mind control and death. And I don't think
I need
>>to elaborate on TNG (e.g. young Picard being stabbed through the heart in
a
>>close-up) or DS9 (as you admit yourself further down).
>
>Ah, is anyone forgetting that Braga first arrived
>during one of the later seasons of TNG and was
>responsible for quite a bit of violence there?
There was violence before Braga arrived. See TNG's Starfleet conspiracy
episode for proof of that.
Before you condemn violence altogether, consider the violence within the
*context* of the show. Is is part of the storyline. Does it go overboard?
Does the show *glorify* violence?
Voyager's violence is generally of the comic-book/action hero variety--as is
appropriate, since the writers seem to want to create a Saturday morning
cartoon for the Trek audience. ;)
But are the characters shown to *enjoy* hurting others? Do they go out of
their way to provoke violence? Sometimes yes, sometimes no.
For example, in "The Chute," Harry almost kills Paris with a lead pipe.
*However*, it is also clear that Harry is being mind-controlled, and
withstands the mind control so that he doesn't hurt Paris. Furthermore,
Harry's still troubled about it after they're rescued.
On the other end of the spectrum, we have "Blood Fever," which is clearly
written to appeal to a low common denominator.
>
>...snipping...
>>> Ah, that's tempting fate. Now that the depraved
>>> BB and "'ol Worf lover" RM are back together, Voyager
>>> doesn't have a prayer.
>>> However, I agree DS9 has excessive violence.
>>> I am watching/recording DS9 thru to the end, but
>>> I'll admit most of my pleasure in it was lost when
>>> Ridge Boy arrived.
>>
>>Ok, but you still watch it, despite the violence.
>
>The author really needs to read before posting. I stated
>in my original post that I no longer watched Voyager
>(due primarly to the depraved Braga and the sleezy Borgita).
>I'll leave the bit below, which explains that. ;-)
The sleaze was there before Braga took control.
>
>>> <SNIP>
>>> >: I watched for 3 years. The war and gore in that was
>>> >: bad enough, because Braga had quite a bit of influence
>>> >: during those first few years. When he was allowed a
>>> >: free hand, it became unwatchable.
>...snipping....
>>> Well, I was a 30year ST fan, until BB took over Voyager.
>>> I tolerated it until then, hoping it would improve and
>>> that Janeway and Chakotay would finally get together.
>>> When BB took the reigns, it was clear ST was dead.
>>
>>Because J and C didn't get together? What a reason...BTW, in none of the 4
Star
>
>Perhaps a remedial reading comprehension class would help?? ;-)
Perhaps a more civil attitude would help as well.
>
>>Trek series have we seen long-term relationships with two main characters
(no
>>Spock/Chapel, no Picard/Crusher, Jadzia died, Paris/Torres currently, but
who
>>knows, and no Janeway/Chakotay)
>
>Yes. What a shame. It proves those 25 year old males
>are more important. ;-)
>
We do, however, know that Jadzia and Worf truly loved each other. So do Tom
and 'Lanna, Kira and Odo, and Julian and Ezri. And, for an example of a
long-term, successful relationship, we have Miles and Keiko O'Brien. Tuvok
has been shown to be faithful to his wife, despite their separation.
Besides, Riker and Troi are now a couple again.
(snip)
>
>I wasn't referring to religion, I was referring to the
>Reverend Mother (or female "catholic") attitude. It's
>disgusting. It is rumored that it comes from the
>actress, as well as Braga.
>
Where is the proof of this? I should add that Janeway has also played the
flirt, as shown in "Counterpoint." She isn't above using feminine appeal.
>>> Janeway is a lousy role model for young girls. She teaches
>>> them you can't have it all. Her example is, if you're near
>>> the top of your field, you have to be a cold, emotionally
>>> and sexually repressed, sanctimonious bitc_.
>>
>>Well, if there are young girls who plan to become Captain of a starship
that'll
>>get lost in the Delta Quadrant, then they probably won't 'have it all'. I
don't
>>think you can transfer Janeway one-to-one into today's society, IMO it's
her
>
>That's true. You can't xfer an ideal Janeway
>into today's society. IMHO, that's a good thing.
You're discussing apples and oranges here. The original poster pointed out
that Janeway's position is rather unique. She had a serious relationship
before she was yanked to the other side of the galaxy. No doubt her
feelings for Mark precluded any thought of a relationship (this is a theory
of mine, BTW).
>
>You could, very easily xfer KM's Janeway to today's
>society. She'd fit right in in today's military. ;-)
I'm not so sure about that.
>
>The violence, sleezy T&A, emotional repression and
>ironmaiden mentality are all very depressing ways of
>portraying the future. Why not show a postive future,
>rather than a depressing one? (because the mindless
>25yr. old men want anger, hate and destruction)
Evidence, please. You must know some truly sociopathic 25-year-old men.
Janeway is *one* character on *one* Trek show. She is *not* depicted as an
archetypal female of the 24th century any more than Sisko would be
considered an archetypal black person.
>
>In the future, let's hope we'd be evolved enough that
>the "Federation" has no fraternizaton laws (it's canon
>they don't) and that they allow their "employees" to
>"have it all" -- a rewarding career, a loving relationship
>with anyone they choose, good friends and family, interesting
>work and hobbies, the capacity and opportunity to continue
>learning forever, a degree of success, etc.
They *do*--in other Trek shows. It's just that Voyager's writers skimp on
the characterization.
It seems to me that what you are *really* concerned about is not violence,
but rather bad characterization. The problems you cite--the "iron mother"
persona, the T&A, et al.--have less to do with sexism than with lack of
character development, sloppy execution, and laziness. In other words, the
main problem with Voyager is the writing. And this was an issue before
Braga came aboard.
Voyager's
>Janeway is too repressed to "have it all", and unfortunately,
>she is serving as an example of many young females who are
>not able to see how flawed the image is. :-(
See above.
*sigh* Please, can we avoid personal attacks?
>
>Here's what I said about JR:
>A few things are true here --
>1) JR is not a good actress.
This is your opinion, and you are entitled to it. I think she's a good
actress, and I'm entitled to that opinion.
>2) JR has no class,
Do you mean Jeri Ryan or Seven? If it's the former, how do you know this?
If it's the latter, please discuss further.
>3) the Borgita was added to pull in more mindless males,
> thus making it clear female viewers are not wanted.
> (She also drew in a larger lesbian contengent, as
> well -- not that that's negative, just thought I'd
> point it out.)
Seven was added to add glamor and sex appeal. I am not sure that attracting
women viewers and adding sex appeal are mutually exclusive. In fact,
judging from Seven's lesbian following, it clearly isn't.
>4) JR gets too much airtime (I've turned Voyager on
> for 15min, a few times in season 5. Haven't seen
> anything to change my mind about her or the show.)
No argument there. I've spent considerable bandwidth bitching about how
little airtime Torres gets (and she's got *loads* of potential). WTF is
going on over there?
>5) JR's painted on costumes are so obvious, they
> are insulting
It's like Troi's old boob suits. Of course, Troi wore an actual uniform by
the show's end. Maybe, if Mulgrew leaves, Jellico will take over Voyager
and demand Seven get dressed. ;)
>6) JR has played a large part in the "demise of Startrek",
> as it was orignally conceived
I think the fault is with Voyager's writers, not with Jeri Ryan.
>...snipping....
>
>>> "war and gore", ST style series, where the characters
>>> are not afraid to experience real human emotions, for us. ;-)
>>> Yes, I know -- it will never happen. ;-)
>>
>>Who is 'us'? Please elaborate.
>
>Viewers. Mature female viewers who have a desire for the
>world to be a better, more positive place, by the time the
>24th century rolls around.
Wouldn't you agree that plenty of mature *male* viewers want the world to be
a better place by 2300 as well? Wouldn't you agree that not all men are
drawn to violent shoot-em-and-wank-em lowest-common-denominator
entertainment? Wouldn't you agree that men *and* women want quality
entertainment?
What's more, wouldn't you agree that plenty of 25-year-old men care less
about tits and violence than they do about good stories?
IMO, many of Voyager's writers have forgotten what made the best of the
first 3 series great--GOOD STORIES, not excessive violence and T&A. Also, I
believe that Ryan has managed to transcend what could've been a truly cheesy
role. This is, of course, my opinion. You are free to disagree.
Podkayne Fries
wrote:
>
>
>Collene Pearce wrote:
>
>
>> Well, I was a 30year ST fan, until BB took over Voyager.
>> I tolerated it until then, hoping it would improve and
>> that Janeway and Chakotay would finally get together.
>
>And that would have been the most pathetic, most cheesy moment in all of trek
>history. We would have had a little kiddie soap opera. What next? Naomi
>wildman's tea party?
>
Don't give Braga ideas. Imagine if Naomi asked the March Hare to have
tea with her on the holodeck.
--
Regards, Podkayne Fries
"The US-Canadian border is the longest unpatrolled border in the
world, and yet more Americans know the release date of the next
"Star Wars" film than they do about the dread Canuck hordes right
over our heads."
--- Paul T. Riddell, "Hell's Half-Acre Herald": Installment 12
<http://www.paultriddell.com>
Anita
Starr) wrote:
It occurs to me that Collene may be one of those people force-fed
Catholicism at an early age and who is still in rebellion against it
-- but not successfully enough to drop the habit of moralizing about
how people clothe themselves. (Heh, pun not intended, but I'll take
it.)
- Vegas Annie, just speculating idly, of course
Starfish
Collene Pearce schrieb:
> >> ><SNIP>
> ...snipping....
> >
Chris wrote:
> >> > Besides, although the Kazon may
> >> >have wanted to destroy Voyager, the Voyager crew never wanted to destroy
> >> >the Kazon.
Coleen answered:
> >> I'm glad you're able to read the minds of TV characters.
> >> I've never tried. Never wanted to. ;-)
> >
Starfish (me) explains:
> >Since the first episode it has been established that the Voyager crew is out to
> >get home, not to destroy what gets in their way.
> >I can't remember one episode where they picked a fight on their own (even in
> >"Living Witness" we find out that the "bad Voyager" was a piece of revisionist
> >history, not the truth), usually they are forced into the conflicts they get in.
>
> (Btw -- your lines are too long.)
I know. I use the Netscape mail program, and unfortunately I haven't found the
feature that allows me to set the line length. Could you help me out, cause I also
don't like having to downsize the font to read my mails once I post them. This is a
real request for help, not me taking the mick, ok?!
Coleen replies to Starfish:
> I'm not sure that the poster read the orignal issue.
> The point is. I content that Voyager is a violent show
> and that this is due, primarily, to Braga's influence.
> It is well known that he enjoys writing horror fiction.
> Personally, I wish he'd go do that for a living and
> leave ST alone.
>
> Whether or not Voyager has picked the fights is not
> relevant. The point is that there's too much violence
> and T&A on Voyager.
>
> That's why I stopped watching.
Oh, I've read the posts, in order. You 'accused' Chris of reading the Voyager crew's
minds when he said that they never wanted to destroy the Kazon, thereby implying that
his statement might not be true. I then, with regard to that implication, observed
that at no point in the show, the Voyager crew has tried to destroy another people,
or even just start fights. I hope I made clear now what I was replying to.
> ...snipping more defense of violence....
>
> >there, from physical torture to mind control and death. And I don't think I need
> >to elaborate on TNG (e.g. young Picard being stabbed through the heart in a
> >close-up) or DS9 (as you admit yourself further down).
>
> Ah, is anyone forgetting that Braga first arrived
> during one of the later seasons of TNG and was
> responsible for quite a bit of violence there?
You evaded my point which was that there has always been violence on Star Trek. Also,
why did you snip the part on violence in TOS? Because Braga was not involved in it,
and would therefore hole your theory that he is responsible for the greatest part of
violence in ST?
Coleen writes:
> ...snipping...
> >> Ah, that's tempting fate. Now that the depraved
> >> BB and "'ol Worf lover" RM are back together, Voyager
> >> doesn't have a prayer.
> >> However, I agree DS9 has excessive violence.
> >> I am watching/recording DS9 thru to the end, but
> >> I'll admit most of my pleasure in it was lost when
> >> Ridge Boy arrived.
Starfish (me) replies:
> >Ok, but you still watch it, despite the violence.
Coleen reacts:
> The author really needs to read before posting. I stated
> in my original post that I no longer watched Voyager
> (due primarly to the depraved Braga and the sleezy Borgita).
> I'll leave the bit below, which explains that. ;-)
I can only return the 'compliment' (read before posting): my comment was a reply to
your statement of watching/taping DS9 till the end, I was referring to your watching
of DS9 (sic!) despite the violence.
> >> <SNIP>
Coleen wrote:
> >> Well, I was a 30year ST fan, until BB took over Voyager.
> >> I tolerated it until then, hoping it would improve and
> >> that Janeway and Chakotay would finally get together.
> >> When BB took the reigns, it was clear ST was dead.
> >
> >Because J and C didn't get together? What a reason...BTW, in none of the 4 Star
>
> Perhaps a remedial reading comprehension class would help?? ;-)
The way you had strung your sentences together ("hoping [...] that J&C would finally
get together. When BB took the reigns, it was clear ST was dead") allowed my
admittedly somewhat narrow, humorous conclusion. I'm sorry, I should have put a
smiley after "reason...".
In the future please refrain from insults, even with grinning emoticons (BTW, I often
failed to see the humour in the sentences that precede them). I took your posts
seriously, and thought about them and my replies to them before posting, afford me
the same courtesy, please.
> <SNIP>
Coleen:
> >> She's way too catholic for my taste. As I've said before,
Starfish:
> >Please, no 'battle of religions'!! Janeway is being portrayed as a very
> >scientific, non-religious person (see Sacred Ground), the most 'religious'
> >gesture I've seen her perform was tying Chakotay's watch to her belt in "Year of
> >Hell part 2".
Coleen:
> I wasn't referring to religion, I was referring to the
> Reverend Mother (or female "catholic") attitude. It's
> disgusting. It is rumored that it comes from the
> actress, as well as Braga.
Don't label, explain. Labelling can be very dangerous and easily lead to
misunderstanding.
> <SNIP>
> In the future, let's hope we'd be evolved enough that
> the "Federation" has no fraternizaton laws (it's canon
> they don't) and that they allow their "employees" to
> "have it all" -- a rewarding career, a loving relationship
> with anyone they choose, good friends and family, interesting
> work and hobbies, the capacity and opportunity to continue
> learning forever, a degree of success, etc. Voyager's
> Janeway is too repressed to "have it all", and unfortunately,
> she is serving as an example of many young females who are
> not able to see how flawed the image is. :-(
Kathryn Janeway had all these positive things you describe: a partner (Mark), a dog,
friends, command of a starship, etc. (remember The Caretaker when she goes to New
Zealand to speak to Tom Paris: she is relaxed, confident, in control of her life and
destiny), all the cream of 24th century life.
Then they all get thrown across the Galaxy into the Delta Quadrant, and the life she
has known pretty much ceases to exist. She has to merge two sets of people who
thought of each other as enemies only days before, she has to adapt to new senior
officers around her, and she has to bear the responsibility not only of getting
everybody home, but also of destroying the only fast way to do it, the Array. Plus
she has to cope with the loss of Mark and all her other friends and loved ones.
So, IMO she is doing a pretty good job with that kind of load on her shoulders. As
for relationships, it is not that easy, she is the Captain, anything she does affects
the rest of the crew, therefore she has to be very, very careful with who she dates
or gets close to or else everybody might suffer.
> <SNIP>
Coleen:
> >> Well, that's another point we'll have to disagree on.
> >> I just don't see that her acting ability is anything
> >> special or even good.
> >> The actress is rather sleezy and the character is so
> >> obviously there for one reason only.
> >> She gets waaaay too much air time. And in truth, I
> >> could have handled the stupid attempt at war and gore
> >> if they hadn't added such an obvious, offensive T&A factor.
Starfish (me):
> >So, in truth, it's not the violence that really bothers you, but Jeri Ryan's
> >curves and how they are presented... BTW, how do you know all of the above,
> >according to your previous posts you stopped watching Voyager after BB took
> >over!? Or do you 'just know' JR can't possibly act, because of her T&A factor?
Coleen:
> Gee, if you know I stopped watching Voyager, then why did
> you mke the silly assertion you made above? ;-)
Gee, if it's true that you stopped watching Voyager, how then did you reach your
conclusions about Jeri Ryan???
Gee, let's see how I came to my 'silly' assertion that it is the T&A factor that
bothers you more than the violence: You repeatedly state that because of the violence
in Voyager (and especially by BB's appearance who made it worse) and the appearance
of the 7 of 9 character (T&A factor) you have stopped watching Voyager. You admit to
excessive violence on DS9, yet you state that you still watch/tape it. You don't
refute my observation about violence in TOS (you snipped it instead), and you also
don't deny there being violence in TNG (you state in addition that the involvement of
BB in the later seasons brought along more violence, and him being responsible for
it).
You also said that you have been a ST fan for 30 years, so I assume you watched both
TOS and TNG, despite the violence (or as you say: war and gore), and DS9 as well. So,
the only striking difference (as there is violence in all 4 series) seems to be the
addition of the character of 7 of 9 to Voyager, and the T&A factor involved with her,
respectively Jeri Ryan. Hence my conclusion that JR's curves bother you more than the
violence. Clearer now?Coleen:
> Here's what I said about JR:
> <snipping 1)-3)>
> 4) JR gets too much airtime (I've turned Voyager on
> for 15min, a few times in season 5. Haven't seen
> anything to change my mind about her or the show.)
15 minutes...a few times...<irony> quite enough for an in-depth analysis </irony>
> <snipping 5)+6)>
> ...snipping....
>
> >> "war and gore", ST style series, where the characters
> >> are not afraid to experience real human emotions, for us. ;-)
> >> Yes, I know -- it will never happen. ;-)
Starfish (me):
> >Who is 'us'? Please elaborate.
Coleen:
> Viewers. Mature female viewers who have a desire for the
> world to be a better, more positive place, by the time the
> 24th century rolls around.
> I don't think you understood the gist of the original
> post or you wouldn't have asked. ;-)
I tend to be very careful with terms such as 'us' and/or 'them', they can be very
dangerous and easily lead to finger-pointing, self-righteous chest-beating and
back-patting, and discrimination
So, rather than maybe putting you in a category like you did with the so-called
"mindless 25-year-old white males", I thought I'd better ask first who you were
referring to with 'us'.
Starfish , 25-year-old female off to shamelessly admire a certain blond pilot with
not nearly enough screentime :)
Starfish
intentional.
Please, replace every 'Coleen' with Collene.
Starfish, only knew this (Coleen)<- spelling before and only realized her mistake when
reading one of the other follow-ups
Chris Whitehead
: ...snipping Whitehead's affection for senseless
: violence and T&A....
: ...snipping my verbage stating that the senseless
: violence and T&A was what I most objected to about
: Voyager.... It's clear, my view of violence does not
: equal Whitehead's view of violence -- IMHO, it appears
: he does not consider battles, killing, maiming,
: etc. to be violent.
I think someone's been studying Wulf's posting style. Could this be Miss
Vicki? I believe I said that space battles weren't overly violent -
especially ones that involved mostly blue shield flares.
: Perhaps a dictionary is in order here. ;-)
Perhaps a memory - or maybe a CLUE - is needed here. >:-|
: >
: >Actually, I see Ron Moore doing nothing but good for Voyager. And Braga's
: >been doing OK so far.
: My point exactly. ;-)
Weren't you crapping all over Braga before? Now you agree that he's doing
OK? Or was that the Bacardi talking?
: >Hmm... I only really started getting into DS9 after the Dominion. That's
: >when the "Big Story" concept started.
: Ditto. ;-)
: >I recognize it as violent, and I can tell the difference between TV
: >violence (where things usually work out okey-dokey for the good guys) and
: >real life violence.
: IMHO, violence is not any more appropriate in TV and
: movies than it is in real life. People who enjoy
: seeing violence, real or fantasy need a therapist.
The world is a violent place. TV reflects the world. Hence TV is violent.
: >You do know the whole Janeway/Chakotay thing was stopped because Kate
: >Mulgrew didn't want it to continue, don't you? I think Robert Beltran was
: >more-or-less neutral on the issue.
: Actually, she was just part of the problem.
: Rumor has it that Berman and Braga actually nix'd it.
Then the rumours are wrong. Kate was the the one who was most against it.
: >: She's way too catholic for my taste. As I've said before,
: >: Janeway is a lousy role model for young girls. She teaches
: >: them you can't have it all. Her example is, if you're near
: >: the top of your field, you have to be a cold, emotionally
: >: and sexually repressed, sanctimonious bitc_.
: >
: >She does, however, teach people that women are just as good as men in
: >terms of being able to lead people. I really don't see her as "cold and
: I haven't seen it yet.
: She's made more mistakes than any other ST Captain
: I've seen and they were more human (even Picard).
Prove it.
: >And so what if she teaches kids that "you can't have it all"? That's the
: >way life is.
: >
: I'm sorry you a) didn't understand what "have it all
: means" and b) think people can't "have it all". It's
: rather sad, but perhaps that belief relates to an attraction
: to violence. That would explain a lot about why certain
: people like Voyager.
Please enlighten me, O Great One. Name one person who has it all.
: >: It was TPTB's way of saying -- all you long time female
: >: fans who kept this ship afloat back in the 70's, get lost.
: >: We don't want you -- we want those mindless, 25 year old
: >: white males. ;-)
Actually, the original Star Trek was most popular with males aged 18-25
according to a show I saw recently. If the ratings were calculated by
demographics back then, Star Trek would *never* have been cancelled.
: >No, I think it was UPN's way of saying "Well, if we don't do something
: >desperate to boost the ratings, we'll have to cancel Voyager, dismantle
: >UPN since all our other shows are crap, and basically lose a ton of money".
: Ah, they could have increased their percentage of
: female viewers by allowing Janeway to "have it all" and
: providing a bit more "relationship" between the crew.
: And adding more green themes would have brought back the
: old activists who left a few years ago.
I'm all for better characterization for the main crew and more
relationships among the major players. If you paid attention, you'd know
that I was one of the few people who enjoyed parts of "11:59" simply
because it showed Janeway getting together with her friends and just
talking. No violence, no SFX, and nothing that typically appeals to the
typical male viewer.
: But hey -- anyone knows 1 25year old mindless male is
: worth three 40 year old females to networks. ;-)
Given that males aged 18-25 make up the most important ratings
demographic, I'd have to agree. And the reason they are the most
important is because research shows that this demographic group is the
most likely to actually watch television shows like Voyager.
: In short -- they didn't want us, and the change in
: Voyager was proof. It worked, too. ;-)
If you are typical of your demographic, I say good riddance. You
obviously don't like Voyager. Why the hell do you read a Voyager newsgroup?
: >: Well, it worked. The ST demographic has definitely
: >: changed. I just wish someone would create a non
: >: "war and gore", ST style series, where the characters
: >: are not afraid to experience real human emotions, for us. ;-)
: >: Yes, I know -- it will never happen. ;-)
: >
: >It is happening. You want war and gore? Go watch DS9. You want
: >pleasantness and fluff with a bunch of eye-candy and the occaisional
: >moral issue? Go watch Voyager.
: This relates to my earlier point that you don't
: understand the term violence. Killing, battles,
: maiming, torture, fighting, hitting are all forms
: of violence.
Brannon Braga has been in charge since Season 5, right? How much violence
has he brought to the show? Lots of space battles where few people (if
any) get hurt. No maiming. No torture. No hitting. Less killing than
we've seen in any other season of Voyager. No hand-to-hand combat.
Basically, he's brought more eye-candy than violence.
: T&A?? Well the sleezette speaks
: volumes in this regard. They even picked a female
: who oozes "trailor trash" when she's just standing
: there.
Hey Steve, can Jeri sue her for libel?
: Sorry, but that's just the real truth. If they'd
: chosen an actress w/ a bit more class, the T&A
: purpose wouldn't have been quite as apparent. ;-)
A bit more class? What version of Voyager are you watching? I think
you're just jealous of her looks.
: ...snipping more defense of war and gore and sleeze.....
:
: >: I can't speak for "Insurrection".
: >: I've not seen the last ST movie and don't ever plan to.
: >: Startrek is dead. The stuff BB and RM create is just
: >: commercial "war and gore" under the ST label.
: >
: >Aside from one particularly gory moment, it was pretty much a "feel-good"
: >romantic action/adventure comedy. Something for everyone.
: Ha! A recommendation like that coming from someone
: w/ your history (see above) isn't much of a recommendation. ;-)
If you don't believe me, then look at *any* review of Insurrection and
you'll get the same description.
: I had a bit of time today -- time enough to reply
: to your twisted reality. ;-)
: I may or may not have time in the future.
Would you consider the use of killfiles violent? After all, it contains
the word "kill".
SPLONK!
Chris W.
Chris Whitehead
: It occurs to me that Collene may be one of those people force-fed
: Catholicism at an early age and who is still in rebellion against it
: -- but not successfully enough to drop the habit of moralizing about
: how people clothe themselves. (Heh, pun not intended, but I'll take
: it.)
I think she's jealous of Jeri's natural good looks. :)
Chris W.
Anita
wrote in part:
>Collene Pearce (col...@jump.net) wrote:
>: ...snipping Whitehead's affection for senseless
>: violence and T&A....
>: ...snipping my verbage stating that the senseless
>: violence and T&A was what I most objected to about
>: Voyager.... It's clear, my view of violence does not
>: equal Whitehead's view of violence -- IMHO, it appears
>: he does not consider battles, killing, maiming,
>: etc. to be violent.
>
>I think someone's been studying Wulf's posting style. Could this be Miss
>Vicki? I believe I said that space battles weren't overly violent -
>especially ones that involved mostly blue shield flares.
Wulfish style, indeed. Even down to the emoticon and its use to
disguise put-downs, e.g.:
>: Perhaps a dictionary is in order here. ;-)
>
>Perhaps a memory - or maybe a CLUE - is needed here. >:-|
No, she does need a dictionary.
[big snip, admiring your patience and civility]
>: I had a bit of time today -- time enough to reply
>: to your twisted reality. ;-)
>: I may or may not have time in the future.
>
>Would you consider the use of killfiles violent? After all, it contains
>the word "kill".
>
>SPLONK!
LOL! Too fair.
- Vegas Annie
John VanSickle
>
> On Sun, 30 May 1999 11:01:54 -0400, Jean Dupree <jdu...@ix.netcom.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >Collene Pearce wrote:
> >
> >
> >> I tolerated it until then, hoping it would improve and
> >> that Janeway and Chakotay would finally get together.
> >
> >And that would have been the most pathetic, most cheesy moment in all of trek
> >history. We would have had a little kiddie soap opera. What next? Naomi
> >wildman's tea party?
> >
>
> tea with her on the holodeck.
Special Guest Star: Martin Short!
--
SPACE GHOST: Have you ever dipped mantises into rich, creamy
chocolate?
ENTYMOLOGIST: No, but I have dipped them in jars of alcohol.
ZORAK: Woo-hoo! Sign me up! Hello, sailuh!
David E. Powell
>On 30 May 1999 18:17:24 -0700, wds...@crl.com (William December
>Starr) wrote:
>
>>In article <7isdd7$l...@serv1.jump.net>,
>>col...@jump.net (Collene Pearce) said:
>>
>>>> How many sleezy T&A Borgita's are there on Voyager?? ;-)
>>>> [wdstarr]
>>>
>>> I stopped watching awhile back. Have more appeared?
>>>
>>> I stop at UPN, when changing channels every once in
>>> awhile to see if Voy's improved and all I ever see is
>>> the "sleezy one who is poured into her clothes". ;-)
>>
>>Perhaps you could share with us what your definition of "sleezy"
>>is. Assuming that it's the same as "sleazy," I can't see any way
>>to accurately apply it to Seven of Nine. (Or to Jeri Ryan, for
>>that matter.)
>
>Catholicism at an early age and who is still in rebellion against it
>-- but not successfully enough to drop the habit of moralizing about
>how people clothe themselves. (Heh, pun not intended, but I'll take
>it.)
Of course, even if she is not, far be it from that to stop you from slamming
a whole religion.
>- Vegas Annie, just speculating idly, of course
Of course.
Gordon Turner
to the author.
Gordon
Steve Christianson wrote in message <375318...@yahoo.com>...
>X-No-Archive: yes
>
>Anita wrote:
>>
>> On 31 May 1999 17:35:42 GMT, chr...@unixg.ubc.ca (Chris Whitehead)
>> wrote in part:
>>
>> >Collene Pearce (col...@jump.net) wrote:
>> >: ...snipping Whitehead's affection for senseless
>> >: violence and T&A....
>> >: ...snipping my verbage stating that the senseless
>> >: violence and T&A was what I most objected to about
>> >: Voyager.... It's clear, my view of violence does not
>> >: equal Whitehead's view of violence -- IMHO, it appears
>> >: he does not consider battles, killing, maiming,
>> >: etc. to be violent.
>> >
>> >I think someone's been studying Wulf's posting style. Could this be Miss
>> >Vicki? I believe I said that space battles weren't overly violent -
>> >especially ones that involved mostly blue shield flares.
>>
>> Wulfish style, indeed. Even down to the emoticon and its use to
>> disguise put-downs, e.g.:
>>
>> >: Perhaps a dictionary is in order here. ;-)
>> >
>> >Perhaps a memory - or maybe a CLUE - is needed here. >:-|
>>
>> No, she does need a dictionary.
>>
>> [big snip, admiring your patience and civility]
>> >: I had a bit of time today -- time enough to reply
>> >: to your twisted reality. ;-)
>> >: I may or may not have time in the future.
>> >
>> >Would you consider the use of killfiles violent? After all, it contains
>> >the word "kill".
>> >
>> >SPLONK!
>>
>> LOL! Too fair.
>>
>> - Vegas Annie
>
>
>My on-line flame form is available if anyone needs it...heh, heh...
David E. Sluss
>Podkayne Fries wrote:
>>
>> Don't give Braga ideas. Imagine if Naomi asked the March Hare to have
>> tea with her on the holodeck.
>
>Special Guest Star: Martin Short!
You're a sick f
CENSORED
--
// David E. Sluss (The Cynic) \\ // "I'm impatient with \\
//_________ sluss%dhp.com _________\\//__ stupidity. My people have __\\
\\ Cynics Corner Interactive //\\ learned to live without it." //
\\ http://users.dhp.com/~sluss // \\ Klaatu //
William S. Armstrong
mass brainwashing than anything else. Believe me -- I'm a Presbyterian. You
don't need to tell me about Catholics. If the pope is right, every decent
god-fearing Protestant is going straight to hell because they ate meat on a
Friday. I always thought Star Trek fans knew how to use their heads too well
to become Catholics.
David E. Powell wrote in message ...
Anita
a slam of a whole religion:
Indeed. I only pointed it out lest anyone not realize that I realize
that it was just idle speculation.
- Vegas Annie
Ta'Teria
Anita <spamfre...@sprynet.com> wrote in message
news:3756f9b1...@nntp.sprynet.com...
> See, David, unlike the limited scope of what I wrote, the following is
> a slam of a whole religion:
>
Agreed...grrrr.... I'll keep my open for that person...
{snip BS}
Starfish
better than religion/belief Y, because ...', live in the
spirit of the IDIC prinicple!
Starfish, can't understand why many people cannot seem to
let things coexist peacefully next to each other ...
William S. Armstrong schrieb:
>
> Oh, come off it. Catholicism can hardly be called a religion, its more of a
> mass brainwashing than anything else. Believe me -- I'm a Presbyterian. You
> don't need to tell me about Catholics. If the pope is right, every decent
> god-fearing Protestant is going straight to hell because they ate meat on a
> Friday. I always thought Star Trek fans knew how to use their heads too well
> to become Catholics.
>
> David E. Powell wrote in message ...
>
Reverend Information Arcade Workstation
> don't need to tell me about Catholics. If the pope is right, every
> decent
> god-fearing Protestant is going straight to hell because they ate
> meat on a
> Friday.
This is hardly true. As one of the canon of the masses (of
Catholicism) says, there are many whose faith is only known
to God. It is an explicit belief of modern Catholicism
that one does not even have to be a Christian to go to heaven.
Nor is this belief merely invented out of thin air in Vatican
II. One can see parts of the belief in the Summa Theologica
by Aquinas. In the Summa, Aquinas states that those who
are fighting for the truth are also fighting on behalf of
God. So even the athiest (according to Aquinas) can be
unknowingly fighting on behalf of God. It is from those
ideas that the idea that one can have faith while
being a professed athiest springs.
By the way, when one talks about the virtue of faith
in Catholicism, this does not mean "believing in Jesus".
One understands it from the standpoing of the 3 supernatural
virtuea: faith, hope, and charity.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Amarna
<reco...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
[snip]
>Trek ain't dead, but it's overextended in a big way. Taylor admitted as
>much at one point (face it, Taylor and Braga are cynical hacks, nothing
>more).
They are talented people who have done a lot for Star Trek.
>Moore's actually a fine writer. I'm sorry that Braga didn't hire Rene
>Echevarria,
I'm sorry that Braga did hire Ron Moore. I don't want him to do to
Voyager what he and the other writers did to DS9. Hopefully Braga can
keep him reined in. It's obvious he doesn't have any good ideas if
all he can come up with is a Torres/Klingon episode. We've already
had enough of those.
[snip]
-- Amarna
Amarna
<jdu...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
[snip]
>> I just wish someone would create a non
>> "war and gore", ST style series, where the characters
>> are not afraid to experience real human emotions, for us. ;-)
>> Yes, I know -- it will never happen. ;-)
>
>It did. DS9.
!!?? DS9 real emotions??? Thanks for giving me a really good laugh!
-- Amarna
Amarna
bunch who don't like anything about Voyager? I hope this isn't
because DS9 has ended.
It's sad that they don't have anything to enjoy, but shows do end.
Then you move on. Or so one could hope.
-- Amarna
Robrey
>
> On Sun, 30 May 1999 10:29:53 -0400, "recook77"
> <reco...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >much at one point (face it, Taylor and Braga are cynical hacks, nothing
> >more).
>
>
> >Echevarria,
>
> Voyager what he and the other writers did to DS9. Hopefully Braga can
> keep him reined in. It's obvious he doesn't have any good ideas if
> all he can come up with is a Torres/Klingon episode. We've already
> had enough of those.
>
> [snip]
>
> -- Amarna
I disagree, I'm *delighted* they hired Ron Moore! A list of eps he has
writing credits on reads like my list of top ST eps: "THE DEFECTOR",
"THE FIRST DUTY", "YESTERDAY'S ENTERPRISE", "RELICS", "CHAIN OF
COMMAND", "TAPESTRY", "ALL GOOD THINGS..." And from DS9: "THE HOUSE OF
QUARK", "THE DIE IS CAST" "OUR MAN BASHIR", "TRIALS AND TRIBBLATIONS"
"FOR THE CAUSE" "DR. BASHIR I PRESUME" "ROCKS AND SHOALS", "ONCE MORE
UNTO THE BREACH" and "TACKING INTO THE WIND" which even *you* liked,
IIRC... <G>
I think he was one of the best writers on two different ST series, and
will probably be one of the best on Voyager. He can write many
different types of stories, and although he does his fair share of
stinkers, he hits the jackpot more often than most ST writers I've
seen. I don't think it impossible that you might agree this time next
year... :)
Cordially,
Robrey
--
"It is not the critic who counts, not the one who points out
how the strong man stumbled or how the doer of deeds might have done
them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the
arena, whose face is marred with sweat and dust and blood; who strives
valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the
great enthusiasms, the great devotions, and spends himself in a worthy
cause; and who, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so
that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know
neither victory nor defeat"
--Theodore Roosevelt, 1899
Amarna
>Amarna wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 30 May 1999 10:29:53 -0400, "recook77"
>> <reco...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> >Trek ain't dead, but it's overextended in a big way. Taylor admitted as
>> >much at one point (face it, Taylor and Braga are cynical hacks, nothing
>> >more).
>>
>> They are talented people who have done a lot for Star Trek.
>>
>> >Moore's actually a fine writer. I'm sorry that Braga didn't hire Rene
>> >Echevarria,
>>
>> I'm sorry that Braga did hire Ron Moore. I don't want him to do to
>> Voyager what he and the other writers did to DS9. Hopefully Braga can
>> keep him reined in. It's obvious he doesn't have any good ideas if
>> all he can come up with is a Torres/Klingon episode. We've already
>> had enough of those.
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> -- Amarna
>
> I disagree, I'm *delighted* they hired Ron Moore! A list of eps he has
>writing credits on reads like my list of top ST eps: "THE DEFECTOR",
>"THE FIRST DUTY", "YESTERDAY'S ENTERPRISE", "RELICS", "CHAIN OF
>COMMAND", "TAPESTRY", "ALL GOOD THINGS..." And from DS9: "THE HOUSE OF
>QUARK", "THE DIE IS CAST" "OUR MAN BASHIR", "TRIALS AND TRIBBLATIONS"
>"FOR THE CAUSE" "DR. BASHIR I PRESUME" "ROCKS AND SHOALS", "ONCE MORE
>UNTO THE BREACH" and "TACKING INTO THE WIND" which even *you* liked,
>IIRC... <G>
Okay, I'll keep an open mind.
> I think he was one of the best writers on two different ST series, and
>will probably be one of the best on Voyager. He can write many
>different types of stories, and although he does his fair share of
>stinkers, he hits the jackpot more often than most ST writers I've
>seen. I don't think it impossible that you might agree this time next
>year... :)
We'll see.
>
>
> Cordially,
> Robrey
By the way, it doesn't seem like you've been posting much lately. Or
did I just miss them? (I'm not even close to being able to keep up
any more.)
-- Amarna
Amarna
wrote:
>And how was the situation helped by your cross-posting the following
>reply (quoted in full) to Jean on Fri, 04 Jun 1999 04:42:46 GMT, on
>the original War and Gore thread:
>
>>!!?? DS9 real emotions??? Thanks for giving me a really good laugh!
I think they need to be reminded that not everybody thinks Voyager
needs or would benefit from any "help" from DS9.
>Who started the cross-posting doesn't matter. You've continued it.
The ones in those *other* groups are the people my message was
intended for.
>Imagine if someone wrote from another ng, in a thread cross-posted to
>here and elsewhere,
>
>"!!?? Voyager real emotions?? Thanks for giving me a really good
>laugh!"
I don't have to imagine. People write stuff like that here all the
time, often cross-posted from groups like rec.arts.startrek.current or
rec.arts.sf.tv. The thread I responded to was full of that kind of
stuff.
>Wouldn't you leap to attack such a blanket statement about Voyager?
Of course, if it were posted in the Voyager group, as such messages
often are. As I've said before, I only post sharp messages about DS9
outside the Voyager group in response to snotty cross-posts. That's
the only way I can make sure the offender gets the message.
>Why then post such a thing about another show, on other ng's as well
>as here??
>
>- Vegas Annie (cross-posting removed)
Cross-posting re-inserted.
-- Amarna
PAUL JACQUES H.JR
: Why are we suddenly getting all these cross-posts from the same old
: bunch who don't like anything about Voyager? I hope this isn't
: because DS9 has ended.
:
: It's sad that they don't have anything to enjoy, but shows do end.
: Then you move on. Or so one could hope.
: -- Amarna
Like you said Armana! We do move on, but to this NG.
Robrey
>
> On Fri, 04 Jun 1999 00:44:04 -0500, Robrey <rob...@mailbag.com> wrote:
>
> >Amarna wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sun, 30 May 1999 10:29:53 -0400, "recook77"
> >> <reco...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> [snip]
> >>
> >> >much at one point (face it, Taylor and Braga are cynical hacks, nothing
> >> >more).
> >>
> >>
> >> >Echevarria,
> >>
> >> Voyager what he and the other writers did to DS9. Hopefully Braga can
> >> keep him reined in. It's obvious he doesn't have any good ideas if
> >> all he can come up with is a Torres/Klingon episode. We've already
> >> had enough of those.
> >>
> >> [snip]
> >>
> >> -- Amarna
> >
> > I disagree, I'm *delighted* they hired Ron Moore! A list of eps he has
> >writing credits on reads like my list of top ST eps: "THE DEFECTOR",
> >"THE FIRST DUTY", "YESTERDAY'S ENTERPRISE", "RELICS", "CHAIN OF
> >COMMAND", "TAPESTRY", "ALL GOOD THINGS..." And from DS9: "THE HOUSE OF
> >QUARK", "THE DIE IS CAST" "OUR MAN BASHIR", "TRIALS AND TRIBBLATIONS"
> >"FOR THE CAUSE" "DR. BASHIR I PRESUME" "ROCKS AND SHOALS", "ONCE MORE
> >UNTO THE BREACH" and "TACKING INTO THE WIND" which even *you* liked,
> >IIRC... <G>
>
> Okay, I'll keep an open mind.
>
> > I think he was one of the best writers on two different ST series, and
> >will probably be one of the best on Voyager. He can write many
> >different types of stories, and although he does his fair share of
> >stinkers, he hits the jackpot more often than most ST writers I've
> >seen. I don't think it impossible that you might agree this time next
> >year... :)
>
> We'll see.
> >
> >
> > Cordially,
> > Robrey
>
> By the way, it doesn't seem like you've been posting much lately. Or
> did I just miss them? (I'm not even close to being able to keep up
> any more.)
>
I was on my honeymoon, and I know what you mean about not being able to
keep up! When I got back, there were in excess of three thousand
messages waiting. I tried to read some but they all seemed to
degenerate into flamewars. Is there something in the air? :)
Amarna
Oh, sh*t!
-- Amarna
Micheal Keane
<7j7kd9$2o3$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>This is hardly true. As one of the canon of the masses (of
>Catholicism) says, there are many whose faith is only known
>to God. It is an explicit belief of modern Catholicism
>that one does not even have to be a Christian to go to heaven.
Of course, this is a moot point because Catholics are not
Real Christians(tm); to be a Real Christian(tm), you have to
accept everything Pat Robertson says. Or else you go to hell.
=-)
Gordon Turner
<7jbnvv$h54$1...@birch.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
** cut to save space and time **
>Of course, this is a moot point because Catholics are not
>Real Christians(tm); to be a Real Christian(tm), you have to
>accept everything Pat Robertson says. Or else you go to hell.
>=-)
That's the same Pat Robertson who saw fit to offend an entire nation with
ill-judged remarks recently. Even the immense commercial advantages of it's
deal with him hasn't prevented the Bank of Scotland dropping it's
association with the man.
Gordon
William December Starr
"Gordon Turner" <g...@gylenet.freeserve.co.uk> said:
> That's the same Pat Robertson who saw fit to offend an entire
> nation with ill-judged remarks recently. Even the immense
> commercial advantages of it's deal with him hasn't prevented the
> Bank of Scotland dropping it's association with the man.
I missed it -- what did the Other Televangelist Loon say _this_ time?
(This should be good for giggles...)
-- William December Starr <wds...@crl.com>
One day, that man's head is going to open up and a prize
is going to pop out.
-- Chris Pierson, on the topic of Jerry Falwell
Julian Buczek
>
> Why are we suddenly getting all these cross-posts from the same old
> bunch who don't like anything about Voyager? I hope this isn't
> because DS9 has ended.
>
> It's sad that they don't have anything to enjoy, but shows do end.
> Then you move on. Or so one could hope.
Not *YOU* again ...
--
__ _________________________________________________________
\ \ / / Julian Buczek buc...@iname.com
\ \/\/ / Science Fiction and Fantasy buc...@dns.au.com
\_/\_/ORLDS OF PARADISE [http://members.xoom.com/buczek]
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Amarna
wrote:
>Amarna wrote:
>>
>> Why are we suddenly getting all these cross-posts from the same old
>> bunch who don't like anything about Voyager? I hope this isn't
>> because DS9 has ended.
>>
>> It's sad that they don't have anything to enjoy, but shows do end.
>> Then you move on. Or so one could hope.
>
>Not *YOU* again ...
Thanks for proving my point. Your post had the following attributes:
Newsgroups:
rec.arts.sf.tv,rec.arts.startrek.current,alt.tv.star-trek.voyager,rec.arts.tv
Followup-To: alt.null.bandwagons
As for your comment "Not *you* again," it only proves that you haven't
contributed to this group, because as a matter of fact I have been
here all along. Since you are only a hostile cross-poster, you
wouldn't know that.
You should know that times do change. There are lots of people in
this group now who like Voyager. If you want to come here and trash
it, you won't have an easy time of it.
-- Amarna
Gordon Turner
William December Starr wrote in message <7jcsce$4...@crl3.crl.com>...
>In article <7jc9lc$toq$7...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk>,
>"Gordon Turner" <g...@gylenet.freeserve.co.uk> said:
>
>> That's the same Pat Robertson who saw fit to offend an entire
>> nation with ill-judged remarks recently. Even the immense
>> commercial advantages of it's deal with him hasn't prevented the
>> Bank of Scotland dropping it's association with the man.
>
>I missed it -- what did the Other Televangelist Loon say _this_ time?
>(This should be good for giggles...)
Some quotes from an article about Pat Robertsons ravings;
'Dr Robertson engaged in a critique, where Scotland's decline was portrayed
as "kind of frightening".'
'He(Pat Robertson) said: "In Europe, the big word is tolerance. You tolerate
everything. Homosexuals
are riding high in the media ... And in Scotland you can't believe how
strong the homosexuals are." '
'He(Pat again) says that heroes of the calibre of John Knox no longer exist,
spelling possible doom for the nation. "And what could happen? It could go
right back to the darkness very easily." '
'Dr Robertson then attacks the British press, saying: "These people are so
cynical. They're frankly malevolent ..." He says Europe is the hardest place
in the world to evangelise, "possibly with the exception of a few of the
Muslim countries", and paints a picture of Scotland as a country in moral
and spiritual decline.'
And another Pat quote "It used to be called Christendom and the Church of
Scotland was so noted for their piety.The Edinburgh University was a great
cultural centre of theology. I don't know. We needto pray for them, ladies
and gentlemen."
'He says: "I was entranced by the history of that great land, but I think
that the modern-day reality is something far, far different from what it
used to be."'
'The only way the country might regain a hero(according to Pat) is if it
"comes into a desperate time where they're fighting for their life, or
England like it was in World War Two".'
The article was written by Robert McNeil, entitled "Robertson attacks
Scotland' s darkness ' - US preacher in bank deal fears for country with
'strong gay lobby'"
I don't know what the source publication is, a friend in the US emailed me a
copy of the article.
This was news over here for a couple of days. The Bank of Scotland bowed to
preassure from other major business customers and public revulsion for the
comments, and dropped the deal. Dr. Robertson wonders why he has trouble
evangelising over here. An easy answer would be "Well Dr. Robertson, if you
weren't so insulting to the people of Europe they might be more receptive."
I'd also point our that his extreme views and less than tolerant attitudes
probably turn off a lot of people as well. It always amuses me how someone,
ie Dr. Robertson, who preaches the christian way can be so un-christian
about people who do not share their views. I suppose that Dr. Robertson has
missed his time, the inquisition ended hundreds of years ago, fortunately
for me.;-)
Gordon
>
Micheal Keane
>Micheal Keane wrote in message
><7jbnvv$h54$1...@birch.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
>** cut to save space and time **
>>Of course, this is a moot point because Catholics are not
>>Real Christians(tm); to be a Real Christian(tm), you have to
>>accept everything Pat Robertson says. Or else you go to hell.
>>=-)
>
>ill-judged remarks recently. Even the immense commercial advantages of it's
>deal with him hasn't prevented the Bank of Scotland dropping it's
>association with the man.
Just to clarify, I was being extremely facetious. =-) I just find the
whole "Real Christian" business funny because every faction
seems to have a different idea of who's going to be saved, who's
going to hell, etc.
Micheal
Dave Roy
ama...@pipeline.com (Amarna) saying:
>I'm sorry that Braga did hire Ron Moore. I don't want him to do to
>Voyager what he and the other writers did to DS9. Hopefully Braga can
>keep him reined in. It's obvious he doesn't have any good ideas if
>all he can come up with is a Torres/Klingon episode. We've already
>had enough of those.
So you're saying you're one of the few people who believe that
anything has been done for Torres? Personally, I thing every episode
that's centered on her hasn't really done anything with her character.
Especially not her Klingon side.
Dave Roy